Was West Virginia a Victim of the Free Market?

And now a rare first person commentary!

I have wrestled with the idea of the "robber baron" theory of West Virginia economic development since I was in college.  Historians such as John Alexander Williams taught for decades that a once pristine and functional society fell victim to greedy and rapacious seizers of land and resources.  They squeezed the land and people dry of wealth, then abandoned the state for greener pastures in the 20th century.  This left the state with little to show for the sacrifices made.

Taking another look at this time is vital.  Historians and the books they write almost uniformly blame the free market for all the evils that took place.  This mainly comes from the fact that many of them fail to see that a truly competitive free market defended by rule of law is not synonymous with doing business.  Many of the abuses done by business and described by historians are the opposite of the free market.

Williams grafted a colonial-periphery theory from studies of the Third World.  In his explanation, West Virginia was a "colony" of New York based business interests.  They recruited and used a comprador class of local lawyers and other professionals to advance their interests and to get the people behind them.  This theory, advanced by many, portrays a naïve population duped, used, and left behind.  They made little intellectual contribution, so they bear little responsibility.

Others, such as West Virginia University's Ron Lewis, have described more moderate ideas that do not reduce either the businessmen nor the state's people to caricatures.  Lewis' works focus as much on the environmental sacrifices as well as the social and economic ones.

One cannot argue away the fact that West Virginia's environment was drastically changed by industrialization.  Lewis in Transformation of the Appalachian Countryside describes how practices of getting timber to market caused eroded hillsides, made vast areas more vulnerable to both floods and fire, and annihilated river life.  He also points out that the clear cutting actually worked to the economic detriment of the logging companies because the land could not renew its forests quickly.

So there was environmental sacrifice on the same lines as the rest of a country untutored in best practices.  Interestingly, the example of West Virginia and other Appalachian states (clear cutting removed almost all of the virgin forest in the region) showed the resiliency of the environment instead of the fragility.  Forests and streams rebounded fairly quickly.

And the environmental impact did not start with the Industrial Revolution, either.  Traveling writer Anne Royall described  the stripping of forests around the Kanawha Valley salt works in the first decade of the 19th century.  She talked about the ugly, stump ridden hillsides and the black smoke hanging in the air.  Before the salt industry, Indians and frontier farmers used rather wasteful methods to remove trees, farm a plot until the land wore out, then move on. 

The crux of the economic argument discussed by historians (but rebutted by economists such as Russ Sobel) is that wealth was "stolen" from West Virginia.

Did greed and hatred for humanity cause businessmen to swindle the people from their land, then force them into unhealthy jobs that paid nothing?  And did the state get nothing in return?

The record is mixed.  Some focus on the amount of money paid to landowners for their property.  Owners received a pittance compared to the value of resources removed.  In many cases, this is true.  The true market value of land isolated from centers of transportation and unsuitable for farming was very low.  Company agents looking for coal lands offered market value.  Some recognized the eagerness in the eyes of the agents and negotiated for more.  Others savored the idea of getting more cash than they had likely ever seen in their lives for what they thought was worth very little and took the offer without question or counterproposal. 

But other owners refused to sell.  Companies then brought in the lawyers.  Land claims in the mountains of what was once Virginia were a tangled mess.  People established claims with boundaries marked by trees or moss covered rocks, laid out in paces.  Different land offices granted the same land to separate people.  Residents lived on the land they thought was theirs.  Companies in Philadelphia, New York, and elsewhere bought competing claims.

So naturally many cases ended up in court.  With no clear ownership of the land established, judges had to fall back on legal principle.  Here is yet another example where government meddling in the private sector creates social problems. Before the Industrial Revolution, courts in Western Virginia used natural rights and common law principles.  The rights of the individual were more important than those of collective society.  With all else equal, a court would usually use the maxim "possession is 9/10 of the law."  The person living on the land, all else being equal, gets to keep the land. 

After industrialism took hold, courts moved to a collectivist social justice approach.  The maxim now was to advance the common good.  In any era, the common good is usually defined by entities trying to take resources from the less powerful individual for some other purpose.  Collectivism was on the side of big business.  So instead of advising the companies to make better offers or go elsewhere, courts ruled in favor of the companies "for the common good."

The common good was also supposedly advanced by a law allowing railroads to be built without permission on private land if the owners did not notice the construction of the rail line. 

Common good arguments are just as nefarious when done in favor of modern causes as they were when done to advance crony capitalist interests.  Every time used, the common good argument hurts the common individual man. They are rarely appropriate in a free society, even if the common good is advanced.

And the common good did advance.  It could have advanced just as far, if not farther, had the rights of individuals remained respected. But advance, it did.  Railroads connected most towns and county seats.  Mind you, sometimes the county seats were moved by force to the rail lines in some cases.  But it happened.

Satellite industries grew up around timber and coal extraction.  Paper mills, coke ovens, glassware, and other products were churned out of towns and cities across the state.  Trains and river traffic carried products to domestic markets and port cities.  The free public school system advanced farther and faster after the Civil War than nearly anywhere else south of the Potomac and Ohio Rivers.

At the time of the industrial revolution, dredged rivers, expanding rail networks, and establishment of free schools were all marks of progress.  West Virginia got those and a government weather station.

The argument that naïve or greedy natives sold out to big city interests falls flat.  Henry Gassaway Davis of Piedmont was a mover in politics and business, not one who was moved.  Elkins, who politically advised presidents and would-be presidents, chose to move to the state.  Johnson Camden did sell out his oil and gas interests to John Rockefeller in a Godfather-like "offer you can't refuse." But that was under pressure of riches or ruin and was the aberration instead of the rule.

Employment of the people also created a mixed result.  Abuses did happen, particularly in the southern counties.  Some companies took advantage of the isolation, using debt and low wages to create near serfdom style conditions in company towns.  The company owned the houses, stores, schools, and even churches.  Running afoul of the company meant a blacklisting from almost any job in the region.

Again, government and business worked too closely in unison in these areas.  Many sheriff's deputies worked double duty as law enforcement and company guards.  Law enforcement broke up the free association of union organizers and workers while also intimidating journalists.  The stifling hand of government allied with business perpetuated these abuses.  It is a sin of business, but not one of the free market.

On the other hand, those now working for cash money had more access to the benefits of industrialism.  Historians bemoan the move from self-sufficiency to the market economy.  But they do not consider the price of items compared to the value of the time spent in making them oneself.  Factory made clothes could be bought for cash earned in less time than it took mom or grandma to make homespun.  Food was cheaper when considered in this way. People also had access to medicine, newspapers, and other products rarely seen in some areas prior to the coming of industrialization.  Standards of living rose for most people.

