It happened to the New Republic. It even happened to the New York Times. Reporters high on ambition, but low on effort, or perhaps talent, tried to cheat to get ahead.
And now it may have happened to the "grey lady" of sports journalism.
Sports Illustrated spent 10 months nurturing an investigation into Oklahoma State's football program led by former Fox Sports analyst Thayer Evans. He claimed to have found serious NCAA violations, including academic fraud, player payouts, even sex for recruits. Seemingly the school over several years delved into every shady practice tried in the Southeastern Conference with a few wrinkles used at Colorado for good measure.
In essence, this could dwarf almost every scandal except for Southern Methodist University's legendary offenses in the 1980s.
Most of the time such a story must start with willing and committed sources. They must be named and be counted on to face whatever backlash may come. Some sources are trustworthy, others may have their own grudges against the school. Those with grudges, like prisoners testifying for the prosecution, must be backed by evidence that confirms their stories.
The five part series rolled out by Sports Illustrated unraveled almost from the start because the main pillars of their story turned out to be the interviewed sources. Even the writer's veracity came under fire.
Jason Whitlock, a former colleague of Evans, blasted the writer himself. He called Evans "simpleminded" and said that such a "huge, gigantic Oklahoma homer" could not possibly set aside collegiate rivalry angst to report objectively. Whitlock claimed that although he had no personal animus against Evans, that "It wouldn't shock me if Thayer Evans couldn't spell the word 'cat'."
Former Oklahoma State quarterback Brandon Weeden, now with the Cleveland Browns, commented as well to local Ohio media. Far from being worried for his alma mater, he called the story "comical" and said that he "laughed through the whole thing." More importantly, Weeden questioned the credibility of every source, noting that some had been kicked off the team for drugs or other infractions.
Furthermore, most of the named sources backed away from the story and its writers.
Factcheckers looking at the details of the story noted inconsistencies. Sports Illustrated claimed that one of the sources, former safety Fath Carter, held two degrees from Oklahoma State. A check with the university registrar's office finds that he did not even earn one.
If the allegations against the writers are true, it remains to be determined whether the reporting resulted from extremely bad methods or intentional "cooking." Either way, the fallout has spread beyond the story. West Virginia University initiated an immediate in-house investigation of assistant coach Joe DeForrest after it found that the story named him.
The new age of journalism creates more opportunities than in the past. It also spurs more competition. To become a pundit, get on television, spout opinions, and make big money, reporters have to get noticed. Some get noticed because they are attractive and speak well, others because of personality or athletic experience. Of course breaking the big story does not hurt.
Increased competition can make journalists better, but also tempt some onto the easy path from the ethical straight and narrow.
Sports journalism, however, has more than its share of sloppiness, attention seeking, and bad reporting. ESPN's Skip Bayless on the morning program First Take stopped a hairs breadth short of defamation when he insinuated that New York Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter recovered quickly from injury by using banned substances. He had also once floated the opinion that former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Troy Aikman was gay.
Many media outlets also noted that network's overly obsessive coverage of nomadic backup quarterback Tim Tebow at the expense of actual sports news coverage.
Sloppy reporting can cost players in many ways. Nolan Nawrocki's predraft evaluation of current New York Jets quarterback Geno Smith was called racist in some circles, merely "gutless" in others. Nawrocki relied solely on unnamed sources to present Smith as unmotivated and lazy on the eve of the draft. He related that Smith was texting on his phone while coaches tried to give him direction, when it was more likely that Smith took notes on an electronic device. West Virginia University sources in particular went on the record to describe in detail Smith's obsession with film study and position education.
That report may have cost Smith draft position. A far enough drop could have meant the difference in millions of dollars.
Bad reporting pops up all of the time in other fields. Campaign coverage of Mitt Romney routinely focused on the surface, rarely sought to tell a story in depth. Buzzfeed offered a mea culpa of sorts with its recent story "Was Mitt Romney Right About Everything?" But the reporters on the campaign did not make up facts so much as they overemphasized some and ignored others.
Sports reporting has a few major problems. First, many report and speculate as if inaccuracy or wild accusation has no real consequences. They fool themselves into thinking that it's just a game after all. But they must report on individual lives and reputations, as well as business and administration, the same as if they covered politics, diplomacy, or the economy. The same restraints and rules must apply to reporters all the way up to the editors. Stakes are high, regardless of the fact that a game lies at the center of many stories.
Sports Illustrated and other outlets, in other words, must take reporting and the effects of it with the same seriousness as the Wall Street Journal.
Many reporters get into sportswriting for the love of the game. They want to cover the Super Bowl, tell the stories of athletes, and write about teams. The rise of the sporting industrial complex over the past generation has thrown new worlds into the genre. Sports news outlets need to aggressively court and hire reporters who specialize in finance, political administration and economics. Since the worst of the hacks attempt armchair sociology, they may need to dip into that field as well.
Sports media outlets have done a great job moving forward with technology. But they have not taken seriously the expansion of their purview. Those who got in to write about the big game along with the ex-jocks and coaches can only cover the material so well.
To regain credibility, the entire field of sports media must rise to meet the same standards as the best examples of other media. Also, like the New Republic and New York Times, they must disavow the poisoned reporting fruit that will inevitably grow from their branches.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Thursday, September 12, 2013
EPA SWAT Style Raid on Mines Raises Questions About Militarization of Police
Federal agents wearing menacing black uniforms, body armor and carrying automatic weapons went into action recently. Using commando style tactics, they forced their way onto private property to detain individuals and locate evidence of wrongdoing.
Did agents break up a clique of terrorists? Did they find the hideout of a dangerous gang?
No. They were enforcing the Clean Water Act on an Alaska gold mine. And now United States Senators are demanding answers.
A Daily Caller investigation shows that the EPA did more than simply over equip its agents on a routine investigation. It also lied when asked why it adopted such extreme measures.
The EPA claimed that it told Alaska State Police that the targets were involved with drugs and human trafficking (mind you, in Chicken, Alaska.) State Police spokesmen strongly dispute the EPA claims.
John Stossel in Reason points out that SWAT raids have increased from 300 per year to over a hundred per day. He describes how SWAT teams even descended upon organic farms to end the dire social threat of unpasteurized milk.
Politicians accepted the idea that the war on drugs might mean reduced private property rights. It ended up in every police department wanting military style equipment. This resulted in police "terrorizing innocent people, raiding the wrong house and causing violence."
The vast majority of SWAT raids descend upon people suspected of drug possession or trafficking, even if the individual has no history of violence. Other agencies fear the threat from . . . libertarians. Concord, New Hampshire police justified the purchase of an armored vehicle to stave off "daily challenges" posed by libertarians.
In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act. After the Civil War, the Army had been called upon in certain situations to act as law enforcement. Lawmakers recognized that the mission of the Army, to seek out and destroy foreign enemies, did not make it a viable police force. Congress forbade the military forces of the United States from doing routine law enforcement.
As a result, police forces emerged in most state and local jurisdictions by the end of World War I. Sheriff's departments dated back to medieval England, but most states did not create their own police forces until around a century ago. Cities had done so earlier, around the end of the 19th century. Interestingly, the colors of police uniforms reflect when they were created. As the US military went from dark blue to khaki in the 1890s, city police used surplus uniforms. State trooper dress still resembles that of World War I era soldiers.
They, however, retained the distinction between police technique and military tactics.
In the past generation, police have increasingly adopted military style weapons and tactics. In selected situations, this is reasonable. Violent street gangs' illicit acquisition of automatic weapons meant that police have to keep up to keep from being outgunned. Fair enough.
But police forces need stricter guidelines to govern when they may go into full commando mode. Raiding a lair of the dangerous MS-13 gang, yes. Raiding an organic farm selling raw milk (and perhaps a little weed), no.
The Department of Education even has a SWAT team to attack those accused of ducking student loans!
Police serve and protect. The military defends the nation and destroys its enemies. All too often in recent years, law enforcement at all levels has chosen to terrify the public rather than to serve it. Not every situation can be handled in the Sheriff Andy Taylor manner, without use of weapons and trusting in the goodness of the public, but a boundaries must be drawn.
And federal agencies without law enforcement missions must be stripped of enforcement agents.
The spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act relies on the idea of separation between the military and law enforcement. Police should not be routinely equipped and trained as if they patrol the streets of an Afghan village. Current practice does not violate the letter of this important act, but it certainly contradicts the spirit.
The militarization of police at all levels is one of the most serious threats to liberty.
Did agents break up a clique of terrorists? Did they find the hideout of a dangerous gang?
No. They were enforcing the Clean Water Act on an Alaska gold mine. And now United States Senators are demanding answers.
