Remember back in the 1980s when thousands of people worldwide succumbed to the terror of "death by lawn dart?"
Well, I don't either, but that did not stop the federal government from outlawing the toys for use by anyone, not just children. Think of the children. We have to keep them safe.
Two, not one, but (at least) two separate so-called institutions of learning have deemed American flags to be safety hazards. Conservative clubs found their requests to place flags for 9/11 commemorations denied on safety grounds. Now a New Hampshire middle school has denied an autistic student the right to carry a small flag because the rod might be a safety hazard.
I am certainly glad that educational institutions are finally waking up to the mortal dangers posed by American flags. They have killed and maimed so many students in the past, it is a wonder why they waited this long to act.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Dumb Security, Brought to You By the Left
Wednesday morning, Democratic congresswoman Lynn Wolsey (from California, of course) rose to speak. She had five minutes to speak to the Speaker Pro Tempore, some cameras, hundreds of seats, and whoever else happened to be there. She gave an impassioned speech about what she called "Smart Security."
First, she called for the removal of all troops from Afghanistan. Pretty typical anti-war stuff, really. And, honestly, since Obama won't let our troops fight and win, maybe that is an alternative. But Wolsey understands that this is a dangerous world that we cannot disengage from. So far, so good. But this IS a Leftist, so you know something crazy is coming.
She proposes that, once the troops are out, that we send in a "civilian surge" to build roads, power infrastructure, and other big ticket, demand side investments. Lyndon Johnson figured that such programs would save South Vietnam forty years ago.
But even LBJ was not naive enough to propose taking the troops away first! Wolsey has never heard of the term "soft targets." Nor does she understand that the Taliban want to kill Americans and destroy whatever we build. They would love a surge of unarmed civilians on construction projects to kidnap or just kill outright.
Wow, Congresswoman Wolsey. That's real smart.
First, she called for the removal of all troops from Afghanistan. Pretty typical anti-war stuff, really. And, honestly, since Obama won't let our troops fight and win, maybe that is an alternative. But Wolsey understands that this is a dangerous world that we cannot disengage from. So far, so good. But this IS a Leftist, so you know something crazy is coming.
She proposes that, once the troops are out, that we send in a "civilian surge" to build roads, power infrastructure, and other big ticket, demand side investments. Lyndon Johnson figured that such programs would save South Vietnam forty years ago.
But even LBJ was not naive enough to propose taking the troops away first! Wolsey has never heard of the term "soft targets." Nor does she understand that the Taliban want to kill Americans and destroy whatever we build. They would love a surge of unarmed civilians on construction projects to kidnap or just kill outright.
Wow, Congresswoman Wolsey. That's real smart.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Debating Debates
Personally, I am sick of debates.
Debates mean nothing. They are highly artificial and stylized dog and pony shows that pass for real and reasoned argument. They pander to our love of competition and the media's desire for a quick, witty, or dumb sound bite.
Debates emphasize shallowness over substance. How does a person quickly and smartly answer a question? Does this really have anything to do with a man or woman's capacity for leadership? Does it tell us anything about whether or not these people can make sound decisions at crucial times? No. So why even watch them? Why even hold them?
A better format would be to put the candidates into enclosed rooms and hand them questions. By themselves, with no assistance from staff, they should formulate their answers. Then the debate should be their defense of, and questions about, the answers from the other candidates. This encourages judgment and reason over glibness and might even give us some real insight into their principles and ideas.
Of course there will be fewer gaffes, fewer mistakes, and less overall silliness. Or maybe more, actually, because the candidates have to answer on their own without help. In any event, they would be a vast improvement over what we do now.
Debates mean nothing. They are highly artificial and stylized dog and pony shows that pass for real and reasoned argument. They pander to our love of competition and the media's desire for a quick, witty, or dumb sound bite.
Debates emphasize shallowness over substance. How does a person quickly and smartly answer a question? Does this really have anything to do with a man or woman's capacity for leadership? Does it tell us anything about whether or not these people can make sound decisions at crucial times? No. So why even watch them? Why even hold them?
A better format would be to put the candidates into enclosed rooms and hand them questions. By themselves, with no assistance from staff, they should formulate their answers. Then the debate should be their defense of, and questions about, the answers from the other candidates. This encourages judgment and reason over glibness and might even give us some real insight into their principles and ideas.
Of course there will be fewer gaffes, fewer mistakes, and less overall silliness. Or maybe more, actually, because the candidates have to answer on their own without help. In any event, they would be a vast improvement over what we do now.
Friday, September 9, 2011
"I Have Serious Concerns About the Level of Spending"
This was not John Boehner, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter. This was freshman West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin's take on the proposed $450 billion in new stimulus spending. It is also bad news, because Manchin has become a bell cow for the moderate Democrats in terms of Obama proposals.
Obama proposed vast sums for infrastructure improvement, payroll tax cuts, and other measures designed to prime the economic pump. But most remain wary because he promised this before. To be honest, had he actually spent the last stimulus on the "shovel ready" jobs that he claimed it was for, that might have actually worked and benefited communities at the same time. Instead, it went to groups that supported Obama and bureaucrats.
Obama's proposals were promised serious merit by Speaker Boehner, and Obama must be prepared to see House Republicans and Senate Democrats tinker and hash over his ideas. Republicans will likely push to divert money from other areas to cover the bill as much as possible. I would not be surprised to see Postal Service relief become part of this measure at the end of the day, although that needs to come with serious changes, if not complete privatization.
Of course, Obama would not be Obama without moments of condescension, as when he lectured everyone that they had to "step their game up," whatever that means. It is not the private sector that he needs to lecture. If government would remove the weights and shackles from our private sector, particularly energy production, we could compete much more effectively in the game of commerce and manufacturing. We still wait to hear him propose total relief from the regulations that his administration is using to strangle our economy.