Of course the downside lay in the fact that a cash paying job provided less security.  What happened to people laid off, too old, or too injured to work was a real social problem.

Overall, it is hard to see how one could find that business as a collective whole abused or stole from the state and people of West Virginia.  Then, as before and later, individual malefactors took advantage of people and the laxity of the laws.  But they do as much or more harm now by lobbying to use the power of government to eliminate competitors, or infringe on the rights of the people. 

Revisiting the interpretation of industrial history in West Virginia is necessary.  The perceived sins of the past are used against those trying to develop for the future.  We have all been raised to wrongly blame the free market system when many of the real problems stemmed from government help.  Except for the environmental destruction, which a more educated society and legal system has addressed adequately, the free market ideal is just not responsible

The lesson of West Virginia's past is not that the free market failed, it is that the failure to maintain a free market hurt the people.

How "Space Weather" Could Knock Out Services Here On Earth and What Can Be Done to Prevent It

"There is no dispute that electric grids worldwide are vulnerable to potentially catastrophic damage from solar-generated EMP."

So said former Maryland Republican congressman and Howard University professor Roscoe Bartlett in 2011.  According to Britain's Daily Mail, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) expelled from the Sun nearly slammed into Earth.  Humanity missed calamity by a narrow two weeks.

EMPs are accelerated and highly charged streams of particles.  They can come naturally from the Sun, or artificially from nuclear weapons blasts.  Such an explosion in the atmosphere could create an electromagnetic field that could fry unprotected electronics and electrical systems. 

According to the Heritage Foundation, "effectively, the U.S. would be thrown back to the pre-industrial age following a widespread EMP attack."  Presumably a natural EMP blast could produce similar effects.  A one in eight chance exists that Earth may suffer such an event by 2020.

Heritage in 2010 laid out suggested preparations to protect against EMPs

Step No. 1: Require the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to Produce a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Describing Which Countries Are Capable of Launching an EMP Strike. The NIE should review not only the weapons systems themselves but the delivery systems and platforms capable of carrying the weapons. Additionally, Congress should obtain from the NIE the intelligence community’s assessment of how EMP-capable countries are incorporating those weapons into their broader military strategies.
The latter assessment would permit the President and his advisors to determine how the U.S. could respond to EMP threats as they arise. Such planning is an essential part of providing an effective defense against these threats.
Step No. 2: Press the Obama Administration to Prepare to Protect the Nation’s Cyber Infrastructure Against the Effects of EMP. Congress should direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to manage this effort, which should incorporate the recommendations of the commissions. For instance, the commission has determined that preparedness measures must account for the fact that the cyber infrastructure is quite dependent on the power grid. Thus, contingency planning must explore ways to keep the cyber system functioning without primary power.
Further, it recommends identifying the most critical elements of the cyber system that must survive an EMP attack. Finally, the commission recommends that preparedness planning account for the interdependency between the nation’s cyber infrastructure and other elements of the broader infrastructure. Overall, the key to preparing to counter the effects of EMP is to put barriers in place to prevent cascading failures in the nation’s infrastructure.
Step No. 3: Require the Navy to Develop a Test Program for Sea-Based Interceptors with the Capability to Intercept and Destroy Ballistic Missiles Carrying EMP Weapons Prior to Detonation. It is clear that ballistic missiles offer an ideal delivery system for an EMP weapon. For instance, an enemy of America could launch a short-range missile carrying an EMP weapon from a cargo ship off the U.S. coast. Clearly, the terminal-phase ballistic missile defense systems currently in the field or entering the field, such as the Patriot system and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, will not reliably intercept such ballistic missiles prior to the detonation of an EMP warhead. The Standard Missile-3 Block IA (SM-3 Block IA), as a midcourse defense system, may be able to do so.
What the U.S. really needs to address this threat, however, is a version of the SM-3 that will intercept these kinds of missiles in the boost or ascent phase of flight. The Independent Working Group has recommended developing and fielding what it calls an “East Coast Missile Defense” to address this emerging threat.[3]
Accordingly, Congress should require the Navy to demonstrate the capability to produce new versions of the SM-3 interceptor that are capable of destroying a short-range missile in the boost or ascent phase of flight, prior to its reaching the preferred detonation points for an EMP warhead. This will require that Congress also provide the Navy with the funds necessary to undertake this test program.
If it chooses to do so, Congress could also direct the Air Force to undertake a companion program that would permit operational use of the Airborne Laser system to defend against an attack from a short-range missile.

EMPs have caused disruption before.  In 1989 they knocked out parts of Quebec's telephone infrastructure.  130 years prior, they interfered with telegraph operations not long after the invention of the device.

Putting Too Much Trust In Flawed Science Can Bring Bad Consequences

Sometimes science based on incomplete knowledge causes no harm.  Not too long ago, the Mid-Atlantic braced for what experts predicted would be a massive and destructive storm of wind, heavy rain, hail, and dangerous lightning.  Some changed travel plans while others stocked up.  The front passed with less sound and little fury, but residents were relieved at the mistake.

Science will always suffer from errors because it springs from the mind of humanity.  Nothing worldy exists in a state of perfection and no human or collection of people cannot account for every variable.  Science at best is the most educated guess possible based upon years, decades, centuries, or even millenia of analysis, experience, and observation.  That being said, sometimes science proceeds with less tested and known ideas.

This Forbes piece describes what happens when agendas take over in science.  The pressure to not be wrong creates situations where even lives may be lost because of the reluctance to admit failure.  In this case, the head of a study on ways to protect the heart during non cardiac surgery screwed up the results and covered up the dangers.  Many lives were lost to standards and practices based on bad medicine.

Obviously the researchers had agendas above and beyond truth and patient safety.  That is the other variable in science.  People bring in worldviews and goals that have little to do with scientific fact.  Drug companies have an incentive to push pills, so their motives should always be examined.  Those benefiting from huge grants for studies have to answer for money that they get from advocacy groups.

The general public and the media optimally should examine variables and incentives for certain results that can skew science.  Also, one must look at the possible harm caused by making decisions based upon flawed studies.

In the case of the controversial research on climate change, too many scandals, agendas, and bad research have clouded the results.  Leftist politicians want people to accept new regulations that hurt jobs, productivity, and wealth production.  They want the US to accept even more economic disadvantages even while the future is threatened by accelerating debt and rising prices. 

Any war needs a solid cause, not a constant shifting of reasons.  The War on Coal was launched on the supposed certainty of global warming.  Now that the Earth has been shown to not be warming over the past 15 years, they switched to "climate change."  This absurdly ignores the fact that the main climactic constant is change, showed by the Little Ice Age of 1350-1750 (dates approximated), for example.