A Daily Caller investigation shows that the EPA did more than simply over equip its agents on a routine investigation. It also lied when asked why it adopted such extreme measures.
The EPA claimed that it told Alaska State Police that the targets were involved with drugs and human trafficking (mind you, in Chicken, Alaska.) State Police spokesmen strongly dispute the EPA claims.
John Stossel in Reason points out that SWAT raids have increased from 300 per year to over a hundred per day. He describes how SWAT teams even descended upon organic farms to end the dire social threat of unpasteurized milk.
Politicians accepted the idea that the war on drugs might mean reduced private property rights. It ended up in every police department wanting military style equipment. This resulted in police "terrorizing innocent people, raiding the wrong house and causing violence."
The vast majority of SWAT raids descend upon people suspected of drug possession or trafficking, even if the individual has no history of violence. Other agencies fear the threat from . . . libertarians. Concord, New Hampshire police justified the purchase of an armored vehicle to stave off "daily challenges" posed by libertarians.
In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act. After the Civil War, the Army had been called upon in certain situations to act as law enforcement. Lawmakers recognized that the mission of the Army, to seek out and destroy foreign enemies, did not make it a viable police force. Congress forbade the military forces of the United States from doing routine law enforcement.
As a result, police forces emerged in most state and local jurisdictions by the end of World War I. Sheriff's departments dated back to medieval England, but most states did not create their own police forces until around a century ago. Cities had done so earlier, around the end of the 19th century. Interestingly, the colors of police uniforms reflect when they were created. As the US military went from dark blue to khaki in the 1890s, city police used surplus uniforms. State trooper dress still resembles that of World War I era soldiers.
They, however, retained the distinction between police technique and military tactics.
In the past generation, police have increasingly adopted military style weapons and tactics. In selected situations, this is reasonable. Violent street gangs' illicit acquisition of automatic weapons meant that police have to keep up to keep from being outgunned. Fair enough.
But police forces need stricter guidelines to govern when they may go into full commando mode. Raiding a lair of the dangerous MS-13 gang, yes. Raiding an organic farm selling raw milk (and perhaps a little weed), no.
The Department of Education even has a SWAT team to attack those accused of ducking student loans!
Police serve and protect. The military defends the nation and destroys its enemies. All too often in recent years, law enforcement at all levels has chosen to terrify the public rather than to serve it. Not every situation can be handled in the Sheriff Andy Taylor manner, without use of weapons and trusting in the goodness of the public, but a boundaries must be drawn.
And federal agencies without law enforcement missions must be stripped of enforcement agents.
The spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act relies on the idea of separation between the military and law enforcement. Police should not be routinely equipped and trained as if they patrol the streets of an Afghan village. Current practice does not violate the letter of this important act, but it certainly contradicts the spirit.
The militarization of police at all levels is one of the most serious threats to liberty.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Remember . . .
Remember the Twin Towers in New York City . . .
Remember the fallen from the Pentagon . . .
Remember those who fought back above a quiet field in Pennsylvania . . .
Remember those left behind in Benghazi . . .
Remember . . .
Remember the fallen from the Pentagon . . .
Remember those who fought back above a quiet field in Pennsylvania . . .
Remember those left behind in Benghazi . . .
Remember . . .
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
What Is the EPA Hiding and Why?
Secrecy is essential at some levels of government. The CIA, NSA, Department of Defense, and other agencies must hide at least some of what they do to effectively promote national security. The FBI cannot release information about ongoing criminal investigations.
But why does the Environmental Protection Agency have or need a culture of "secrecy and evasion?"
The Daily Caller examined a blistering report by Senate Republicans that relates several shady practices. It refused to answer some Freedom of Information Act requests. When it did, it redacted the necessary information. EPA officials also used secret email accounts to communicate on policy. These would be more difficult for journalists and other investigators to uncover.
Courts have slapped down EPA overreach before. An Obama appointee ruled that the EPA acted improperly when it revoked a Logan County coal operator's permit. Although an appeals court reversed the ruling, the Supreme Court may likely rule in favor of the operator. The EPA is currently battling a Hardy County farmer because, among other things, it claims that her farm produces too much dust. It also criticized a judge's ruling to allow the Farm Bureau to join the suit. Of course without the resources of the Farm Bureau, the farmer might not be able to continue to pay lawyers to keep the fight going.
Even mine workers' union leader Cecil Roberts used colorful language to describe the EPA's intent to kill the coal industry.
The EPA uses intimidation by lawsuit, secretive tactics, and other methods to attack property rights, family farms, and profitable businesses. This brings negligible benefit to the environment, but expands the control of Washington bureaucrats over lives and jobs.
Time to bring transparency to bureaucracy. The EPA does not just wage war on coal or family farms, but against the rights of individuals to responsibly make decisions about their property and states to enforce reasonable regulations.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Time For the Private Sector to Take Over Space Development
Not too long ago, space program superfans watched with dismay as NASA grounded its decades old space shuttle fleet. Built in the 1970s, used and reused through the 2000s, the small fleet of ships that launched like rockets and landed like planes caught the imagination of and twice overwhelmed the nation in tragedy.
When grounded, many thought that space dreams had been put on hold.
The private sector, led by Virgin, has zoomed ahead. Its prototype Galactic SS2 was towed by a cargo plane, released, then fired a booster that propelled it almost 70,000 feet in the air. This is twice as high as commercial airlines and is also the cruising altitude of the Lockheed U2 spy plane of the 1950s. It then opened a unique reentry system designed to reduce the heat of friction on reentering the atmosphere.
While it still has not reached the 80,000 feet limit established by the SR 71 Blackbird, the Galactic SS2 is designed to go much farther. Virgin will likely be the first commercial carrier to take passengers into outer space.
Space travel offers a faster ride than is possible now. Jetliners generally cruise at 600 MPH. The supersonic Concorde plane has not flown in many years. It hit Mach 1.7, but was only economically viable for long flights. The SS2 should fly at 2,500 MPH once it exits the atmosphere. The lack of friction means that it can fly faster and expend less energy.
Virgin may or may not profit from this development. But it is showing the world that the government monopoly on space travel is over.
When grounded, many thought that space dreams had been put on hold.
The private sector, led by Virgin, has zoomed ahead. Its prototype Galactic SS2 was towed by a cargo plane, released, then fired a booster that propelled it almost 70,000 feet in the air. This is twice as high as commercial airlines and is also the cruising altitude of the Lockheed U2 spy plane of the 1950s. It then opened a unique reentry system designed to reduce the heat of friction on reentering the atmosphere.
While it still has not reached the 80,000 feet limit established by the SR 71 Blackbird, the Galactic SS2 is designed to go much farther. Virgin will likely be the first commercial carrier to take passengers into outer space.
Space travel offers a faster ride than is possible now. Jetliners generally cruise at 600 MPH. The supersonic Concorde plane has not flown in many years. It hit Mach 1.7, but was only economically viable for long flights. The SS2 should fly at 2,500 MPH once it exits the atmosphere. The lack of friction means that it can fly faster and expend less energy.
Virgin may or may not profit from this development. But it is showing the world that the government monopoly on space travel is over.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
The Risky Bet On Higher Education As An Economic Development Powerhouse
States have relied more and more on higher education to fuel economic development. Recent trends, however, should force policymakers to rethink.
Ted Boettner, the executive director of the West Virginia Center for Budget and Policy told West Virginia Metro News that the state economy in 30 years needed to diversify. He included higher education as an important part of moving toward a knowledge and technology based workforce.
Others note that colleges and universities have done a poor job remaining relevant to an ever changing and more competitive workforce.
For example, Poynter.org's study on the State of Journalism Education found that only 28 percent of journalism professionals found a college degree in their field to be very important. Over 3/4 of journalism professors thought it was "very important." Increasingly the media field regards experience based internships as more important than traditional journalism school.
And journalism is not the only field undergoing this shift.
Former Secretary of Education William Bennett questioned whether the modern college offered much at all to many young people looking to acquire work skills.
Enrollment numbers show that young people are examining the costs and benefits of college much more closely. A half a million fewer individuals enrolled in college last year than the year before. Tuition hikes, student loan debt, and missing out on paid skills development during those years have changed minds. Young people no longer see college as an automatic necessity for success.
Employers have slowly moved toward assessing potential hires based upon knowledge rather than earned degrees. People can obtain knowledge through webinars, massive open online courses (MOOCs), internships, or other ways.
Conversely, colleges and universities have not been able to provide educations that prepare students for real world employment. Liberal arts schools, in all fairness, are not meant for that purpose. Land grant universities, however, have moved away from their original purpose. They were originally supposed to prepare students for work in agriculture, mining, or industrial work. Many have moved far afield from the original purpose of preparing students to work and lead in a technologically advancing world.