Obama proposed vast sums for infrastructure improvement, payroll tax cuts, and other measures designed to prime the economic pump. But most remain wary because he promised this before. To be honest, had he actually spent the last stimulus on the "shovel ready" jobs that he claimed it was for, that might have actually worked and benefited communities at the same time. Instead, it went to groups that supported Obama and bureaucrats.
Obama's proposals were promised serious merit by Speaker Boehner, and Obama must be prepared to see House Republicans and Senate Democrats tinker and hash over his ideas. Republicans will likely push to divert money from other areas to cover the bill as much as possible. I would not be surprised to see Postal Service relief become part of this measure at the end of the day, although that needs to come with serious changes, if not complete privatization.
Of course, Obama would not be Obama without moments of condescension, as when he lectured everyone that they had to "step their game up," whatever that means. It is not the private sector that he needs to lecture. If government would remove the weights and shackles from our private sector, particularly energy production, we could compete much more effectively in the game of commerce and manufacturing. We still wait to hear him propose total relief from the regulations that his administration is using to strangle our economy.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
What Have We Lost?
Adam Smith describes the capital of a country in terms of its labor, land, structures, and productive capacity. Countries that can enhance production by necessity enhance their capital.
In the 1930s and thereafter, the federal government introduced programs to keep food prices at a certain level. Milk, orange juice, and a wide variety of other products are priced higher than they should be. One of the programs that keeps prices for the American consumer high is that which pays farmers to not produce.
The Conservation Reserve Program pays farmers rent to do nothing with their land. It costs $2 billion, at least as of 2005, and accounts for 8% of all farm subsidies. The program started as erosion control and ended up as price support.
Here is the question. How negative of an impact does this program produce? By paying farmers to not farm, we place a triple burden on the private sector. First, we use taxpayer money to prevent production and keep prices high. Second, where land is not productive, farmers do not purchase tools, fertilizer, or other agricultural necessities. They also do not employ labor. So the private sector is triply impacted by this program that harms everyone except farmers that want to live off of rent and not their own sweat. To be fair, commercial farmers face more obstacles now than ever before, including a proposed EPA regulation against dust that could wipe many out.
However, we should not be paying anyone to not work. We would be better off buying the produce and throwing it into the ocean than paying people to not work.
In the 1930s and thereafter, the federal government introduced programs to keep food prices at a certain level. Milk, orange juice, and a wide variety of other products are priced higher than they should be. One of the programs that keeps prices for the American consumer high is that which pays farmers to not produce.
The Conservation Reserve Program pays farmers rent to do nothing with their land. It costs $2 billion, at least as of 2005, and accounts for 8% of all farm subsidies. The program started as erosion control and ended up as price support.
Here is the question. How negative of an impact does this program produce? By paying farmers to not farm, we place a triple burden on the private sector. First, we use taxpayer money to prevent production and keep prices high. Second, where land is not productive, farmers do not purchase tools, fertilizer, or other agricultural necessities. They also do not employ labor. So the private sector is triply impacted by this program that harms everyone except farmers that want to live off of rent and not their own sweat. To be fair, commercial farmers face more obstacles now than ever before, including a proposed EPA regulation against dust that could wipe many out.
However, we should not be paying anyone to not work. We would be better off buying the produce and throwing it into the ocean than paying people to not work.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Could the Next Chief Executive to Take on Public Service Unions Be Obama?
Democrats gave the Wisconsin governor all the trouble he wanted last winter when he took on public sector unions. While service has remained the same, savings are up, and jobs were even preserved, unions still grumble about their reduced power. Now, the question will soon come up at the federal level.
The United States Postal Service is in crisis. Its debt soars while it faces obstacles to its desire to reduce costs. Politicians oppose cuts in service while unions have vowed to fight cuts in workforce tooth and nail. As a government business, it cannot expand into other fields. What is it to do?
Layoffs will happen. The Postal Service has substantially higher labor costs than FedEx and UPS, its main competitors and operations could completely cease in December unless something dramatic happens.
The long term answer lies in privatization. Free the postal service from its government shackles and allow competition in mail delivery. When entirely in the private sector, the Postal Service can explore other avenues of profitability that can support its task of mail delivery. It needs to find a digital enterprise to complement mail delivery and enhance customer service.
In the short term, a battle looms between the executive branch and postal worker unions. Obama has no choice but to go after the unions and reduce their power. This will end the Left's love affair with him, but would likely increase his popularity overall.
The United States Postal Service is in crisis. Its debt soars while it faces obstacles to its desire to reduce costs. Politicians oppose cuts in service while unions have vowed to fight cuts in workforce tooth and nail. As a government business, it cannot expand into other fields. What is it to do?
Layoffs will happen. The Postal Service has substantially higher labor costs than FedEx and UPS, its main competitors and operations could completely cease in December unless something dramatic happens.
The long term answer lies in privatization. Free the postal service from its government shackles and allow competition in mail delivery. When entirely in the private sector, the Postal Service can explore other avenues of profitability that can support its task of mail delivery. It needs to find a digital enterprise to complement mail delivery and enhance customer service.
In the short term, a battle looms between the executive branch and postal worker unions. Obama has no choice but to go after the unions and reduce their power. This will end the Left's love affair with him, but would likely increase his popularity overall.
Friday, September 2, 2011
McKinley Fights EPA Coal Ash Rule
Cheap energy, at one time, was part of our competitive advantage in manufacturing. Obama promised to make energy prices go up. He definitely kept that promise.