Science is not shamanism.  It relies on imperfect minds and sometimes imperfect motivations.  When shown to be beneficial, we should use it.  But when we have reason for skepticism, we must ask science to study further.

Is PRISM Harming America's Foreign Trade? And also, what exactly is PRISM?

Last month, Britain's The Guardian and the Washington Post, via the famous/infamous Edward Snowden, reported on a mysterious government information collection program called PRISM. 

PRISM is an ongoing government effort to collect information from the internet about both foreign and domestic targets. Concerns about the collection and use of this data have produced a backlash from people and businesses around the world.  Many fear the effects, use, and possible misuse of information.

The National Security Agency somehow (it is not known how) obtains information about certain targets (it is not known who or why or how they are selected) from major internet entities, such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and others. All three of these companies, among others, strongly deny that they have granted access to the federal government for any information collection.

According to a Washington Post summary of known information:

We know that PRISM is a system the NSA uses to gain access to the private communications of users of nine popular Internet services. We know that access is governed by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was enacted in 2008. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper tacitly admitted PRISM’s existence in a blog post last Thursday. A classified PowerPoint presentation leaked by Edward Snowden states that PRISM enables “collection directly from the servers” of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook and other online companies.

 It goes on to say that

The (New York) Times says that major tech companies have systems that “involve access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company’s servers.”
Data is “shared after company lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is not sent automatically or in bulk,” the Times reports. The scheme is “a more secure and efficient way to hand over the data.”
A source told CNet’s Declan McCullagh that PRISM is “a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do.” A source — perhaps the same one — says that “you can’t say everyone in Pakistan who searched for ‘X’ … It still has to be particularized.”

Additional reporting by Cato Institute writer Julian Sanchez raises more concerns.  The law which pertains to PRISM removed the constitutionally necessary provision that a warrant must be obtained if the main target was a non citizen.  However, information collected about a US citizen in the process is allowed to be stored until someone proves that it is worthless.

The NSA itself makes the determination on the worthiness of the information.

Furthermore, information under some circumstances can be obtained and kept even if the only people involved are US citizens.

The knowns, unknowns, and what is unknown that is unknown have introduced uncertainty into the equation.  As US and foreign media scurry to gain further insight on the scope and target of the program, other countries may be setting up what defenses they can.

Companies involved in data collection and security, along with their home countries, fear intrusion by American intelligence services. At a recent panel held by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a guest speaker pointed out that some countries may follow Brazil in passing laws to protect digital information and commerce.  This measure passed by countries fearful of surveillance could backfire in restricting information to places with archaic security.

Furthermore, it is difficult to estimate how many foreign nationals may try to avoid doing business with American firms because of PRISM and the lack of understanding about it.

Most agree that speculation about PRISM is driven in part by fear of the unknown, as well as the potential for abuse.  It remains to be seen what the world's reaction will be, as well as what the full scope of the program actually is.  

Is the EPA's War on Coal Distracting It From Real Public Safety Threats?

The Environmental Protection Agency has pushed hard against West Virginia coal companies and farmers. It has pushed miners out of work over the questionable and controversial "climate change" agenda.  Power plants are slated to shut down in many areas due to draconian new regulations.  At the same time, EPA bureaucrats have, with mixed success, launched regulatory broadsides against family farms. But in their zeal to promote certain agendas, have they neglected proven threats to the environment and public safety?

Most people do not consider what happens when they discard electronics.  E-waste, as it is often called, contains deadly materials such as mercury and cadmium that can leach into the water supply.  Because disposal can be difficult, 70 percent of the world's electronic trash has ended up in China.  There, many make a dangerous living washing off old parts in hydrochloric acid, and working directly with mercury coated components.

Press coverage has forced the United Nations and others to watch the illegal traffic more closely, meaning that growing piles of material remain in the United States for legal disposal.  A major snag, however, lies in the fact that the EPA has not established guidelines for disposal.

A Washington Guardian report shows that in 2009, the US handled 1.77 million tons of material.  It was incinerated, or otherwise disposed of.  The EPA's inspector general, however, claimed that "EPA does not have adequate information to ensure effective E-waste management and enforcement to protect public health and conserve valuable resources."

Furthermore, the EPA has very little data on how waste is stored, or what is done with it. Even the cathode ray tube guidelines implemented under the Bush Administration have not been enforced well, due to declining budgets.

The EPA does its best work when it responds capably to proven threats to public safety.  Therein, it justifies its existence and budget.  Unfortunately, it appears that its zeal to adhere to the unproven theory of climate change may be putting public health at risk.

Banks Seek Technological Solutions to Reduce the Hundreds of Billions Lost to Fraud

Last February, the FBI busted a 13 person conspiracy that planned to bilk over $200 million from credit card companies.  It included a network of complicit businesses that would access the money and wire it to one of several Asian or Eastern European countries.

Today, US investigators announced the arrest of four Russians and a Ukranian.  They had hacked databases to retrieve information on over 160 million credit card numbers.  The indictment, according to Russia Today, said that “Financial institutions, credit card companies and consumers suffered hundreds of millions in losses, including losses in excess of $300 million by just three of the corporate victims, and immeasurable losses to identity theft victims."

Mexico and the United States experience the highest rates of credit card fraud, according to a Forbes report last fall.   In both nations, over 40 percent of card holders describe having experiencing some type of credit card fraud.  Debit card fraud is more difficult, but the two aforementioned countries are near the top of that list as well.  One out of four or more debit card holders in both countries have been defrauded in some way.

Help may be on the way.

This year, US credit and debit issuing companies will start issuing EMV standard cards.  This stands for Europay, MasterCard, Visa.  These cards will start including an extra layer of security in the form of ID chips. 

The process will take years, however, because of the need to update card readers and ATMs.

Banks lose $190 billion per year to fraud, according to another Forbes report.  Industry observers hope that EMV, among other measures, will roll back the heavy losses. 

Until then, organized criminals with technical prowess will continue to plunder banks and consumers alike.

Marijuana, the Conservative Movement, Republican Politics, and the Art of Thoughtful Reconsideration

Almost ten years ago, William F. Buckley penned a powerful column that reflected on a key issue of the time and the conservative movement in general.

In it, he included a powerful indictment of ossification of thought, saying "intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great."

At the time, he referred to the strong resistance among conservatives and Republicans to loosening the marijuana laws.  Buckley tended to oppose all of them, but most strongly advocated for the use of cannabis  for medical purposes. 