Colleges and universities have been seen in the past 20 years as economic engines. Federal and private sector money concentrates into cities like Morgantown and Huntington. Ever increasing student populations help to spur the local service industry.
In the meantime, corporations have scaled back management and employee training programs that tailored employees for the particular needs of the company. Private sector research has declined in terms of money spent compared to higher education. But is higher education research more economically productive than that done by companies?
For the foreseeable future, debt ridden federal government will have less to spend on research grants. Students are finding alternatives to college educations. With such trends developing, relying on higher education to spur the local or state economy is a risky proposition.
Ted Boettner, the executive director of the West Virginia Center for Budget and Policy told West Virginia Metro News that the state economy in 30 years needed to diversify. He included higher education as an important part of moving toward a knowledge and technology based workforce.
Others note that colleges and universities have done a poor job remaining relevant to an ever changing and more competitive workforce.
For example, Poynter.org's study on the State of Journalism Education found that only 28 percent of journalism professionals found a college degree in their field to be very important. Over 3/4 of journalism professors thought it was "very important." Increasingly the media field regards experience based internships as more important than traditional journalism school.
And journalism is not the only field undergoing this shift.
Former Secretary of Education William Bennett questioned whether the modern college offered much at all to many young people looking to acquire work skills.
Enrollment numbers show that young people are examining the costs and benefits of college much more closely. A half a million fewer individuals enrolled in college last year than the year before. Tuition hikes, student loan debt, and missing out on paid skills development during those years have changed minds. Young people no longer see college as an automatic necessity for success.
Employers have slowly moved toward assessing potential hires based upon knowledge rather than earned degrees. People can obtain knowledge through webinars, massive open online courses (MOOCs), internships, or other ways.
Conversely, colleges and universities have not been able to provide educations that prepare students for real world employment. Liberal arts schools, in all fairness, are not meant for that purpose. Land grant universities, however, have moved away from their original purpose. They were originally supposed to prepare students for work in agriculture, mining, or industrial work. Many have moved far afield from the original purpose of preparing students to work and lead in a technologically advancing world.
Colleges and universities have been seen in the past 20 years as economic engines. Federal and private sector money concentrates into cities like Morgantown and Huntington. Ever increasing student populations help to spur the local service industry.
In the meantime, corporations have scaled back management and employee training programs that tailored employees for the particular needs of the company. Private sector research has declined in terms of money spent compared to higher education. But is higher education research more economically productive than that done by companies?
For the foreseeable future, debt ridden federal government will have less to spend on research grants. Students are finding alternatives to college educations. With such trends developing, relying on higher education to spur the local or state economy is a risky proposition.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
The Allure of Infamy
Yesterday afternoon, Lavar Arrington on his Washington DC based drive time radio show compared the Saturday antics of Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel to singer Miley Cyrus. He pointed out that both individuals used their talents to boost their notoriety rather than their fame.
Neither of them are the first to figure out that bad deeds get more attention. Sometimes this works, but for other people infamy burned out their abilities and the public's patience.
One such example of infamous success was James Gordon Bennett, who has been described as "one of the gamiest characters ever to appear in the world of New York journalism." He founded the New York Herald and made it a success based on the city's hatred of him. Bennett in the 1830s and 40s spun tales of scandal, pornography, and defamation in a day where those convicted suffered a horsewhipping. He used even these tales to feed the hunger of a market salivating for salaciousness. Sheer circulation made Bennett and his notorious paper a political force in a powerful city.
New York also nurtured the outrageous personalities of Senator Roscoe Conkling, Joe Namath and George Steinbrenner.
But for every Bennett comes a thousand or more Icaruses for whom the image outpaced the substance. Bennett, Namath, Steinbrenner, and others of their ilk worked hard to build the substance beneath the style. They never confused image with accomplishment.
Notoriety is freely gained, but lasting success must be earned. Even in today's reality television environment, programs like "Duck Dynasty" have outstripped numerous other shows about pretty young people being pretty and young. The market is more interested in watching people who produce and profit.
Enter the earlier compared individuals. First, Miley Cyrus. She had established a strong career path that started with acting, then branched into singing. Then, either out of rebellion, weirdness, or calculated career movement, she went for the lowest common denominator of entertaining, stripping down and singing about partying and sex. Her recent television performance garnered her everything from accusations of racism to outright ridicule.
In other words, people saw a cheap stunt for what it was.
The sun has already singed Johnny Manziel's feathers. The freshman Heisman Trophy winner from last year turned quickly into the most hated individual in North American sports. Manziel may or may not have signed autographs for cash, but few see that alone as a moral failing. The NCAA suspended him for a half of a game because they could find no evidence to prove what they thought that he did. For a brief second, the NCAA was the bad guy picking on a 20 year old kid.
Then came the strangeness of the part of his game against Rice where he was allowed to appear. He scored touchdowns, but also taunted opposing players (of Rice, mind you, hardly a powerhouse) with hand gestures indicating autograph signing and demanding money. He then showed complete disrespect to the coach who put him on the stage when he was removed for generally behaving like an ass.
This came after a fun off season of trashing his own university, behaving like a boor at a University of Texas college party, and generally acting like, as Brian Urlacher said this week, "a punk."
Even though he comes from a family with generations of flouting the rules, Manziel courts disaster.
He may not realize it, but the NFL has seen this act before. Usually it falls flat. General managers and coaches want to invest endless hours of time and many millions of dollars into players they can believe in. Quarterbacks are especially dicey. The right one can set a team up for a decade of success. The wrong one can deliver heartbreak and coach firings fairly quickly.
Some busts, like JaMarcus Russell, suffered from a handicapping condition. Russell had sleep apnea, slept through meetings, got cut, gained weight, and will never play again. Ryan Leaf had a bit of Manziel's bad boy persona and flamed out quickly. Tim Tebow behaved properly, worked like a madman, but did not pan out because the NFL demands more precise abilities than he could muster.
And some great college quarterbacks just don't have the brains or the thick skin to handle the intellectual and emotionally rigorous demands. The job also requires intense discipline. Manziel has already shown that he lacks this. Wide receivers, some defensive players, and a few other positions can be characters to an extent. Quarterbacks have to be machines. They can have personalities, but those must come second to the work and the leadership.
In short, if you want to make the NFL as a quarterback, act like all four of the Redskins quarterbacks. Robert Griffin III is charismatic without being arrogant, hardworking without bragging, swagger based on substance. Kirk Cousins is the direct understudy. He knows that he will only start if disaster strikes, but works with the coaches, remains upbeat, and bides his time. Rex Grossman serves as the elder statesman. Much maligned (with reason, he does throw a ton of interceptions) he serves as an extra coach to mentor the three younger men playing his position. Last on the list comes the rare fourth string quarterback Pat White. He frittered away his first opportunity at Miami, but came back this summer. Grit, physical courage, intelligent game management, and determination won him a spot, at least for now. If the Redskins ever release him, many other teams have also expressed interest.
In short, none of them are knuckleheads and all are on track to pursue their dreams.
Antics grow old because a person has to top their last stunt to keep people's attention. One can only get so far and then people stop paying attention. Or they get in the way of what the person is actually supposed to be doing. Miley Cyrus's next stop is Sydney Leathers and Kim Kardashian style pornography. Unless Manziel gets his mind right, he might find his draft stock drop considerably.
Attention does not equal accomplishment. Maybe the likely falls of Cyrus and Manziel could serve as object lessons for the next generation. But as long as people equate infamy with success, that is unlikely
Neither of them are the first to figure out that bad deeds get more attention. Sometimes this works, but for other people infamy burned out their abilities and the public's patience.
One such example of infamous success was James Gordon Bennett, who has been described as "one of the gamiest characters ever to appear in the world of New York journalism." He founded the New York Herald and made it a success based on the city's hatred of him. Bennett in the 1830s and 40s spun tales of scandal, pornography, and defamation in a day where those convicted suffered a horsewhipping. He used even these tales to feed the hunger of a market salivating for salaciousness. Sheer circulation made Bennett and his notorious paper a political force in a powerful city.
New York also nurtured the outrageous personalities of Senator Roscoe Conkling, Joe Namath and George Steinbrenner.
But for every Bennett comes a thousand or more Icaruses for whom the image outpaced the substance. Bennett, Namath, Steinbrenner, and others of their ilk worked hard to build the substance beneath the style. They never confused image with accomplishment.
Notoriety is freely gained, but lasting success must be earned. Even in today's reality television environment, programs like "Duck Dynasty" have outstripped numerous other shows about pretty young people being pretty and young. The market is more interested in watching people who produce and profit.