President Obama Admits: EPA Coal Ash Rule Among Costliest Regulations
08/31/11 President Obama Admits: EPA Coal Ash Rule Among Costliest Regulations
McKinley bill will save economy billions, protect jobs
Washington, D.C. – In a response letter from President Obama to Speaker of the House John Boehner, the president acknowledged that his EPA’s proposal to regulate coal ash as a hazardous material is one of the seven most costly regulations his entire administration has proposed. According to a June 2011 Veritas economic report the president’s estimate that the coal ash rule would cost the economy up to $1.5 billion annually is grossly underestimated. The report stated that the EPA’s hazardous designation would cost up to $110 billion over 20 years with estimated job losses ranging from 184,000 to 316,000.
“President Obama admits there is a great cost to Americans because of the EPA’s proposed regulation on coal ash,” McKinley said. “While his estimates are dramatically low, he agrees with those of us who has said this is one of the costliest proposed regulations by the EPA. The question comes down to this: will the president finally make the economy a priority by supporting this jobs bill, or will he forge ahead down a path that even he now acknowledges will cost the economy dearly?”
Rep. David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-WV) introduced legislation that would prevent hundreds of dollars in increased electricity costs, stop hundreds of thousands of job losses, and strengthen and protect public health by blocking the EPA’s proposal and instead establish a state-based regulatory framework for coal ash. The bill would tighten the disposal and the management of coal ash and give states the control of the program as well as the ability to work with the EPA to ensure it is handled, stored and monitored properly. This legislation was passed through the full Energy and Commerce committee 35-12, with one-third of the committee’s Democrats crossing over to support it.
Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced Monday that McKinley’s legislation will receive a vote in the full House of Representatives this fall.
###
Thursday, September 1, 2011
The Tenth Anniversary of a Heinous Attack. What's Missing?
9/11 is fast approaching. It's hard to believe that ten years have passed since some unidentified group of people did something pretty bad. But we should forget the bad stuff and trade in our SUVs for a hybrid the size of a toaster oven.
Ludicrous? Yup. But that is the gist of the Obama Administration's plans for commemorating the tenth anniversary of the attacks on our nation. The word is out. Don't mention Al Quaeda. Focus on moving forward with the left wing agenda and emphasize the unity felt on the days after the attacks.
Not only is this ludicrous, but highly disrespectful. Imagine Franklin Roosevelt commemorating Pearl Harbor Day 1944 and leaving out the Japanese. Obama may have forgotten that America is still fighting. The enemy still wants to kills our soldiers and attack our cities if he can. How do you avoid mentioning the enemy on the day that he started the war? Where does this leave our soldiers in the national consciousness?
Obama wants to emphasize and bring back an unnatural unity. Unity such as in the days after 9/11 only happens after events of great trauma. None of our national wars received unconditional and unified support. Peaceful division is a symptom of a healthy society, not a sick one. Obama wants us all to unify behind his agenda. We need to stand up and remember 9/11 for what it was, a heinous and cowardly attack because of our liberty, not a "national day of service" as Obama prefers. Remember and cherish our freedoms. Remember those who sacrificed, both on that day and since. Some chose to fight for their country, others just went to work. This is why we remember 9/11.
Ludicrous? Yup. But that is the gist of the Obama Administration's plans for commemorating the tenth anniversary of the attacks on our nation. The word is out. Don't mention Al Quaeda. Focus on moving forward with the left wing agenda and emphasize the unity felt on the days after the attacks.
Not only is this ludicrous, but highly disrespectful. Imagine Franklin Roosevelt commemorating Pearl Harbor Day 1944 and leaving out the Japanese. Obama may have forgotten that America is still fighting. The enemy still wants to kills our soldiers and attack our cities if he can. How do you avoid mentioning the enemy on the day that he started the war? Where does this leave our soldiers in the national consciousness?
Obama wants to emphasize and bring back an unnatural unity. Unity such as in the days after 9/11 only happens after events of great trauma. None of our national wars received unconditional and unified support. Peaceful division is a symptom of a healthy society, not a sick one. Obama wants us all to unify behind his agenda. We need to stand up and remember 9/11 for what it was, a heinous and cowardly attack because of our liberty, not a "national day of service" as Obama prefers. Remember and cherish our freedoms. Remember those who sacrificed, both on that day and since. Some chose to fight for their country, others just went to work. This is why we remember 9/11.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
All Too Often, Education Stops At the Schoolhouse Doors
Education often finds itself barred from the schoolhouse. Certainly schools have books, computers, teachers, and other modes of transmitting information, but a complete education does not come from these alone. Education comes from discussion and debate of issues, ideas, and values. Schools are certainly okay with expressions of certain kinds of values and love to toss about the word "tolerance." However, tolerance, and education itself, end when the school slams the doors shut on ideas that it will not tolerate.
La Reina High School of Thousand Oaks, California joins the list of schools that have shut their eyes, ears, and minds to the concepts of natural rights, free markets, and other values held dear by Americans for centuries. One of the students at this religious school for girls wanted to open a Young Americans for Freedom club. She met all of the required criteria, but was told that her club was politically biased in nature. YAF clubs are not connected to any political party and only represent ideas long established in American tradition. How shocking that a school would reject a club that would enhance discussions of politics, economics, and society!
Their position on this matter is untenable because of the nature of one of the other clubs on campus. "The Green Team" is a club that promotes "eco-friendly" behavior and raising student awareness of environmental issues. If students want a green club, that should be fine. But let's not pretend that environmentalism is completely non partisan, but discussions of free markets and natural rights are too political.
La Reina High School plays the same old tune. Liberal causes get the welcome mat while those deemed conservative get shut out. It's not that anyone should force this private school to open this or that club. They should feel that it is part of their educational mission to permit these activities.