Opponents of loosening the laws on marijuana generally agree with the writer of this CNBC piece from 2010. The laws work.  They reduce consumption while supposedly preventing higher rates of drug impaired driving.  Opponents of marijuana use for medical purposes point out that such a policy could increase the incidence of recreational use.

The state of Missouri, in association with the National Crime Prevention Council, released a PDF at some unknown point that lists points of "damage" associated with use. These include lowered testosterone for men, higher testosterone for women, frustration, isolation, increased appetite, paranoia, and "exposure to illegal drug culture."

Cato Institute in 2010 reported on peer reviewed studies on marijuana use and risks.  They found that the scientific community generally concluded that marijuana, while not risk free, brings fewer problems than most other drugs.  Even most of the risk factors disappear when pot is consumed in some other way than smoking. 

Some of the "damage" listed by occasional government warnings appear questionable.  Does marijuana make some people paranoid, frustrated, and socially averse?  Or do paranoid, frustrated, and socially averse people try to self-medicate with marijuana?  It would be impossible to prove that cannabis caused these behaviors unless studies found a large sample of non users, then illegally induced them to use over a long period of time. 

Even the idea that medical users of drugs may be tempted to use them recreationally supports legalization. People will abuse medical drugs after prescribed use, no doubt.  No one argues that marijuana use is nearly as dangerous as narcotic drugs such as Oxy Contin, which have destroyed families and lives at devastating rates.


Some question keeping marijuana illegal even for recreational purposes. Critics of recreational pot use talk about reducing motivation and raise the specter of drugged driving. People foolish enough to drive around while intoxicated won't be stopped by the fact that pot is illegal.  They will just drive drunk.  And while it is definitely true that people high on pot have reduced motivation, this actually argues for its social utility.  Drunk people are more likely to leave the house than high people.

Buckley's point was that doctrinaire conservatives must keep looking at the evidence supporting or disproving principles.  Also, does support of one principle violate a more important one.

If a conservative advocates for states' rights and smaller federal government, how do federal marijuana laws fit into this picture?

If a conservative believes in maximum property rights, how can we justify the outlawing of a plant that God saw fit to put in the ground?

If conservatives define Bloomberg's health crusade and 1920s Prohibition as excesses of Progressivism, what does that say about the costs to taxpayers, society, and freedom of choice in terms of pot laws?

A cost-benefit analysis of marijuana enforcement must include the fact that states spent  $3.6 billion on enforcement in 2010 alone.  This includes the costs of arrest, incarceration, and trial. Can this money spent on mostly non violent offenders be spent in better ways, or sliced entirely from budgets?

Another problem lies in the credibility of law.  If evidence of all kinds shows an illegal substance to be less damaging than many that are legal, the law looks absurd in the eyes of the people.  Overall respect for law drops.

Since Buckley's 2004 piece, Republicans have tended to step back from the legalization debates.  Like gay marriage, the issue has an aura of inevitability.  Unlike gay marriage,  Republicans have no constituency bothered enough by pot use to push them to fervently act to prevent legalization and/or decriminalization.

Old hippies and left-liberal college students find themselves in the odd position of having their favorite cause slapped down hard by the former chief of the choom gang.  It cannot be comfortable for them to agree more with Buckley and George Will than with their idol president. 

Good politics and good policy do not always combine.  Here, the Republican Party can take a stand that can help cut budgets, increase individual liberty, and force the hand of the establishment Democratic Party.

A Solution For Detroit

Barack Obama, the President of the United States, waxed rhapsodic about a single criminal case last Friday.  The media swirled about his words like gnats on a summer day.

This week, one of America's storied metropolises filed for bankruptcy.  Not a peep.

Since 1960, the city has imploded.  This report which, no joke, 47 percent of Detroit residents would not be able to read,details many of the problems facing the city.

These include an hour response rate for police, 40 percent of traffic lights now non-functional, 80,000 houses abandoned, many housing drug gangs as squatters.  Over a million people fled Detroit for saner pastures as city government devolved.

Detroit has no choice but to declare bankruptcy, which would free it from significantly onerous pension requirements.  Look out California and Illinois state workers, your turn is coming unless you can hit on a formula for sustainable government. Several other cities have already taken this path.

A county judge tried to halt the bankruptcy proceedings by, among other things, claiming that bankruptcy dishonored the president and violated the state constitution.  A federal court, however, has ultimate jurisdiction.  All the city's creditors will likely take an enormous hit, not just those expecting lavish pensions after making lavish salaries. 

What can save Detroit?  A National Review writer suggested using Hong Kong as a model.  Create a free enterprise zone of limited taxes and regulations.  Incidentally, that was the original purpose of the modern city, as conceived in Central Europe in the Middle Ages.  Nobles controlled most of the lands while kings only directly ruled the roads.  At crossroads, kings established tax free areas where merchants could do business, while the king would derive revenue from tolls and fines.  Of course, such an arrangement would be up to the state, not the federal government, of course.

Normally the drop of land values to nearly zero would attract entrepreneurs.  Detroit's horrific school system, however, has not provided a workforce with even the rudiments of ability.  Widespread drug addiction and the inability to enforce basic rule of law also make serious businessmen hesitant to pull the trigger. Last year, the police union warned out of towners to avoid Detroit.

But there is, possibly, a solution if government can stay out of the way.

Colonization.  In a sense.

With the price of an acre somewhere below a six pack of Schlitz, a manufacturing firm could buy property for next to nothing.  Now the state or city would have to help to remove the squatters without facilitating bizarre legal challenges.

Next, government officials have to stop the green energy foolishness and draconian EPA regulations on power plants.  One of America's few remaining advantages in attracting manufacturing is cheap power.  So get out of the way of drilling and production. 

Manufacturing facilities, for a while anyway, in Detroit would have to look like their Third World counterparts.  Buildings surrounded by walls topped with razor wire, perhaps even containing dormitories where workers could live in safety.  Armed private security would have to patrol the site. Possibly such measures might make such a place too costly. 

The locals will not like it, but much of the workforce would have to come from outside.  Successful firms do not employ drug addicts or illiterate people. 

It goes without saying that Michigan would have to continue its move towards worker rights, despite union protests.

In other words, colonize Detroit with entrepreneurs and hard workers from other parts of the country.  Productivity and profit would attract satellite businesses.  Revenue from a fair tax system wisely used would help to rebuild city services.  This would be colonization in the Roman sense of the term.  Plant communities within a previously settled area to start a long term transformation. Over time, the city grows prosperous, safer, and offers a good quality of life.