Enter the earlier compared individuals. First, Miley Cyrus. She had established a strong career path that started with acting, then branched into singing. Then, either out of rebellion, weirdness, or calculated career movement, she went for the lowest common denominator of entertaining, stripping down and singing about partying and sex. Her recent television performance garnered her everything from accusations of racism to outright ridicule.
In other words, people saw a cheap stunt for what it was.
The sun has already singed Johnny Manziel's feathers. The freshman Heisman Trophy winner from last year turned quickly into the most hated individual in North American sports. Manziel may or may not have signed autographs for cash, but few see that alone as a moral failing. The NCAA suspended him for a half of a game because they could find no evidence to prove what they thought that he did. For a brief second, the NCAA was the bad guy picking on a 20 year old kid.
Then came the strangeness of the part of his game against Rice where he was allowed to appear. He scored touchdowns, but also taunted opposing players (of Rice, mind you, hardly a powerhouse) with hand gestures indicating autograph signing and demanding money. He then showed complete disrespect to the coach who put him on the stage when he was removed for generally behaving like an ass.
This came after a fun off season of trashing his own university, behaving like a boor at a University of Texas college party, and generally acting like, as Brian Urlacher said this week, "a punk."
Even though he comes from a family with generations of flouting the rules, Manziel courts disaster.
He may not realize it, but the NFL has seen this act before. Usually it falls flat. General managers and coaches want to invest endless hours of time and many millions of dollars into players they can believe in. Quarterbacks are especially dicey. The right one can set a team up for a decade of success. The wrong one can deliver heartbreak and coach firings fairly quickly.
Some busts, like JaMarcus Russell, suffered from a handicapping condition. Russell had sleep apnea, slept through meetings, got cut, gained weight, and will never play again. Ryan Leaf had a bit of Manziel's bad boy persona and flamed out quickly. Tim Tebow behaved properly, worked like a madman, but did not pan out because the NFL demands more precise abilities than he could muster.
And some great college quarterbacks just don't have the brains or the thick skin to handle the intellectual and emotionally rigorous demands. The job also requires intense discipline. Manziel has already shown that he lacks this. Wide receivers, some defensive players, and a few other positions can be characters to an extent. Quarterbacks have to be machines. They can have personalities, but those must come second to the work and the leadership.
In short, if you want to make the NFL as a quarterback, act like all four of the Redskins quarterbacks. Robert Griffin III is charismatic without being arrogant, hardworking without bragging, swagger based on substance. Kirk Cousins is the direct understudy. He knows that he will only start if disaster strikes, but works with the coaches, remains upbeat, and bides his time. Rex Grossman serves as the elder statesman. Much maligned (with reason, he does throw a ton of interceptions) he serves as an extra coach to mentor the three younger men playing his position. Last on the list comes the rare fourth string quarterback Pat White. He frittered away his first opportunity at Miami, but came back this summer. Grit, physical courage, intelligent game management, and determination won him a spot, at least for now. If the Redskins ever release him, many other teams have also expressed interest.
In short, none of them are knuckleheads and all are on track to pursue their dreams.
Antics grow old because a person has to top their last stunt to keep people's attention. One can only get so far and then people stop paying attention. Or they get in the way of what the person is actually supposed to be doing. Miley Cyrus's next stop is Sydney Leathers and Kim Kardashian style pornography. Unless Manziel gets his mind right, he might find his draft stock drop considerably.
Attention does not equal accomplishment. Maybe the likely falls of Cyrus and Manziel could serve as object lessons for the next generation. But as long as people equate infamy with success, that is unlikely
Friday, August 30, 2013
Obama Is Another Politician Who Is "No Jack Kennedy"
In the 1988 vice presidential debates, Democratic nominee Lloyd Bentsen shoved a rhetorical shiv deep into George H. W. Bush's running mate Dan Quayle. Quayle somehow compared himself to John F. Kennedy and Bentsen responded with one of the great defining "gotchas" in debate history. "You, sir, are no Jack Kennedy."
Bentsen wanted to take a dig at Quayle, sure. But his greater intent lay in showing that Dan Quayle was not a serious enough individual to be so close to presidential power. Bentsen may have been right or wrong about that assumption, and curiously enough, he actually was not a friend of Kennedy's. But he did speak to the hearts of many who do worry about the White House not being in serious hands.
A little over 50 years ago, Kennedy confronted Cuba and the Soviet Union over missiles placed there by the Communist nations. Doing nothing meant accepting a mortal threat to the southeastern United States. Too much response could lead to regional or even global war. Kennedy knew about the missiles for some time before the public. In October 1962, it became international news. The president took 13 days to craft his response.
During the entire time, Kennedy met with a specially convened executive committee, nicknamed "ExCom." This committee included representatives from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Committee, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and others. Kennedy observed as they debated every possible option. From watching these debates, Kennedy was able to intelligently rule out some options, such as air strikes and invasions, while putting together the best peaceable alternatives. He preserved American integrity while achieving the national goal. Whatever other faults he had, John F. Kennedy knew how to use and listen to advisers during a world crisis.
Yesterday, Obama's top team on Syria met with congressional representatives to discuss US options. Meanwhile, Obama met with Magic Johnson.
That alone should be an impeachable offense. This man does not take his job seriously. He has no sense of priorities.
Bentsen wanted to take a dig at Quayle, sure. But his greater intent lay in showing that Dan Quayle was not a serious enough individual to be so close to presidential power. Bentsen may have been right or wrong about that assumption, and curiously enough, he actually was not a friend of Kennedy's. But he did speak to the hearts of many who do worry about the White House not being in serious hands.
A little over 50 years ago, Kennedy confronted Cuba and the Soviet Union over missiles placed there by the Communist nations. Doing nothing meant accepting a mortal threat to the southeastern United States. Too much response could lead to regional or even global war. Kennedy knew about the missiles for some time before the public. In October 1962, it became international news. The president took 13 days to craft his response.
During the entire time, Kennedy met with a specially convened executive committee, nicknamed "ExCom." This committee included representatives from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Committee, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and others. Kennedy observed as they debated every possible option. From watching these debates, Kennedy was able to intelligently rule out some options, such as air strikes and invasions, while putting together the best peaceable alternatives. He preserved American integrity while achieving the national goal. Whatever other faults he had, John F. Kennedy knew how to use and listen to advisers during a world crisis.
Yesterday, Obama's top team on Syria met with congressional representatives to discuss US options. Meanwhile, Obama met with Magic Johnson.
That alone should be an impeachable offense. This man does not take his job seriously. He has no sense of priorities.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Unleashing the Dogs of War . . . Or At Least A Limited Strike
The worst kept secret on the planet right now is that the United States, and perhaps other allies as well, will launch some sort of attack on Syria in the near future.
Last summer, Obama declared that one of his "red lines" was the use of weapons of mass destruction. Last week, someone in the Assad "administration" apparently used them to kill, among others, many hundreds of civilians.
US intelligence sources cite a strange intercepted phone call within the Syrian government camp as proof. A Syrian defense official demanded an explanation for why chemical weapons were launched. If one was forthcoming, the rationale has not yet been released.
This raises questions about the Syrian government. Was the attack the work of a rogue officer? Was it a direct order from the highest levels of government? Is the Syrian government even a cohesive unit anymore?
In any event, Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron seem to agree that a response must occur.
Cameron plans to consult with Parliament. At this time, however, Obama seems to have no plans to request authorization from Congress. Although some congressional Republicans have offered muted support, Senator Rand Paul (Ky.) claimed that Syrian events had "no clear national security connection" to the United States. Paul did not rule out action, but asked that Obama consult with Congress meaningfully before acting.
In this case, rushing to action within a few days does not seem absolutely necessary. The repulsiveness of the attack is not likely to wear out. Indeed the United Nations investigators will undoubtedly either uncover more evidence and details that maintain world disgust, or Syrian officials will block them entirely. The UN has requested four days, which does not seem unreasonable. President George W. Bush gave them much longer before launching war against Iraq.
Syria presents US policy makers considerable trouble. The rebel targets of government chemical weapons have shown themselves no less murderous than Assad's thugs. Islamicist rebels have slaughtered Roman Catholic clergy among many other innocents during their own reign of terror.
President Bush had some "good guys" to work with when he overturned Saddam Hussein's thugocracy. Syria seems to have few or no credible leaders who could make a peaceful republic work.
This limits Obama's options. Any Iraq style invasion would require a much more powerful force prepared to stay in place for much longer. Nation building would by necessity look more like colonization.