La Reina High School of Thousand Oaks, California joins the list of schools that have shut their eyes, ears, and minds to the concepts of natural rights, free markets, and other values held dear by Americans for centuries. One of the students at this religious school for girls wanted to open a Young Americans for Freedom club. She met all of the required criteria, but was told that her club was politically biased in nature. YAF clubs are not connected to any political party and only represent ideas long established in American tradition. How shocking that a school would reject a club that would enhance discussions of politics, economics, and society!
Their position on this matter is untenable because of the nature of one of the other clubs on campus. "The Green Team" is a club that promotes "eco-friendly" behavior and raising student awareness of environmental issues. If students want a green club, that should be fine. But let's not pretend that environmentalism is completely non partisan, but discussions of free markets and natural rights are too political.
La Reina High School plays the same old tune. Liberal causes get the welcome mat while those deemed conservative get shut out. It's not that anyone should force this private school to open this or that club. They should feel that it is part of their educational mission to permit these activities.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Michelle Obama or Marie Antoinette? Who Was More Out of Touch?
The American media for the most part has been hammering the president on his lack of, well, almost anything presidential. Comments from former supporters parallel the complaints of Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives in 2008. The president looks overwhelmed, incapable, and out of touch. But his worse public relations problem may be his wife.
First Ladies don't normally attract bipartisan scorn. Few complaints were aimed at Laura or Barbara Bush, who were models of grace and dignity. Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton attracted criticism because opponents saw them as too involved in their husbands' presidency.
Michelle Obama has not involved herself much in policy, but has not escaped controversy. Last week, Maureen Dowd wrote in her New York Times column that Obama dared not cut short his vacation at swanky Martha's Vineyard because it might anger Michelle. British newspapers have joined American conservatives in blasting her incessant and expensive vacations that drained the federal government of at least $10 million in the past year. Neither Obama seems to understand that vacationing and playing round after round of golf whole lecturing the country on sacrifice might lower their credibility a bit. George W. Bush got attacked for travel too, but mostly went to his own home in Texas to work.
The name that often pops up in relation to Michelle Obama has been Queen Marie Antoinette of France. As the popular story goes, a concerned citizen approached her at a party and asked her if she knew that the people had no bread. Her response of "let them eat cake" drew derision for years as a typical example of ignorant wealth. In reality, Marie Antoinette sympathized with the poor and constantly tried to learn more about their plight. When she said "let the eat cake," her hand gestured towards tens of pounds of uneaten cake that would go to waste otherwise.
Marie Antoinette had little knowledge, but overwhelming sympathy. Michelle Obama has mainly gone on vacation and condemned poor parents who feed their children cheap and fattening food over expensive, price supported, fresh fruits and vegetables. She will probably go down as one of the least liked First Ladies in history, a difficult feat indeed.
First Ladies don't normally attract bipartisan scorn. Few complaints were aimed at Laura or Barbara Bush, who were models of grace and dignity. Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton attracted criticism because opponents saw them as too involved in their husbands' presidency.
Michelle Obama has not involved herself much in policy, but has not escaped controversy. Last week, Maureen Dowd wrote in her New York Times column that Obama dared not cut short his vacation at swanky Martha's Vineyard because it might anger Michelle. British newspapers have joined American conservatives in blasting her incessant and expensive vacations that drained the federal government of at least $10 million in the past year. Neither Obama seems to understand that vacationing and playing round after round of golf whole lecturing the country on sacrifice might lower their credibility a bit. George W. Bush got attacked for travel too, but mostly went to his own home in Texas to work.
The name that often pops up in relation to Michelle Obama has been Queen Marie Antoinette of France. As the popular story goes, a concerned citizen approached her at a party and asked her if she knew that the people had no bread. Her response of "let them eat cake" drew derision for years as a typical example of ignorant wealth. In reality, Marie Antoinette sympathized with the poor and constantly tried to learn more about their plight. When she said "let the eat cake," her hand gestured towards tens of pounds of uneaten cake that would go to waste otherwise.
Marie Antoinette had little knowledge, but overwhelming sympathy. Michelle Obama has mainly gone on vacation and condemned poor parents who feed their children cheap and fattening food over expensive, price supported, fresh fruits and vegetables. She will probably go down as one of the least liked First Ladies in history, a difficult feat indeed.
Friday, August 26, 2011
David McKinley Fires Back At Michigan Congressman Who Seeks to Shut Down Coal
Rep. McKinley’s Statement on Rep. Conyers’ Out of Touch Claims on West Virginia’s Coal Industry
Washington, D.C. –Rep. David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-WV) issued the following statement after Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) claimed from his limited understanding that “there is no such thing as clean coal,” during an Environmental Protection Agency conference. Conyers went a step further to disgrace West Virginians by calling for a shutdown of the coal industry.
"The comments made by Rep. Conyers are very disappointing,” said McKinley. “As lawmakers we should be encouraging job creation and expansion, not fighting to end American industries. West Virginia's lifeblood is coal, which means jobs for many hard working people throughout our state. As Americans are struggling to make ends meet and our nation is facing record high unemployment, I would encourage Rep. Conyers to focus his efforts on job creation and less on tearing down our industries in West Virginia."
Rep. McKinley is on the Energy and Commerce Committee as well as a member of the Congressional Coal Caucus. McKinley has also introduced and championed many pieces of pro-coal legislation in his short time in Congress.
Kudos also to Senator Joe Manchin for firing back int he strongest possible terms.
Washington, D.C. –Rep. David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-WV) issued the following statement after Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) claimed from his limited understanding that “there is no such thing as clean coal,” during an Environmental Protection Agency conference. Conyers went a step further to disgrace West Virginians by calling for a shutdown of the coal industry.
"The comments made by Rep. Conyers are very disappointing,” said McKinley. “As lawmakers we should be encouraging job creation and expansion, not fighting to end American industries. West Virginia's lifeblood is coal, which means jobs for many hard working people throughout our state. As Americans are struggling to make ends meet and our nation is facing record high unemployment, I would encourage Rep. Conyers to focus his efforts on job creation and less on tearing down our industries in West Virginia."