It would have to happen without court battles involving environmentalists, community organizers, unions, and every other fool who thinks Detroit is currently just fine.  Business would have to be able to get quick permission to build, as opposed to conducting exhaustive studies. 

Unfortunately, nothing is easy for business in America.  Which is why Detroit and many other places like it are happening in our generation.

Private Sector Versus Pirates?

Should low intensity threats warrant an expensive high intensity response?   Perhaps the private sector can offer flexible and less expensive solutions than nation-states.

Last week, Doublethink magazine interviewed John-Clark Levin the author of Private Anti-Piracy Navies: How Warships for Hire are Changing Maritime Security.  Levin argues that small scale privately run outfits can offer better security at a lower price than national navies.

Piracy, especially in the Indian Ocean, has escaped the front page, but remains a threat to shipping and leisure cruising.  Other reports indicate that threats in other parts of the world have outstripped the danger lurking in the waters off of Somalia.  While 851 suffered attack off the coast of that quasi-country this year, nearly a thousand have been fired upon off of West Africa.

Like any other criminals, pirates take advantage of opportunity.  The worldwide global downturn left many nation-states cash strapped.  International flotillas from the West made the Indian Ocean more perilous for pirates, so they simply follow the advice of Wee Willie Keeler.  "Hit it where they ain't." 

"They ain't" in West Africa and other vulnerable areas, such as the Indonesian archipelago.

The Somali pirates themselves have become more sophisticated in choosing prey.  In the past several months, their attack to boarding ration has increased significantly.

Levin argues that western warships come with huge operational pricetags.  Warships cost hundreds of millions of dollars, using up tons of fuel, patrol sea lanes.  National taxpayers waste too much money on the maritime equivalent of an M1 Abrams patrolling a bad neighborhood.

In contrast, Levin says that a private firm could patrol the same areas and respond more flexibly and effectively for $35,000 or so per day. 

One obstacle to using private firms to police the oceans is international law.  Although this remains murky on the issue, American law is clear.  Congress has constitutional authority to issue "letters of marque and reprisal" under Article I Section 8 Clause 11.  Foreign Policy recently advocated their use against China in cyberspace.  Private anti-piracy forces would harken back to the more traditional sense of the term. 

Another option for Western forces would be to establish a more flexible command with low tech weaponry.  For the cost of deploying a handful of frigates, the Navy could build World War II type PT boats, such as the one commanded by John F. Kennedy in the Pacific.  Armed with several .50 calibre machine guns and torpedoes, they would be less expensive to run, but more numerous and deadly to pirates.  The World War II tactic of hiding small warships inside of dummy freighters to lure attacks would also be effective here.  

Stopping piracy requires executing a simple equation.  Make the cost of "doing business" higher than the rewards of success.  Along the way, American strategists need to also find solutions that are cost-effective, yet still accomplish the mission and keep professional soldiers as safe as possible. 

Student Loan Debate: What Most People Overlooked

Politics can sometimes become Bizarro world. Short term political points can be scored by one party when the other fails to live up to its rhetoric.

Republicans have Democrats on a spit over student loan rate hikes.  The interest rate doubled on July 1, despite passage of a bill in the GOP controlled House of Representatives.  A bipartisan bill in the Senate failed to pass, leaving the higher rate in place.

The GOP supports the Obama proposed plan of tying rates to the rate of 10 year Treasury notes, which will likely increase gradually over time.  Senate Democrats oppose this measure. So they went up immediately instead of later.

Hyper reactions over the rate hike drowned out those who claim that the hike will have little impact. 

Jordan Gonzalez in American Spectator argues that "the monster doesn't have teeth or talons."  He cites economists who say the increased rate will add $21 per month to the payment. 

Economists also say that the expansion of easy credit has put student solvency in jeopardy while giving colleges no incentive to restrict spending and hold tuition down.  It has created a classic price rising higher than value bubble that threatens those holding degrees that promise lower incomes.

But if you work in the bloated public sector, fear not.  You may get to keep the same old low rates.

Forbes reports that the rates will not double for many federal employees and congressional staff.  Lawmakers still labor under the delusion that federal employees make scanty livings while private sector earners live it up.  In fact a hefty percentage of federal employees take home over six figures.

Beyond that, as the Forbes writer argues, government salaries should be low.  Employees have job security unknown in the private sector.  Also, the public sector role ought to be limited.  Government does too much as it is.  And should our best and brightest be in the world of innovation and production? 

The politics of it all may be lost on some.  CampusReform reporter Kat Timpf located graduates of George Washington University who opposed what they thought were GOP attempts to raise the rates while also advocating for Republican extermination.

A sure sign that for some, investment in college education is money unwisely wasted!

Let's Hear It For Charleston, West Virginia

A few months ago, Business Insider rated Charleston as the saddest place to live.  It displaced last year's "winner" of Huntington, which is now number 2.

Charleston and Huntington topping this list likely indicates some kind of cultural skewing.  Objective judgments of "happiness" are nearly impossible because of the variation in culture from place to place.  People making up these tests can't understand the places they study.  They cannot account for variables.  Using criteria made up hundreds or thousands of miles away proves nothing.

So let's talk about what makes Charleston one of the most awesome cities.

Park Land: How many cities can boast of having two massive parks within easy driving distance?  Coonskin Park to the north and Kanawha State Forest to the south provide residents with easy access to wilderness style leisure. 

Architecture: The State Capitol building is an architectural masterpiece.  Soaring marble chambers, the tallest capitol dome in the United States, brightly colored legislative chambers, and complete access to any office. 

Getting Around:  Four major highways converge in Charleston, giving it excellent access by road to other parts of the state and metropolitan areas in other states.  Within the city, parallel four lane roads along the river speed traffic around and through town.  Kanawha Boulevard, a WPA project from the 1930s, runs past some of the more beautiful old neighborhoods in town.  The trees lining the thoroughfare accentuate the beauty of the river.  It's a beautiful urban drive

The River:  The Kanawha River flows serenely through town, narrow enough to allow bridges of a beautiful structure, broad enough for recreation.  It has carved out a valley of aesthetically pleasing proportions, particularly on the east side of town.

Education:  Charleston's metro area is home to West Virginia State University (a historically black college), University of Charleston, and West Virginia University Institute of Technology, as well as Marshall University Graduate College.  West Virginia University has also established a branch of their medical school in town.

Charleston is striving to transition from an industrial to a digital economy while retaining the Southern charm that it has carried since its 1790s birth.  It has attracted a handful of Hollywood types because of its pace of life and dearth of celebrity seeking media. 

Is the NSA America's Stasi?