Any boots on the ground would likely end badly for the United States. In the mid 1980s, President Reagan deployed Marines to serve as part of a peacekeeping unit to try and bring stability to Lebanon. Terrorists killed over 200. After a few good-bye blasts from the USS New Jersey, American forces skedaddled.
The various Lebanese factions had no desire to play nice just because American and European soldiers showed up. They continued killing each other and blowing up heaps of rubble until they exhausted their will to fight. Lebanon has remained relatively peaceable ever since.
So ground based combat forces will not work.
That leaves air strikes and/or covert operations. The CIA does need to infiltrate Syria. To make reasonable decisions, American leaders need to have knowledge of what is going on and who makes it happen. It needs to monitor individuals and groups as they refine terror techniques. Covert teams can also find locations of important sites in case stronger military action is required.
Air strikes would have to be very precise and specific. Former Representative and anti-war crusader Dennis Kucinich noted that air strikes by American planes would make them Al Qaeda's air force. Indiscriminate targeting of Syrian government military forces would help clear the road for an even worse regime. Conversely, firing a couple of Tomahawk missiles in the general direction of Assad makes American power look downright petty and even silly.
Take the time to identify chemical weapons facilities. Only target them. Use weapons capable of doing the job, like daisy cutters. Cruise missiles may not deliver enough punch. This will achieve a limited goal and curb WMD attacks in the future without overly involving the US or using military action as a public relations stunt.
Obama must also prepare to stand by Israel. Attacks on Syria may provoke a response against Israel. Specific tactical actions may be necessary against any force deployed to strike Israel. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how effectively Syria could strike Israel while struggling in its own civil war.
Obama must make wise decisions here, stick by them, and articulate explanations. He must have the specific goal of curbing WMD usage while rebuilding respect for American power. If he covers his bases with Congress and the United Nations, this could help reconstruct respect for US foreign policy that has fallen greatly since Bush left office.
Many unmarked cliffs and chasms loom in the road ahead. Obama will have to tread carefully as he acts.
Last summer, Obama declared that one of his "red lines" was the use of weapons of mass destruction. Last week, someone in the Assad "administration" apparently used them to kill, among others, many hundreds of civilians.
US intelligence sources cite a strange intercepted phone call within the Syrian government camp as proof. A Syrian defense official demanded an explanation for why chemical weapons were launched. If one was forthcoming, the rationale has not yet been released.
This raises questions about the Syrian government. Was the attack the work of a rogue officer? Was it a direct order from the highest levels of government? Is the Syrian government even a cohesive unit anymore?
In any event, Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron seem to agree that a response must occur.
Cameron plans to consult with Parliament. At this time, however, Obama seems to have no plans to request authorization from Congress. Although some congressional Republicans have offered muted support, Senator Rand Paul (Ky.) claimed that Syrian events had "no clear national security connection" to the United States. Paul did not rule out action, but asked that Obama consult with Congress meaningfully before acting.
In this case, rushing to action within a few days does not seem absolutely necessary. The repulsiveness of the attack is not likely to wear out. Indeed the United Nations investigators will undoubtedly either uncover more evidence and details that maintain world disgust, or Syrian officials will block them entirely. The UN has requested four days, which does not seem unreasonable. President George W. Bush gave them much longer before launching war against Iraq.
Syria presents US policy makers considerable trouble. The rebel targets of government chemical weapons have shown themselves no less murderous than Assad's thugs. Islamicist rebels have slaughtered Roman Catholic clergy among many other innocents during their own reign of terror.
President Bush had some "good guys" to work with when he overturned Saddam Hussein's thugocracy. Syria seems to have few or no credible leaders who could make a peaceful republic work.
This limits Obama's options. Any Iraq style invasion would require a much more powerful force prepared to stay in place for much longer. Nation building would by necessity look more like colonization.
Any boots on the ground would likely end badly for the United States. In the mid 1980s, President Reagan deployed Marines to serve as part of a peacekeeping unit to try and bring stability to Lebanon. Terrorists killed over 200. After a few good-bye blasts from the USS New Jersey, American forces skedaddled.
The various Lebanese factions had no desire to play nice just because American and European soldiers showed up. They continued killing each other and blowing up heaps of rubble until they exhausted their will to fight. Lebanon has remained relatively peaceable ever since.
So ground based combat forces will not work.
That leaves air strikes and/or covert operations. The CIA does need to infiltrate Syria. To make reasonable decisions, American leaders need to have knowledge of what is going on and who makes it happen. It needs to monitor individuals and groups as they refine terror techniques. Covert teams can also find locations of important sites in case stronger military action is required.
Air strikes would have to be very precise and specific. Former Representative and anti-war crusader Dennis Kucinich noted that air strikes by American planes would make them Al Qaeda's air force. Indiscriminate targeting of Syrian government military forces would help clear the road for an even worse regime. Conversely, firing a couple of Tomahawk missiles in the general direction of Assad makes American power look downright petty and even silly.
Take the time to identify chemical weapons facilities. Only target them. Use weapons capable of doing the job, like daisy cutters. Cruise missiles may not deliver enough punch. This will achieve a limited goal and curb WMD attacks in the future without overly involving the US or using military action as a public relations stunt.
Obama must also prepare to stand by Israel. Attacks on Syria may provoke a response against Israel. Specific tactical actions may be necessary against any force deployed to strike Israel. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how effectively Syria could strike Israel while struggling in its own civil war.
Obama must make wise decisions here, stick by them, and articulate explanations. He must have the specific goal of curbing WMD usage while rebuilding respect for American power. If he covers his bases with Congress and the United Nations, this could help reconstruct respect for US foreign policy that has fallen greatly since Bush left office.
Many unmarked cliffs and chasms loom in the road ahead. Obama will have to tread carefully as he acts.
Transcript of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream Speech" 50 Years Later
Transcript of Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I have a dream' speech
Published August 27, 2013
| FoxNews.com
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But 100 years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men -- yes, black men as well as white men -- would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check that has come back marked "insufficient funds."
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. 1963 is not an end but a beginning. Those who hoped that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "for whites only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.
Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today my friends -- so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day, this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning "My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my father's died, land of the Pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring!"
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi -- from every mountainside.
Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring -- when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children -- black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics -- will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/27/transcript-martin-luther-king-jr-have-dream-speech/print#ixzz2dGwH0sSC
Monday, August 26, 2013
Universities That Begged For Subsidies Now Fight Obama's Power Grab
They begged for them and got them. But at what price?
The college and university system in the United States fought long and hard to obtain as much student aid and tuition subsidies as possible from the federal government. And now, Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney explains that their chickens have come home to roost.
Last week, Obama gave a higher education speech. It addressed the endless upward spiral of tuition and debt, as well as the declining value of a college education in many fields. What was Obama's idea? As usual, let the federal government handle it.
Obama proposed that the federal government rate colleges (based on what criteria!) to determine which offered the best educational value. Suddenly, hard bitten liberal and left wing academics protested like Tea Party activists about the potential for political abuse.
Carney quoted former Harvard president Derek Bok, "I have to be somewhat apprehensive when any force as powerful as the federal government undertakes the task."
William and Mary economics department chair David H. Feldman warned in the Chronicle of Higher Education that tying outcomes to funding would force colleges and universities to reject at-risk students who could come and do well otherwise.
Others say that the information proposed as a baseline to analysis is incomplete.
The universities themselves invited this bind. They begged for the subsidies and got them. Then, as years passed, they built dorms that would make an Embassy Suites blush. They bloated salaries, travel budgets, and other perquisites of office. Higher education went on spending sprees, leaving faculty salaries and cash strapped students in the dust.
Now the federal government proposes to meddle in higher education in the same way that it has ripped apart the public school systems. Killing it with kindly bureaucratic help.
Interestingly, all that stands in the way of Obama is House Republicans. Congress has refused to authorize the sweeping data collection needed by the federal government to implement this. That being said, some conservatives may agree that the federal government deserves more bang for its buck. It is not as if academia has ever given Republicans a reason to offer a helping hand.
Not to mention that overspending taxpayer funds created this mess for the colleges
Will left wing higher education-ocrats deign to work with the Republican Party? Stay tuned!
The college and university system in the United States fought long and hard to obtain as much student aid and tuition subsidies as possible from the federal government. And now, Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney explains that their chickens have come home to roost.
Last week, Obama gave a higher education speech. It addressed the endless upward spiral of tuition and debt, as well as the declining value of a college education in many fields. What was Obama's idea? As usual, let the federal government handle it.
Obama proposed that the federal government rate colleges (based on what criteria!) to determine which offered the best educational value. Suddenly, hard bitten liberal and left wing academics protested like Tea Party activists about the potential for political abuse.
Carney quoted former Harvard president Derek Bok, "I have to be somewhat apprehensive when any force as powerful as the federal government undertakes the task."