Rep. McKinley is on the Energy and Commerce Committee as well as a member of the Congressional Coal Caucus. McKinley has also introduced and championed many pieces of pro-coal legislation in his short time in Congress.
Kudos also to Senator Joe Manchin for firing back int he strongest possible terms.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
"In Case of An Actual Emergency..."
These words form part of every announced test of the Emergency Broadcast System. The phrase concludes with a reminder that the tone will be followed by actual information.
Monday, Earth gave us its version of the Emergency Broadcast System test. Washington D. C. failed. Trains ran at a snail's pace, commuters waited for hours on subway platforms and in traffic jams. The city's transport system groaned under the weight of hundreds of thousands of folks trying to exit at the same time.
Watching the jam packed expressways and train stations worries me. Do we have a better evacuation plan for the nation's capital in case of something like a dirty bomb, chemical, or biological weapon? It seems that terrorists could orchestrate a multi-part plan that causes the panicked evacuation, then preys upon people waiting helplessly to leave. I am sure that something does exist that they would not haul out for a moderate earthquake. Then again, New Orleans had nothing in place to adequately prepare for a disaster that would inevitably occur and the heavy loss of life after Katrina was the result.
I don't need to know every detail of the plan. But I hope there is one.
Monday, Earth gave us its version of the Emergency Broadcast System test. Washington D. C. failed. Trains ran at a snail's pace, commuters waited for hours on subway platforms and in traffic jams. The city's transport system groaned under the weight of hundreds of thousands of folks trying to exit at the same time.
Watching the jam packed expressways and train stations worries me. Do we have a better evacuation plan for the nation's capital in case of something like a dirty bomb, chemical, or biological weapon? It seems that terrorists could orchestrate a multi-part plan that causes the panicked evacuation, then preys upon people waiting helplessly to leave. I am sure that something does exist that they would not haul out for a moderate earthquake. Then again, New Orleans had nothing in place to adequately prepare for a disaster that would inevitably occur and the heavy loss of life after Katrina was the result.
I don't need to know every detail of the plan. But I hope there is one.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
The F 35 Must Remain a Priority In An Uncertain World
A strong defense essential for America
Cutting defense spending is a bad idea. Period.
As Congress looks for ways to trim the federal budget and get the deficit under control, everything seems to be on the table. However, one area where America cannot afford to make sweeping cuts is defense and national security.
Legislators, political columnists and regular citizens have debated what programs need trimmed and even eliminated.
A recent opinion piece by Robert Samuelson in The Washington Post entitled “10 Ways to Fix The Budget” addressed the issue. Here is an excerpt:
“Evaluate defense needs independently — and pay for them. National security is the government’s first job. When America’s military is put in harm’s way, it should not become a victim of a rich nation’s cheapness.”
That quote says it all. Defending our nation is our government’s first job. Congress should not be swayed by political pressures to do something that would endanger our nation or reduce our military superiority. It is what separates us from so many other nations.
One military project that has been scrutinized inside and out is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, currently being developed for our military. This aircraft is undergoing testing, and once operational it will save our nation money in the long run by allowing us to retire aging aircraft. This stealth fighter is exactly what we must retain to keep America’s military superiority intact at a time when the world poses so many grave threats.
(Here is the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/10-ways-to-fix-the-budget/2011/08/14/gIQA5xriFJ_story.html?hpid=z3)
Monday, August 22, 2011
Question: Is Obama Sabotaging His Own Re-election?
While reading from a Maureen Dowd column on Obama this morning, I came to an epiphany. It may not necessarily be true, but it is food for thought for Democrats and Republicans alike.
Dowd in the New York Times explained that the president did not call lawmakers back into session this month during alarming economic news, in part, because it would ruin his vacation and anger his wife.
Can you imagine the response to this little tidbit from Harry Truman? I bet he would love nothing more than to come out of his grave and throttle this guy. Would Franklin Roosevelt put off addressing great national issues so he could spend more time on vacation? Only a few presidents would have acted in such a way as to create this perception, none since World War II. But Obama's chronic vacationing has created the impression that he regards this gig as part time.
On a personal note, my new job requested my presence in the middle of my vacation. While I was disappointed, I rushed to work and my family completely understood. Any reasonable spouse understands that when their loved one has an important job that it sometimes comes first.
Which brings me back to my original point. I don't think that he is all that fired up to keep his job. Being ex-president is prestigious and fun, even for Jimmy Carter. Being president is work. In my opinion, Obama wanted to enjoy the celebrity and prestige of the presidency, but underestimated his capacity to actually do the job. He could resign, but Obama picked an even worse guy for the job as his running mate. If any other legitimate Democratic possibilities pop up in the next few months, I could see Obama "Lyndon Johnsoning" himself and declining to run for re-election. Declining to run again is a dignified way out, if he can muster the courage to make the decision. As far as being president is concerned, Obama does not seem to like the job, or be very good at it.
And he and the Democratic Party are well aware of that problem. The Republicans' worst nightmare is a conservative to moderate nominee from the opposing party for the presidency in 2012. I am sure that Democrats realize that, as well.
Dowd in the New York Times explained that the president did not call lawmakers back into session this month during alarming economic news, in part, because it would ruin his vacation and anger his wife.
Can you imagine the response to this little tidbit from Harry Truman? I bet he would love nothing more than to come out of his grave and throttle this guy. Would Franklin Roosevelt put off addressing great national issues so he could spend more time on vacation? Only a few presidents would have acted in such a way as to create this perception, none since World War II. But Obama's chronic vacationing has created the impression that he regards this gig as part time.