A protester "defaced" the U. S. Embassy in Berlin last night with a debate provoking message. 

The protester/artist/rabblerouser Kit Dotcom used a projector to put an image of his face on the side of the building under the words "United Stasi of America." 

Invoking the word "Stasi" brings almost as sharp of a response from Germans as "Nazi."  Some may mistakenly assume that the East German secret police force was simply a continuation of the Gestapo under a new regime.  Far from it.

The Gestapo was the political police unit within the Reich Security Main Office, or RSHA in short.  It had a relatively small number of thugs compared to the later Communist states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.  The Gestapo's reach remained limited due to this shortage (likely brought on by the needs of the war more than Nazi scruples) although those in its grasp felt the full measure of cruel tortures.

The Stasi, on the other hand, built an enormous agency of counterintelligence and surveillance.  Likely no East German family escaped the reach of the Stasi. Those who did not inform were often informed upon.  East Germany preached that good citizens turned in their suspicious neighbors for any number of offenses.  Each report warranted an investigation carefully filed in enormous warehouses. After the fall of the East German government and the opening of the files, it became a point of pride to have been investigated, of shame to have informed.  British historian and journalist Timothy Garton Ash wrote a book investigating the informants who helped to amass the file created on himself.

Has the NSA reached Stasi levels of interference and snooping?  Certainly their technological power to gather and hold information outstrips the clumsy files filled with cards used by the East Germans.  That being said, East Germans had no avenue to protest the widespread collection of personal information, no functional constitution protecting their rights, no legal or democratic alternative to the dictators in control.

Critics of the NSA point to the potential abuse of power.  If officials in general did not have track records going back to Nixon, Franklin Roosevelt, and beyond, of misusing such information, Americans might have trust in it.  Officials have misused information, wrongfully harming innocent individuals as a result.

Around the world, many now realize that the NSA snoops on them as well.  Few can argue that this surveillance has foiled terrorists in many nations, but it still raises questions of sovereign rights and power. 

Like other agencies who have gradually crept more into citizens' private lives, the problems remain in the potential more than the actual.  What happens if a less scrupulous administration comes to power? What if they do use the full range of information possibilities for political purposes instead of national defense.  The Internal Revenue Service back to FDR has been used politically, why not also information gathered by the NSA?

Constitutional safeguards exist because the Founders did not trust future governments to respect rights.  It would be wise to restrain all government agencies in their search for more information and weigh carefully what is done in the name of national security.

Gangs Are Associations of Weakness

Initial reports of the arrest of former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez included hints of a dark shadow life.  Certain tattoos on his body may or may not advertise gang affiliations.  The 23 year old Hernandez denies them.  Gang unit investigators have yet to confirm it one way or the other.

If true, it brings a new angle to the disturbing world of gangs.  They are supposed to be creatures of poverty.  Those who do make money in them do so as criminals, making it hard to jump to a legitimate lifestyle.  Even rappers feel the need to maintain some connection "to the streets" to keep up their "street cred", whatever that is worth to those gunned down as a consequence.

Hernandez, again, if he does have affiliations, would be a young man, educated in a highly respected university, who made his money completely free of the gang life.  Yet he still may have found living in that style preferable to finding new friends, new hangouts, and a responsible path forward.

Gang violence increased over a recent  ten year period, but decreased slightly between 2008 and 2010, according to the FBI. 

Cultural perceptions of gangs, from Italian organized crime "families" to the street variety, range from portraying them as scum of the earth to representatives of tarnished virtue.  Almost nowhere, however, does one see the people involved as inherently weak.

It's hard to blame some kids for getting involved.  Living in dangerous neighborhoods, some kids might seek out a gang to make them feel secure.  If it cannot protect them at all times, it can at least avenge any insult or assault.  But joining for that reason is a decision borne of weakness, even if one cannot blame the kid for being vulnerable in the first place. 

Most gang violence occurs when a large group from gang A finds a smaller group or an individual of a rival gang and attacks.  Sneak, or surprise attacks are common.  The tactic is to stack the odds to reduce the possibility of harm to the attackers.  These reflect modes of fighting common in guerrilla warfare, especially when the number of proven and capable fighters is limited.  Stonewall Jackson, with his usually smaller army, preferred to bring his entire force to bear on an isolated extension of his opponents' lines. 

But these tactics are a reflection of weakness, regardless of the violent results.

Criminal enterprises also confess a lack of strength.  Gangs gain revenues by combining entrepreneurial skill with enough force to create a limited geographical monopoly.

Again, this is weakness.  They fear the risk and reward process of the truly competitive free market.  Being a criminal, rather than a businessman, enables one to bring force to bear.  Being a better businessman is hard.  Killing your competition or threatening their families is relatively easier. 

But it is still, from a business standpoint, a tactic of weakness, a confession that the individual could not "hack it" in the "real world."

Purveyors of popular culture could strike a blow against violence by making sure that movies about gangs and their lifestyle teach that those involved are essentially weak individuals.  Martin Scorcese's Good Fellas portrayed gangsters as anything but good, which gives it a positive message.  How many other films (or for that matter, Bio channel documentaries) about the Mafia or street gangs even include that element? 

If guilty of his crimes, Aaron Hernandez was a thoroughly weak individual regardless of whether or not he was in a gang.  What insult to his soul was worth one or more lives?  What good did it do him to commit one of the most stupidly executed murders in some time?  Despite his physical strength and his football field prowess, Aaron Hernandez was likely a very weak man. 

Just the kind of person perfect for a gang.

West Virginia University Expanding Its Scope

Last week, West Virginia University looked to expand its footprint in widely different ways.

On July 2, Metro News reported that WVU hospitals planned to purchase Potomac Valley Hospital in Keyser from its owner Hal McBee.  It would join several other regional hospitals that recently joined the WVU Hospital system, including facilities in Martinsburg and Charles Town.  Since patients with serious conditions often get referrals from Keyser to Morgantown, this is expected to streamline the process.

It may also cut the number of patient referrals from Keyser to facilities in Cumberland.

West Virginia University also expressed an interest in buying a minority share of the Green Bank Observatory, according to a July 1 press release by Representative Nick Rahall.

The National Science Foundation communicated its possible termination of support over the next five years from the state of the art radio telescope.  While no final decision has been made, the university expressed interest in supporting its operations.

Green Bank's telescope monitors radio wave sources from across the universe.  It can discern valuable information about stars, galaxies, and other energy sources.  Should a transmission from another civilization reach earth, Green Bank, or a similar facility could receive and analyze it.