William and Mary economics department chair David H. Feldman warned in the Chronicle of Higher Education that tying outcomes to funding would force colleges and universities to reject at-risk students who could come and do well otherwise.
Others say that the information proposed as a baseline to analysis is incomplete.
The universities themselves invited this bind. They begged for the subsidies and got them. Then, as years passed, they built dorms that would make an Embassy Suites blush. They bloated salaries, travel budgets, and other perquisites of office. Higher education went on spending sprees, leaving faculty salaries and cash strapped students in the dust.
Now the federal government proposes to meddle in higher education in the same way that it has ripped apart the public school systems. Killing it with kindly bureaucratic help.
Interestingly, all that stands in the way of Obama is House Republicans. Congress has refused to authorize the sweeping data collection needed by the federal government to implement this. That being said, some conservatives may agree that the federal government deserves more bang for its buck. It is not as if academia has ever given Republicans a reason to offer a helping hand.
Not to mention that overspending taxpayer funds created this mess for the colleges
Will left wing higher education-ocrats deign to work with the Republican Party? Stay tuned!
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Death Comes to Syria and Egypt
Someone attacked a suburb of Damascus, Syria this week with all the quiet fury of a Biblical plague. No marks of sacrificial blood could save the innocent or chosen. This work of man killed all indiscriminately.
Nerve gas wafted through the streets and homes. By the time it dissipated, it killed 1,300 just as effectively as the Japanese at Nanking or the Romans at Carthage in the Third Punic War.
The Daily Mail referred to the incident as "the town that never woke up."
The Syrian belligerents can be divided into three categories. First is the Syrian government itself, no stranger to atrocities. Rebelling against it is one group with an equal potential for evil, the Islamicists. Kurdish forces in the northeast have seized important points. Kurds have a quasi-sovereign state in northern Iraq, but also live in Syria, Turkey, and Iran. Possibly the weakest faction is the Syrian nationalist rebels, tied by outrageous fortune to the Islamicists.
Government forces showed signs of desperation earlier this week when they attacked the Israeli held Golan Heights. Provoking a war with Israel would throw the region into chaos. Israel, so far, has remained somewhat restrained.
A group allied with the Syrian government took down the Washington Post's website last week.
The Washington Free Beacon reported a day before the attack that a joint Russian-American plan to create a transitional government has not taken the first necessary steps.
Meanwhile in Egypt, as was reported yesterday by Kirby Wilbur on the Sean Hannity Show, Muslim Brotherhood thugs, ousted by the military, have taken their rage out on the Coptic Christian community.
American influence since World War II has not brought complete peace, but has kept the lid on conflicts that could have erupted without its presence. US troops have occasionally played a role, as in Lebanon under Eisenhower and Reagan. This also, of course, includes the Iraq wars. But usually US aims are realized through the dispensation of aid and realpolitik style maneuvering.
Some of these conflicts, such as the rise of the Islamofascist thug group, Muslim Brotherhood, have steadily percolated for years. The Brotherhood aligned with the Nazis before and during World War II to try and destabilize British authority in the Middle East. Ever since, they have worked to undermine secular rule in Egypt to establish an Iran or Taliban style state there.
The full realization of their plans would put a hostile power in control of the vital Suez Canal who also would attack Israel.
Part of the problem lies at the feet of Barack Obama. Nearly every president since Harry Truman has based American Middle East policy on certain foundations. First was support of Israel. Second, America must protect, or support the protection of, strategic interests. These include safe ocean passage through the Suez, Straits of Hormuz, etc., oil reserves, and important points.
The United States also worked to prevent the rise of malefactors in the Middle East, but also lived with anti-democratic forces willing to go along with the game plan. For example, Qaddafi was an enemy when he sponsored terrorism. When he renounced weapons of mass destruction, he became at least tolerable and a possible example of a "reformed" dictator. Not the best case scenario, but an improvement.
Supporting "democracy" in the Middle East is problematic. Islamofascists, like the German Nazis and Communists before, advocate "democracy" so that they can come to power and annihilate it. The best case scenario for Germany in the mid 1930s would have been a military coup and purge of Hitler's followers and Communists, followed by a restoration of the Kaiser. Those rebelling against authoritarianism today often only plan to establish bloody totalitarianism tomorrow.
Previous presidents understood this. Obama does not.
American policy in the region has no chance of restoration under Obama. His aimless diplomacy, coupled with two poorly performing secretaries of state, inspire no respect. Middle Easterners did not always like Obama's predecessor, but they respected his strength and ability to act. Obama has effectively destroyed that perception and replaced it with weakness.
Drifting away from Israel has also made war more likely, not less.
Even though energy self-sufficiency will de-emphasize the Middle East's importance somewhat, it still breeds hate and terror. America must have a policy that starts with a perception of strength based on the reality of action. Doing anything else increases the chance of war and/or terror attacks.
Nerve gas wafted through the streets and homes. By the time it dissipated, it killed 1,300 just as effectively as the Japanese at Nanking or the Romans at Carthage in the Third Punic War.
The Daily Mail referred to the incident as "the town that never woke up."
The Syrian belligerents can be divided into three categories. First is the Syrian government itself, no stranger to atrocities. Rebelling against it is one group with an equal potential for evil, the Islamicists. Kurdish forces in the northeast have seized important points. Kurds have a quasi-sovereign state in northern Iraq, but also live in Syria, Turkey, and Iran. Possibly the weakest faction is the Syrian nationalist rebels, tied by outrageous fortune to the Islamicists.
Government forces showed signs of desperation earlier this week when they attacked the Israeli held Golan Heights. Provoking a war with Israel would throw the region into chaos. Israel, so far, has remained somewhat restrained.
A group allied with the Syrian government took down the Washington Post's website last week.
The Washington Free Beacon reported a day before the attack that a joint Russian-American plan to create a transitional government has not taken the first necessary steps.
Meanwhile in Egypt, as was reported yesterday by Kirby Wilbur on the Sean Hannity Show, Muslim Brotherhood thugs, ousted by the military, have taken their rage out on the Coptic Christian community.
American influence since World War II has not brought complete peace, but has kept the lid on conflicts that could have erupted without its presence. US troops have occasionally played a role, as in Lebanon under Eisenhower and Reagan. This also, of course, includes the Iraq wars. But usually US aims are realized through the dispensation of aid and realpolitik style maneuvering.
Some of these conflicts, such as the rise of the Islamofascist thug group, Muslim Brotherhood, have steadily percolated for years. The Brotherhood aligned with the Nazis before and during World War II to try and destabilize British authority in the Middle East. Ever since, they have worked to undermine secular rule in Egypt to establish an Iran or Taliban style state there.
The full realization of their plans would put a hostile power in control of the vital Suez Canal who also would attack Israel.
Part of the problem lies at the feet of Barack Obama. Nearly every president since Harry Truman has based American Middle East policy on certain foundations. First was support of Israel. Second, America must protect, or support the protection of, strategic interests. These include safe ocean passage through the Suez, Straits of Hormuz, etc., oil reserves, and important points.
The United States also worked to prevent the rise of malefactors in the Middle East, but also lived with anti-democratic forces willing to go along with the game plan. For example, Qaddafi was an enemy when he sponsored terrorism. When he renounced weapons of mass destruction, he became at least tolerable and a possible example of a "reformed" dictator. Not the best case scenario, but an improvement.
Supporting "democracy" in the Middle East is problematic. Islamofascists, like the German Nazis and Communists before, advocate "democracy" so that they can come to power and annihilate it. The best case scenario for Germany in the mid 1930s would have been a military coup and purge of Hitler's followers and Communists, followed by a restoration of the Kaiser. Those rebelling against authoritarianism today often only plan to establish bloody totalitarianism tomorrow.
Previous presidents understood this. Obama does not.
American policy in the region has no chance of restoration under Obama. His aimless diplomacy, coupled with two poorly performing secretaries of state, inspire no respect. Middle Easterners did not always like Obama's predecessor, but they respected his strength and ability to act. Obama has effectively destroyed that perception and replaced it with weakness.
Drifting away from Israel has also made war more likely, not less.
Even though energy self-sufficiency will de-emphasize the Middle East's importance somewhat, it still breeds hate and terror. America must have a policy that starts with a perception of strength based on the reality of action. Doing anything else increases the chance of war and/or terror attacks.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Obama, Dick, and Andy: "I Wanna Talk About Me"
About a year ago, Barack Obama caused a personal pronoun stir when CNSNews.com reported that he used the first person pronouns "I" and "me" a combined total of 117 times in a single speech. But, however, Obama is far from alone in "wanting to talk about me."