On a personal note, my new job requested my presence in the middle of my vacation. While I was disappointed, I rushed to work and my family completely understood. Any reasonable spouse understands that when their loved one has an important job that it sometimes comes first.
Which brings me back to my original point. I don't think that he is all that fired up to keep his job. Being ex-president is prestigious and fun, even for Jimmy Carter. Being president is work. In my opinion, Obama wanted to enjoy the celebrity and prestige of the presidency, but underestimated his capacity to actually do the job. He could resign, but Obama picked an even worse guy for the job as his running mate. If any other legitimate Democratic possibilities pop up in the next few months, I could see Obama "Lyndon Johnsoning" himself and declining to run for re-election. Declining to run again is a dignified way out, if he can muster the courage to make the decision. As far as being president is concerned, Obama does not seem to like the job, or be very good at it.
And he and the Democratic Party are well aware of that problem. The Republicans' worst nightmare is a conservative to moderate nominee from the opposing party for the presidency in 2012. I am sure that Democrats realize that, as well.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Obama's "Swing 'Round the Circle"
On the Magical Misery Tour, the debt man walking continued his Andrew Johnson impersonation, traveling around the Midwest, giving speeches that even further bury his presidency. (In 1866, Johnson conducted his "Swing 'Round the Circle" tour where he took on Congress in a series of speeches. By the end of the tour, train officials routinely feared for the life of the president because the crowds grew so violent.) In his most recent speech, Obama compared criticism of himself to that of Lincoln. This implied that opposition to Obama is quasi-treasonous, a note he has sounded in the past. None other than Eric Foner, quasi left wing historian of the Civil War and Reconstruction era, slammed Obama's recent self-comparison to the 16th president.
Obama's series of speeches, like Johnson's, have laid bare the nature of the president. He is self-absorbed without enduring self-reflection. His speeches emphasize his trials, his suffering, his political enemies' machinations. Audiences in 1866 found these themes unnerving in their chief executive. In 2011, the president is trying to toss everyone under his bus, but so far has only thrown his own reputation beneath the wheels.
Obama criticism has not even reached the depths of the fecal matter slung at his predecessor, much less the unfortunate Lincoln, who endured commentary on every aspect of his presidency and life. Few people, really outside of me, have questioned Obama's intelligence and all will admit that he can read a teleprompter with style. People have issues with how the president has performed so far. He has made glaring errors on every level and has no shortage of other people to blame. Most recently, he blamed politics itself as the main obstacle to his leading us to a glorious promised land.
People are fed up. Even his own supporters, such as those in the Congressional Black Caucus, imply that he has been less of a savior and more of a carnival barker. Obama is reminiscent of Harry Truman's description of another failed president, James Buchanan in that he spent a long period of time trying to become president, then once he got there, he had no sense of how to do the job.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
The Unraveling of the Atlantic Coast Conference
Once upon a time, there was a small, but exclusive gated community of college programs that extended from suburban Washington down to Atlanta. It prided itself on superior basketball, competent football, and a sense of superiority that comes from allegedly higher educational standards than others (i.e. no 2.0 students need apply.) The community issued an invitation to Florida State many years ago, causing consternation among traditionalists. FSU is too pedestrian, too common, too football oriented, some said. But Florida State came in anyway, bringing football power and its "free shoes university" scandal with it.
Then came the superconference. With wild visions in their heads of competing with the Southeastern Conference, they pillaged and plundered the Big East. Again, traditionalists groaned as Virginia Tech, Boston College, and Miami entered their club. Here came Rodney Dangerfield to mix with the elite. Miami was still tagged as a "bad boy" school. Boston College had the pedigree and the snobbery, but was too far away. And Virginia Tech, well, these were the University of Virginia's country cousins. What good could come of this?
Almost a decade later, the dream that was ACC football dominance has devolved into a state of ludicrousness. They have won way fewer BCS bowl games than the conference that they supposedly had killed, our Big East. The conference flagship, FSU, hit the reef because its captain remained at the helm a little too long. Georgia Tech, who won a national title in the 1990s (seriously, they did. I'm not joking) has become one of the most consistent teams in the conference. They win eight games a year using an offense that is closer to Knute Rockne than the spread. Virginia Tech regularly dominates and wins the conference, but has a history of losing to teams such as Temple and James Madison in such seasons. And the vaunted conference title game has produced dismal attendance numbers for most of its existence. Meanwhile the Big East continues to gradually strengthen its brand and the SEC sets the standard for football excellence. When pundits actively discuss the possibility that Big Ten reject Rich Rodriguez could help the conference by joining Clemson's staff, one sees how bad the situation has gotten. The ACC has even declined in basketball prowess.
Even worse have been the scandals. North Carolina last year had to get rid of a large number of players to satisfy the NCAA. Most recently has emerged the possibility that the "U" is through. The University of Miami was plagued for a decade by a rogue criminal booster who violated many of the most profoundly important NCAA rules, possibly with the knowledge of coaches. Players, allegedly, were paid in money, food, parties, prostitutes, and other favors. This happened in an era when Miami slipped into absolute mediocrity. Southern Methodist University in the 1980s only exceeded these allegations by continuing to make payoffs after being on probation. They lost their program for three years and never recovered. Almost certainly this weakened the old Southwestern Conference and helped to perpetuate its downfall.
Expansion rumors have swirled around the ACC, but this time they are the prey, not the predator. The Big East has cozied up to Maryland while the SEC initially began to look for expansion possibilities there as well. Maybe it is reflective of the weakness of the ACC that West Virginia University is seen as an increasingly strong prospect for SEC admission relative to any ACC programs.
The Atlantic Coast Conference has experienced, perhaps, one of the worst ten year disasters of any major college sports conference in recent memory. It does not look to improve for them any time soon.