State institutions taking the place of federal in scientific research and technological advances is a welcome development.  More exciting course and work study opportunities help to make the school even more attractive to possible candidates for study.  It also improves the academic reputation without shutting the doors on many state students.

As the university expands into new fields, however, it must remain mindful to improve its standing as a steward of taxpayer money.  Administrative spending cuts must become the primary option when the university needs more revenue.  At some point the student loan bubble will explode and this will stop serving as academia's cash cow.

All the same, WVU's potential involvement in the Green Bank Observatory is exciting news.  And expanding into rural health should help communities and aspiring medical students alike.

Why Zimmerman and Not Egypt?

On one hand, a guy either defended himself from attack or murdered someone in a Florida town.  On the other, the military of a strategically significant country overthrew an elected leader to the delight of the people.

Why did the world shaking news of the Egypt coup rate a minor blip on the American cable news scene?

Part of it comes down to the nature of criminal trials.  What role do they play in culture?  The adversarial nature of a criminal trial combined with the subjectiveness of a jury judging the success or failure of a prosecution's case gives it a baser significance.  Trials, always more so than sports, represent social release.  The Roman emperors used to hold gladiatorial games to distract the people and channel their passions.  They "played" for stakes of life and death.  At times, the head of state got to weigh in on whether a combatant lived or died.

For better or worse, jury trials for centuries have fulfilled that role in America. 

Go back to the 1700s.  The capital murder trials of the Boston Massacre soldiers, defended brilliantly by the patriot John Adams.  No trial has ever matched that one for high drama.  An opponent of British rule convinces a blood bent Massachusetts jury to acquit the soldiers who killed several in the Boston Massacre.  The drama and the bigger issues made it a landmark of justice.  Like many equally famed trials later, the jury required a strong standard of proof to convict despite the social pressure to do so. 

The Zimmerman trial, however, does not reflect current issues as much as it resuscitates the ghosts of conflicts of ages past.  Hispanic on black racism?  Class judgment?  Just a guy trying to be the neighborhood tough guy going one step too far? Or was it a man watching out for his neighborhood?

Racism is as much of a modern issue as anti Catholicism.  It will always lurk in the background, but it no longer looms as large as it once did.  Times change, but memories remain.  Those running the news outlets today grew up in those times and lived in that context.  It is hard for them to understand that America has moved on.  The old paradigm is gone forever.  Nevertheless, it is good politics in some quarters to keep the fading issue alive.

News outlets believed that the Zimmerman trial formed a confluence of trial drama and race debate.  They spent a lot of time and money preparing to cover it as intensely as possible.  Egypt's military rudely launched a coup, disrupting the American media's preferred order.  It had no experts on scene, no reporters breathlessly standing in parking lots outside the coup, packed with meaningless or old information.

Americans proved to be more interested in the coup.  They packed social media, following reporters on the scene.  Online, they turned to BBC, Reuters, and other international outlets.  History was in the making.  A man that the people had elected had tried to transform himself into a tyrant.  They got the military's help in declaring independence from him.

Judging from the reaction of Obama and some other nations, not many understood the fact that an election confers a trust to follow the law, not a mandate to impose one's will.  The people and armed forces of Egypt acted on that very ideal.

And that should have been the big debate of the day.  The role of elections and the responsibility of the elected.  News outlets should have recognized the drama, understood the significance, and devoted analysis to the possibilities good and bad that could arise. 

But they didn't.  And that is why we do not trust our media.

Egypt's Least Bad Option: Military Coup

As of right now, the Egyptian military has launched a coup to remove the Muslim Brotherhood party and President Mohammed Morsi from power.

Military leader General Al Sisi held meetings with national leaders, including the Coptic Christian pope, to secure support for removing the radicals from power.  Meanwhile, BBC reports portray a rabidly angry Muslim Brotherhood equally willing to take to the streets "with martyrdom on their minds."

Tanks have taken to the streets of Cairo and, according to Reuters, hundreds of soldiers are ostentatiously marching on parade near the Presidential Palace.  Some have claimed that the president now lives under house arrest. Armored vehicles defend national broadcasting outlets.  The opposing sides even took to Facebook to launch rhetorical attacks.

Since Morsi ascended to office, the international community has watched his regime with concern.  Relations with Israel and the United States cooled.  Unprovoked and unpunished attacks on women and Christians rose.  Morsi also unconstitutionally centralized power into the executive branch and attacked the independent judiciary.  These almost always preface the evolution of a quasi democracy into a dictatorship.

Their goal was the implementation of Islamic religious Sharia Law.  This is the code that mandates punishments for raped women, for educating girls, and oppresses millions across the Eastern Hemisphere.  Egyptians have rallied against the imposition of religious totalitarianism, to their credit.

A coup would be the least bad option for Egypt.  Its strategic location means that any increasingly radical state could play a very destabilizing role in the next few years.  Military seizure of the government is the best chance of returning moderation to the country's foreign affairs.

It would also restore order, although in the short term any upending of a constitution disrupts rule of law. 

Rarely is the case that a nation should go to such extremes to ensure order, even over law.  But some cases beg for this step.  Wouldn't history have taken a better course if the German Army's aristocratic officers overturned the elected Hitler government that they despised?  Waiting would only entrench Morsi more securely.  We can't wait for the Islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood to grow confident enough to attack Israel or even U. S. interests in the area.

Fortunately the Egyptian Army obviously feels the same.  Thus the reason for launching the least bad option.

Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and Other Thoughts

A century and a half ago, the bloodiest battle on American soil erupted.  Over the course of three days, more American soldiers died than in ten years of fighting the Vietnam War.  Lessons and meanings from this battle both shaped the next century of warfare and were also ignored.  Following are a few in no certain order of importance:

Gettysburg set the tone for many 20th Century battles  Every officer educated in warfare in the first half of the 1800s learned Napoleonic ideas of the war of movement.  Robert E. Lee generally followed those precepts.  Military thinkers going back to classical Europe and ancient China warned against attacking a superior enemy on his own ground.  Lee, understanding the accelerating degeneration of the Confederate home front, sought to attack a stronger enemy well entrenched on the high ground.  Had Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson had lived and been there, he certainly would have counseled Lee to wait until a portion of George Meade's Union force became isolated, then throw the whole weight of his army on it, annihilate it, then move on quickly.

Instead, Lee on the final day attacked the center of the Union line across open ground.  Confederate troops marched in formation against artillery and infantry positioned behind a stone wall.  Lee lost the core of his army that day.

World War I is full of "Gettysburg" type battles.  Troops bashing themselves against unmovable obstacles of enemy formations for four years.  Amazingly, few in Europe learned about modern warfare from this.  The dash of the Prussian Army against France's unprepared forces in 1871 seduced Europe. 