About a year and six weeks before the oft reported July 2012 speech, blogger Marc Cenedella reported an analysis of Obama speeches given at CIA headquarters compared with several of his predecessors. Since 1968, Presidents Carter, Reagan, and George W. Bush referred to themselves the least often. George H. W. Bush gets a pass for a slightly higher level because he once was CIA chief, which would lead to more first person mentions.
By far, the three highest levels of use came from Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. Clinton's high use shrinks when Cenedella factors in the length of the addresses. The famously loquacious Clinton drops down to Bushian levels of first person pronoun use while Obama and Nixon remain higher than the rest.
In his 1960 work Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction, famed American historian Eric McKitrick examined another president persistent in his employment of first person pronouns.
About Johnson, he wrote :
For a public man, he was obsessed with himself to a degree that exceeded the normal, and most of his speeches, no matter what else they dealt with, may be read as demands for personal vindication and personal approval.
McKitrick also concluded that Johnson preferred general rules to concrete thinking "in order that (his mind) might once more close itself and be at rest."
Johnson, at his worst, often evoked images of crucifixion and Judah Iscariot-like betrayal in reference to himself and his enemies. This worked in the East Tennessee hills where the poor felt just as nailed to a cross by their betters as he did. But it fell short of the expectations that the national public had for the demeanor of their president.
McKitrick compared the inferiority complex of Johnson to the confidence of Lincoln. About the 16th president, he said his "'humility' was sustained by the odd arrogance of a superior man's self-knowledge." Interestingly, this also describes President Reagan and both chief executives of the Bush family.
Nixon's public speaking patterns mimicked McKitrick's evaluation of Johnson, especially early. Journalist Theodore White remembered almost a decade later that in 1960, Nixon's "common utterances all too frequently a mixture of pathetic self-pity and petulant distemper." Aide Robert Finch told White in 1968 that Nixon" doesn't want to be loved. He's not looking for adulation the way he used to." But that campaign evaluation looks more like Nixon covering than transforming his nature.
The three presidents all share in common some attributes. All three worked to expand the authority of the executive branch. None of them could work and play well with anyone except their closest trusted associates. All three had fatal flaws that kept them from functioning comfortably in the role chosen for them by the public. Nixon enjoyed the most success, but of course unraveled his legacy by covering criminal activities. Obama and Nixon both preferred layers of secrecy to public examination of their administration's doings. Conversely, Johnson was perhaps too open about his exact feelings for proposals and personalities.
Of the three, Johnson was far and away the best speaker. He could address a crowd extemporaneously for hours. Sure, the crowds sometimes despised him after his efforts, but Johnson could never leave an audience cold. Obama reads well from a teleprompter, but may be one of the worst presidential speakers if the ability to speak and respond without notes is factored.
Will Obama's presidency end in scandal and/or disgrace as Johnson and Nixon's did? It certainly has achieved no success that has been of any value to the people. And history's remembrance of Johnson certainly has found echoes in Obama.
History will illuminate more of Obama as years and decades pass, but he has shown enough over the past several years that some conclusions are inescapable.
The most important of these is that Obama has been consistently a much smaller man than the American presidency demands.
About a year and six weeks before the oft reported July 2012 speech, blogger Marc Cenedella reported an analysis of Obama speeches given at CIA headquarters compared with several of his predecessors. Since 1968, Presidents Carter, Reagan, and George W. Bush referred to themselves the least often. George H. W. Bush gets a pass for a slightly higher level because he once was CIA chief, which would lead to more first person mentions.
By far, the three highest levels of use came from Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. Clinton's high use shrinks when Cenedella factors in the length of the addresses. The famously loquacious Clinton drops down to Bushian levels of first person pronoun use while Obama and Nixon remain higher than the rest.
In his 1960 work Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction, famed American historian Eric McKitrick examined another president persistent in his employment of first person pronouns.
About Johnson, he wrote :
For a public man, he was obsessed with himself to a degree that exceeded the normal, and most of his speeches, no matter what else they dealt with, may be read as demands for personal vindication and personal approval.
McKitrick also concluded that Johnson preferred general rules to concrete thinking "in order that (his mind) might once more close itself and be at rest."
Johnson, at his worst, often evoked images of crucifixion and Judah Iscariot-like betrayal in reference to himself and his enemies. This worked in the East Tennessee hills where the poor felt just as nailed to a cross by their betters as he did. But it fell short of the expectations that the national public had for the demeanor of their president.
McKitrick compared the inferiority complex of Johnson to the confidence of Lincoln. About the 16th president, he said his "'humility' was sustained by the odd arrogance of a superior man's self-knowledge." Interestingly, this also describes President Reagan and both chief executives of the Bush family.
Nixon's public speaking patterns mimicked McKitrick's evaluation of Johnson, especially early. Journalist Theodore White remembered almost a decade later that in 1960, Nixon's "common utterances all too frequently a mixture of pathetic self-pity and petulant distemper." Aide Robert Finch told White in 1968 that Nixon" doesn't want to be loved. He's not looking for adulation the way he used to." But that campaign evaluation looks more like Nixon covering than transforming his nature.
The three presidents all share in common some attributes. All three worked to expand the authority of the executive branch. None of them could work and play well with anyone except their closest trusted associates. All three had fatal flaws that kept them from functioning comfortably in the role chosen for them by the public. Nixon enjoyed the most success, but of course unraveled his legacy by covering criminal activities. Obama and Nixon both preferred layers of secrecy to public examination of their administration's doings. Conversely, Johnson was perhaps too open about his exact feelings for proposals and personalities.
Of the three, Johnson was far and away the best speaker. He could address a crowd extemporaneously for hours. Sure, the crowds sometimes despised him after his efforts, but Johnson could never leave an audience cold. Obama reads well from a teleprompter, but may be one of the worst presidential speakers if the ability to speak and respond without notes is factored.
Will Obama's presidency end in scandal and/or disgrace as Johnson and Nixon's did? It certainly has achieved no success that has been of any value to the people. And history's remembrance of Johnson certainly has found echoes in Obama.
History will illuminate more of Obama as years and decades pass, but he has shown enough over the past several years that some conclusions are inescapable.
The most important of these is that Obama has been consistently a much smaller man than the American presidency demands.
Department of Transportation Shut Down 34 Bus and Trucking Firms In 2013
Last week, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration shut down The People's Choice.
According to a press release, officials found that the Hardeeville, South Carolina based bus company "failed to properly inspect, repair, or maintain" its fleet of vehicles. According to the FMCSA, it also failed to adhere to regulations limiting drivers' time on the road, dispatched "unqualified drivers," and did take enough steps to prevent possible substance abuse of those operating the buses.
The People's Choice is the 18th company shut down by the administration since the deployment of 50 "Operation Quick Strike" inspectors last April. This is part of a more aggressive strategy under Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.
New regulations include the decrease of allowed weekly driving hours from 82 to 70. The administration estimates that this will save 19 lives and prevent 1,400 accidents per year. Drivers are also required to take scheduled breaks and limit their daily hours.
Interestingly enough, however, the new regulations specifically exempt all government drivers, including those driving school buses. That includes those transporting students across state lines to athletic and other events.
The FMCSA states that the ultimate goal is to fight and reduce chronic driver fatigue.
According to a press release, officials found that the Hardeeville, South Carolina based bus company "failed to properly inspect, repair, or maintain" its fleet of vehicles. According to the FMCSA, it also failed to adhere to regulations limiting drivers' time on the road, dispatched "unqualified drivers," and did take enough steps to prevent possible substance abuse of those operating the buses.
The People's Choice is the 18th company shut down by the administration since the deployment of 50 "Operation Quick Strike" inspectors last April. This is part of a more aggressive strategy under Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.
New regulations include the decrease of allowed weekly driving hours from 82 to 70. The administration estimates that this will save 19 lives and prevent 1,400 accidents per year. Drivers are also required to take scheduled breaks and limit their daily hours.
Interestingly enough, however, the new regulations specifically exempt all government drivers, including those driving school buses. That includes those transporting students across state lines to athletic and other events.
The FMCSA states that the ultimate goal is to fight and reduce chronic driver fatigue.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Cato Institute Study Details Rise in West Virginia and Some Other States' Welfare Payouts
This week, Cato Institute released its 2013 version of "The Work Versus Welfare Tradeoff." This study shows the growth of welfare state by state since the last time the study was undertaken almost twenty years ago.
Twenty years since the highly touted welfare reform brokered by Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress, welfare still looks like a better deal than work. Cato says that "welfare benefits continue to outpace the income that most recipients can expect to earn from an entry level job."