Then came the superconference. With wild visions in their heads of competing with the Southeastern Conference, they pillaged and plundered the Big East. Again, traditionalists groaned as Virginia Tech, Boston College, and Miami entered their club. Here came Rodney Dangerfield to mix with the elite. Miami was still tagged as a "bad boy" school. Boston College had the pedigree and the snobbery, but was too far away. And Virginia Tech, well, these were the University of Virginia's country cousins. What good could come of this?
Almost a decade later, the dream that was ACC football dominance has devolved into a state of ludicrousness. They have won way fewer BCS bowl games than the conference that they supposedly had killed, our Big East. The conference flagship, FSU, hit the reef because its captain remained at the helm a little too long. Georgia Tech, who won a national title in the 1990s (seriously, they did. I'm not joking) has become one of the most consistent teams in the conference. They win eight games a year using an offense that is closer to Knute Rockne than the spread. Virginia Tech regularly dominates and wins the conference, but has a history of losing to teams such as Temple and James Madison in such seasons. And the vaunted conference title game has produced dismal attendance numbers for most of its existence. Meanwhile the Big East continues to gradually strengthen its brand and the SEC sets the standard for football excellence. When pundits actively discuss the possibility that Big Ten reject Rich Rodriguez could help the conference by joining Clemson's staff, one sees how bad the situation has gotten. The ACC has even declined in basketball prowess.
Even worse have been the scandals. North Carolina last year had to get rid of a large number of players to satisfy the NCAA. Most recently has emerged the possibility that the "U" is through. The University of Miami was plagued for a decade by a rogue criminal booster who violated many of the most profoundly important NCAA rules, possibly with the knowledge of coaches. Players, allegedly, were paid in money, food, parties, prostitutes, and other favors. This happened in an era when Miami slipped into absolute mediocrity. Southern Methodist University in the 1980s only exceeded these allegations by continuing to make payoffs after being on probation. They lost their program for three years and never recovered. Almost certainly this weakened the old Southwestern Conference and helped to perpetuate its downfall.
Expansion rumors have swirled around the ACC, but this time they are the prey, not the predator. The Big East has cozied up to Maryland while the SEC initially began to look for expansion possibilities there as well. Maybe it is reflective of the weakness of the ACC that West Virginia University is seen as an increasingly strong prospect for SEC admission relative to any ACC programs.
The Atlantic Coast Conference has experienced, perhaps, one of the worst ten year disasters of any major college sports conference in recent memory. It does not look to improve for them any time soon.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Progress On a Ridgetop
Most people in Keyser should by now be aware of a major construction project taking place right over their heads. After several years of wrangling, construction has started and proceeded very quickly on the Green Mountain windmill project. As of today, four are completely assembled and many more are partially built.
This is one of the few major private sector initiatives I have seen in Mineral County since I moved here six years ago. Most of the people I have spoken to are amazed at the speed of construction and are interested in their progress. Not many have expressed dismay at seeing windmills on a ridgetop that overlooks McDonald's and Denny's.
Even though the school board at one time voted to discourage their construction, the tax money from the project will be a huge help to improving our schools. They also create a sense that the town and county are moving forward. Today, Mineral County is becoming a part of our nation's domestic energy production solution. Tomorrow, who knows what further steps we can take? If we keep our mind open to the possibilities and embrace the need for development and jobs, Mineral County can be a more attractive destination for investment and we can provide opportunities for more of our children.
This is one of the few major private sector initiatives I have seen in Mineral County since I moved here six years ago. Most of the people I have spoken to are amazed at the speed of construction and are interested in their progress. Not many have expressed dismay at seeing windmills on a ridgetop that overlooks McDonald's and Denny's.
Even though the school board at one time voted to discourage their construction, the tax money from the project will be a huge help to improving our schools. They also create a sense that the town and county are moving forward. Today, Mineral County is becoming a part of our nation's domestic energy production solution. Tomorrow, who knows what further steps we can take? If we keep our mind open to the possibilities and embrace the need for development and jobs, Mineral County can be a more attractive destination for investment and we can provide opportunities for more of our children.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Blocking Communications In a Riot
A few days ago we saw the city of San Francisco take a decisively controversial action in response to a planned demonstration over a police shooting. It was not exactly on the level of a "Dirty Harry" Callaghan move, but it had a powerful effect. Demonstrators and others found that Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) officials had shut off power to cell phone towers that serviced the metropolitan area trains. Some of the demonstrations planned to disrupt public transit service.
San Francisco, predictably, took a lot of criticism over the move. Even some BART board members found the action too draconian, as you can see in this Huffington Post article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/13/san-francisco-transit-cellphone-protest_n_926135.html
Officials, however, denied that this was a First Amendment issue and were confident that courts would back their action.
I am not sure how I feel about this. Predictably, the liberal Huffington Post discusses this event as if it took place in a vacuum, unconnected to global events. San Francisco officials most certainly had the recent riots in London and other English cities in mind when they pulled the plug on cell phone towers. Those were sparked by police shootings of gangsters. We know that rioters used cell phones and other forms of technology to disseminate intelligence on police movements to maximize the mayhem. The British response to the destruction of life and property was criticized as lackluster at best. London's calamity was certainly on the minds of those men and women who made this decision.
On the other hand, if the worst did happen in San Francisco, law abiding citizens would be unable to warn their friends and loved ones about potential dangers. Is there a right to communicate tied to the right of freedom of speech? San Francisco's action was one of prior restraint, which is normally considered out of bounds by courts. However, if it is laid down as a policy to be used in narrowly defined situations, cities may be able to use this as a tactic to curb thuggish rioters.
Many cities will be watching as the courts examine San Francisco's response to determine if this represents a valid police maneuver to protect life and property, or if it is too restrictive of citizen rights.