Gettysburg may have prevented a Northern revolution We remember the sanguinary days early in July 1863 in Pennsylvania, but forget the horrific events in New York City at about the same time.  New York had suffered economically from the elimination of Southern trade.  Almost as much as Baltimore, New York City sympathized with the Rebellion.  Economic problems combined with the grind of a seemingly (at that point) unwinnable war, the draft, and a substantial black population created a catalyst for social explosion. 

These were some of New York City's darkest days.  Rioters attacked draft offices, then turned their attention to the black population.  Victims hung from street lamps.  Not even an orphanage for black children was spared.  Republican editors handed out guns to defend their lives and newspaper property.  Overwhelmed, the New York City police had to be reinforced by regiments from nearby Gettysburg.  If those units had been much farther away, the riot could have bloomed into something much worse.

Don't forget the other battle that officially ended the same day July 4th marked the last day of Gettysburg.  George Meade won the field; Lee stumbled away dazed.  In Mississippi, Ulysses S. Grant won a victory no less significant.  The Siege of Vicksburg had actually ended a few days prior, but Grant insisted that the Confederates officially surrender on July 4th.  From then, Union forces dominated the length of the Mississippi River.

Grant's victories meant that Lincoln could follow his instinct and move the fighting general into command, despite the many naysayers.  Meade's inability to crush Lee's army after Gettysburg also made this decision an easy one.

Intelligence  For the first time in American history, an official and permanent military intelligence bureau played a key role in a battle.  Stonewall Jackson had been a pioneer in his insistence upon accurate maps, but these came from local help.  Meade had the services of the Bureau of Military Intelligence.  They employed spies, mapmakers, and analysts to track and predict the movement of Lee.  Lee relied on traditional intelligence gathering, the cavalry.  Unfortunately, Lee's cavalry was gallivanting across the rich countryside. 

No one would ever give Meade credit for being a superior general to Lee.  But his information gave his teh advantage over Lee's relative blindness.

Military thought  Lee, McClellan, and other generals on both sides thought in Napoleonic ways.  Points on a map represented strategic objectives.  Capture an important city and win the war.  Why anyone thought the capture of Richmond in 1862 (when Union forces approached within ten miles of it) would halt the war remains unclear.  Frederick the Great never quit when Russians seized Berlin.  George Washington gave up New York and Philadelphia.  So long as his army remained intact, he fought. 

Lincoln came to understand that the strategic objectives of the Union Army had to be the military might and resources of the Confederacy itself.  William Tecumseh Sherman attacked the farmland and infrastructure of Georgia.  Phil Sheridan systematically annihilated the Shenandoah Valley's farmland.  Grant only pushed against Richmond because Lee's Army of Northern Virginia insisted on defending it.

World War II saw a similar dynamic in three dimensions.  Strategic bombing aimed to eliminate industrial resources and infrastructure.  Hitler's armies and Japan's navy needed to disappear before the Allies could move against their respective homelands. 

In the 1940s the Allies attacked the enemy population themselves.  Royal Air Force bombers launched attacks against German neighborhoods.  The Red Army pillaged, massacred, and raped German civilians in Prussia (to be fair, Germans acted the same while in Russia.)  Just like when Sherman fired civilian homes in Georgia, this did little to eliminate the will to fight.  It merely inflamed the hatred. 

Just a few thoughts as we pause to remember Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and their meanings in war.

The Dangers of Meddling in Syria

Last month, experts testified to a House committee that inaction in Syria emboldened Iran.  Not long after that, Senator John McCain predicted that "the entire Middle East is up for grabs, and our enemies are fully committed to winning."  He urged Obama to lead.

The New York Times cited an estimate from the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that over 100,000 have died so far in the four year conflict.  As in many such wars, civilians and their property take the brunt of the violence.  Both sides seek to terrify the population into supporting its cause.  Resources must be destroyed to deny their use to the enemy.

Such is the nature of "civil war."  Even in the American Civil War, Union generals used artificial famine as a weapon in Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.

Because of the misery inflicted by this war, many have urged Obama to get directly involved.  Some cite humanitarian issues.  Others point to Russia's support of the Assad regime, a government which has historically acted out against American and Israeli interests.

Just because there is a "bad guy" does not mean that he is opposed by a "good guy."  President Assad is an authoritarian tyrant and supporter of terrorism.  But would he be replaced by anything better?  Rebel murder of a Syrian Roman Catholic priest tells the Western world otherwise.  He was decapitated with an ordinary kitchen knife as fanatics shriekingly chanted "God is great!"

Do we really want that to run a Middle Eastern nation state?

Syria occupies a keystone position in the Eastern Mediterranean.  North is Turkey, grumbling against a somewhat Islamacist government.  Nearby lies Egypt, seemingly ripe for a military coup.  Bordering Syria is Lebanon, who suffered a horrific civil war of its own in the 1980s.  Spillover from the war could be destructive.  A jihadist regime replacing Assad could be even worse.

The correct U. S. response should be a pox on both your houses.  Do not get sucked into a race with the Russians over arming sides.  Leadership should take the part of cooperative quarantining of the war within the bounds of Syria.

Yes this is a particularly horrible war.  But there is nothing that the United States can directly do that will not make it worse on Syrians and threaten the degenerating stability of the region.

By the Way, Regardless of the Blizzard of Ads Dominating the Internet the Past Few Days...

No one here "stands" with President Obama as he tries to throw American miners and power plant employees out of their jobs.

His face all over the net is reminiscent of Communist portraits of Stalin, Mao, etc. that covered ten story buildings.

Witness For the Prosecution and Congresswoman Capito's Outrage

George Zimmerman may or may not be found guilty. But the prosecution in his trial in retrospect took a huge chance when they billed Rachel Jeantel as a star witness.

She proved a problematic witness on many counts.  Her voice and style of speech flustered the court reporter, jury, and television audiences.  At one point she could not read a letter that she had supposedly written.

The Daily Mail posted a long story detailing the problems undermining the credibility of Jeantel.

Defense lawyers grilled her on her own inconsistent testimony as well as racial slurs used by the victim Trayon Martin to describe Zimmerman.

In other news, now former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez was arrested on charges of murder this morning.

********************************************

Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito released a statement yesterday expressing the outrage that she shares with other members of the congressional delegation, as well as many West Virginians.  Obama's proposal to circumvent Congress to impose unconstitutional environmental regulations was called by Capito a "tyrannical . . . job killing plan."

Representative David McKinley and Senator Joe Manchin have released similarly strong statements.