San Francisco, predictably, took a lot of criticism over the move. Even some BART board members found the action too draconian, as you can see in this Huffington Post article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/13/san-francisco-transit-cellphone-protest_n_926135.html
Officials, however, denied that this was a First Amendment issue and were confident that courts would back their action.
I am not sure how I feel about this. Predictably, the liberal Huffington Post discusses this event as if it took place in a vacuum, unconnected to global events. San Francisco officials most certainly had the recent riots in London and other English cities in mind when they pulled the plug on cell phone towers. Those were sparked by police shootings of gangsters. We know that rioters used cell phones and other forms of technology to disseminate intelligence on police movements to maximize the mayhem. The British response to the destruction of life and property was criticized as lackluster at best. London's calamity was certainly on the minds of those men and women who made this decision.
On the other hand, if the worst did happen in San Francisco, law abiding citizens would be unable to warn their friends and loved ones about potential dangers. Is there a right to communicate tied to the right of freedom of speech? San Francisco's action was one of prior restraint, which is normally considered out of bounds by courts. However, if it is laid down as a policy to be used in narrowly defined situations, cities may be able to use this as a tactic to curb thuggish rioters.
Many cities will be watching as the courts examine San Francisco's response to determine if this represents a valid police maneuver to protect life and property, or if it is too restrictive of citizen rights.
Friday, August 12, 2011
The Failure of Great Britain's Liberal State
After World War II, Britons envisioned a new kind of state built on social welfare and the gradual grinding away of their country's traditions of self-reliance and responsibility. The first action of this faction lay in the dumping of Prime Minister Winston Churchill before the war even ended. Britain then nationalized many industries, empowered trade unions, passed strict gun control measures, and watched their preeminence in many fields, especially manufacturing, completely slip away. They also stopped going to church and watched marriage rates fall to the point that such relationships now represent a minority. Britain is a nation that, in many ways, has become rudderless. Its national mission and traditions are gone. And now we see the mindless greed of riots based on the purpose of spreading chaos and stealing as much as possible.
The British state had no idea how to stop the riots. The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, must be a faded memory. She knew how to stop the Argentines from practicing international thuggery. Her descendents in office dithered over the use of even non lethal weapons, such as water cannons, to stop the loss of life and property.
It is from British tradition that we learn that the government's two main roles are protection of innocent life and property. It was not until the people threatened to form Freecorps style militias that the police began to act with aggression, or maybe it was the heavy rains. Either way, the state was impotent to help. I made the point a few times that these riots simply don't happen in certain American cities with aggressive anti-riot strategies, or simply tough reputations. Britain's police had neither.
And what of the people? Chicago's city government has taken the lead in trying to undermine the Second Amendment, but this is what happens when the people are not armed. American businesses are oftentimes protected by their owners who have, and should have, no qualms about blowing away thugs who seek to loot and destroy. The people have the right and the responsibility to defend themselves because the state cannot always be there.
Is there a social aspect to this? Well, Britain's government actively destroyed heavy manufacturing and mining after World War II, just as we are doing now. They put other priorities above an economy that produces real goods and employs people, just as we are doing now. Britain is showing us where we are headed if we accept the Obama left wing path.
The British state had no idea how to stop the riots. The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, must be a faded memory. She knew how to stop the Argentines from practicing international thuggery. Her descendents in office dithered over the use of even non lethal weapons, such as water cannons, to stop the loss of life and property.
It is from British tradition that we learn that the government's two main roles are protection of innocent life and property. It was not until the people threatened to form Freecorps style militias that the police began to act with aggression, or maybe it was the heavy rains. Either way, the state was impotent to help. I made the point a few times that these riots simply don't happen in certain American cities with aggressive anti-riot strategies, or simply tough reputations. Britain's police had neither.
And what of the people? Chicago's city government has taken the lead in trying to undermine the Second Amendment, but this is what happens when the people are not armed. American businesses are oftentimes protected by their owners who have, and should have, no qualms about blowing away thugs who seek to loot and destroy. The people have the right and the responsibility to defend themselves because the state cannot always be there.
Is there a social aspect to this? Well, Britain's government actively destroyed heavy manufacturing and mining after World War II, just as we are doing now. They put other priorities above an economy that produces real goods and employs people, just as we are doing now. Britain is showing us where we are headed if we accept the Obama left wing path.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Letting States Out of Jail So They Can Go to Prison
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/9/states-rush-to-leave-no-child-law-behind/
The above story describes a new federal initiative to release states from the burdens of No Child Left Behind regulations, which in itself is a good thing. However, states must abide by even more Department of Education strictures to obtain the waivers.
What good does it do to release schools and teachers from onerous requirements if the Education Department simply makes up more?
It is time that school systems opt out of all Department of Education "help." It's existence has correlated with plunging test scores and student aptitude. Colleges now teach basic skills of reading and writing to millions of eighteen and nineteen year olds every year. There really seems to be no point for federal involvement in public education except to make it more difficult and less effective.
Here are two common sense proposals. Kill No Child Left Behind, the worst legislation of the Bush era. Abolish the Department of Education. That will save money and reform the system in a positive fashion.
The above story describes a new federal initiative to release states from the burdens of No Child Left Behind regulations, which in itself is a good thing. However, states must abide by even more Department of Education strictures to obtain the waivers.
What good does it do to release schools and teachers from onerous requirements if the Education Department simply makes up more?
It is time that school systems opt out of all Department of Education "help." It's existence has correlated with plunging test scores and student aptitude. Colleges now teach basic skills of reading and writing to millions of eighteen and nineteen year olds every year. There really seems to be no point for federal involvement in public education except to make it more difficult and less effective.
Here are two common sense proposals. Kill No Child Left Behind, the worst legislation of the Bush era. Abolish the Department of Education. That will save money and reform the system in a positive fashion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)