In over 35 states, welfare pays more than minimum wage. In 13, it equals a staggering $15 per hour or more. Cato research found that welfare recipients would prefer to work, rather than receive payouts. On the other hand, they are reluctant to apply for what opportunities are available.
Cato focused its research not only on the Temporary Aid For Needy Families, or TANF. These cash payouts tend to be relatively low. By looking at the entire spectrum of programs, Cato saw a more complete picture of welfare's costs.
The study examines the problem from many angles. For instance, Cato found that West Virginia's annual welfare benefit, after accounting for inflation between 1995 and 2012, rose by over $4,700 per year. In 2012, the full welfare package equaled $27,727 in cash.
West Virginia ranked 28th on the list. The top states and the District of Columbia paid staggering amounts, up to nearly $50,000 per year.
Not every state saw increases. Eighteen states actually saw their payouts decline, most of these in the South and West.
West Virginia wages, however, only increased by $1,900 to $24,900 between 1995 and 2012.
Cato detailed changes in the food stamp program, housing assistance, medical assistance, and other programs when forming their conclusions.
Twenty years since the highly touted welfare reform brokered by Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress, welfare still looks like a better deal than work. Cato says that "welfare benefits continue to outpace the income that most recipients can expect to earn from an entry level job."
In over 35 states, welfare pays more than minimum wage. In 13, it equals a staggering $15 per hour or more. Cato research found that welfare recipients would prefer to work, rather than receive payouts. On the other hand, they are reluctant to apply for what opportunities are available.
Cato focused its research not only on the Temporary Aid For Needy Families, or TANF. These cash payouts tend to be relatively low. By looking at the entire spectrum of programs, Cato saw a more complete picture of welfare's costs.
The study examines the problem from many angles. For instance, Cato found that West Virginia's annual welfare benefit, after accounting for inflation between 1995 and 2012, rose by over $4,700 per year. In 2012, the full welfare package equaled $27,727 in cash.
West Virginia ranked 28th on the list. The top states and the District of Columbia paid staggering amounts, up to nearly $50,000 per year.
Not every state saw increases. Eighteen states actually saw their payouts decline, most of these in the South and West.
West Virginia wages, however, only increased by $1,900 to $24,900 between 1995 and 2012.
Cato detailed changes in the food stamp program, housing assistance, medical assistance, and other programs when forming their conclusions.
Broadband Speeds For Schools and Libraries Should Soon Improve
Many schools and libraries now report slower internet speeds than home service, despite having, on average, over 200 times more users. That should soon change.
The Federal Communication Commission's "E Rate" program provides internet service to the nation's public schools and libraries. In response to surveys showing lower speeds, acting FCC chair Mignon Clyburn announced a plan to bring service closer to the levels enjoyed by home customers.
Problems arise from both the increasing numbers of people using the service, as well as the more digitally complicated information accessed for learning.
According to BroadbandBreakfast.com:
Reforms to be implemented to the E-Rate program include the provision of affordable, high-capacity broadband for schools and libraries, the improvement of administrative efficiency and the maximization of cost-effectiveness in purchases. The agency also said it would work to improve its data collection methods in order to be able to more fairly allocate funding and phase out funding for outdated services so that more money can be allotted to investments that will increase bandwidth
Schools in rural and urban areas should expect the same types of upgrades as well.
Since E Rate was established in 1996, internet connections in schools and libraries rose from 14 percent to nearly 100 percent, according to the FCC.
The Federal Communication Commission's "E Rate" program provides internet service to the nation's public schools and libraries. In response to surveys showing lower speeds, acting FCC chair Mignon Clyburn announced a plan to bring service closer to the levels enjoyed by home customers.
Problems arise from both the increasing numbers of people using the service, as well as the more digitally complicated information accessed for learning.
According to BroadbandBreakfast.com:
Reforms to be implemented to the E-Rate program include the provision of affordable, high-capacity broadband for schools and libraries, the improvement of administrative efficiency and the maximization of cost-effectiveness in purchases. The agency also said it would work to improve its data collection methods in order to be able to more fairly allocate funding and phase out funding for outdated services so that more money can be allotted to investments that will increase bandwidth
Schools in rural and urban areas should expect the same types of upgrades as well.
Since E Rate was established in 1996, internet connections in schools and libraries rose from 14 percent to nearly 100 percent, according to the FCC.
Friday, August 16, 2013
The Sum of All Libertarian Fears: Yesterday's Mingo County Debacle
Libertarians fear few things as much as Big Government. Imagine an evil and a Libertarian could connect it to government somehow, somewhere. They echo our Founding Fathers' concern with too much power centralized into one or a few hands. Libertarians also prefer the possibility of social misbehavior to legal correction in many cases. Not because anyone wants to see people suffering from their own bad judgment, but because no human being can be trusted to exercise authority without full accountability.
Mingo County yesterday proves their case.
In yesterday's edition, two of the most egregious federal indictments to come from a long term investigation were covered, complete with links to the indictments.
If true (because we have to assume innocence until the government proves its cases), this is a prime example of arrogance in power run amok. And it confirms every fear held by Libertarians....and libertarians, for that matter.
In one case, County Commissioner David Blaisdell leans on a local company to give him special favors under threat of pulling the lucrative deal it has with the county. He wanted snow tires for his own car with the government discount. To get what he wanted, Blaisdell allegedly threatened the store owner through voice mail.
The second case describes Judge Michael Thornsbury trying to repeatedly frame an individual only identified as "RW." Thorsnbury was sleeping with RW's wife and wanted her to leave him. She would not, so the judge used every level available to him. He tried to get a Homeland Security official to plant drugs. He tried to manipulate a grand jury. He conspired with a State Trooper to harass the poor man.
Don't be tempted to pass this off as backwoods Boss Hoggism. These men are educated individuals who lost all scruples when it came to abusing power.
What is the difference between Thornsbury and former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer? Spitzer illegally abused the power of his office to gather information to benefit his own campaign.
What is the difference between Blaisdell and the federal government? They threatened telecommunications firms to gather information to use against the Associated Press. They harassed Tea Party groups with the power of the IRS.
Mingo County's malefactors played for petty stakes. And they will go to jail for their arrogance. But too many in the federal government have abused the vast power at their fingertips. We cannot be certain that the information they obtain will not be used for political ends.
None of them will go to jail.
Libertarians and many conservatives understand the connections and fear the consequences. Mingo County's problems are not isolated issues, they are part and parcel of any government given too much power and never held to account.
Mingo County yesterday proves their case.
In yesterday's edition, two of the most egregious federal indictments to come from a long term investigation were covered, complete with links to the indictments.
If true (because we have to assume innocence until the government proves its cases), this is a prime example of arrogance in power run amok. And it confirms every fear held by Libertarians....and libertarians, for that matter.
In one case, County Commissioner David Blaisdell leans on a local company to give him special favors under threat of pulling the lucrative deal it has with the county. He wanted snow tires for his own car with the government discount. To get what he wanted, Blaisdell allegedly threatened the store owner through voice mail.
The second case describes Judge Michael Thornsbury trying to repeatedly frame an individual only identified as "RW." Thorsnbury was sleeping with RW's wife and wanted her to leave him. She would not, so the judge used every level available to him. He tried to get a Homeland Security official to plant drugs. He tried to manipulate a grand jury. He conspired with a State Trooper to harass the poor man.
Don't be tempted to pass this off as backwoods Boss Hoggism. These men are educated individuals who lost all scruples when it came to abusing power.
What is the difference between Thornsbury and former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer? Spitzer illegally abused the power of his office to gather information to benefit his own campaign.
What is the difference between Blaisdell and the federal government? They threatened telecommunications firms to gather information to use against the Associated Press. They harassed Tea Party groups with the power of the IRS.
Mingo County's malefactors played for petty stakes. And they will go to jail for their arrogance. But too many in the federal government have abused the vast power at their fingertips. We cannot be certain that the information they obtain will not be used for political ends.
None of them will go to jail.
Libertarians and many conservatives understand the connections and fear the consequences. Mingo County's problems are not isolated issues, they are part and parcel of any government given too much power and never held to account.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
The Night That the Lights Went Out In Mingo
It seemingly never ends. The tales of Mingo County corruption grow more absurd with each passing generation.
This morning, Mingo County Commissioner David Blaisden was indicted and arrested on federal charges. (Indictment)
What did he do? The Mingo County Commission had a contract to purchase tires from a local shop at a discounted rate. Blaisdell allegedly (and one uses that word loosely since he allegedly left a voice mail that was allegedly kept by the alleged victim) threatened to cut off the contract if he refused to sell discounted tires for Blaisdell's personal vehicle.
That was a prime example of ridiculous penny ante corruption mixed with an unhealthy dose of hubris.
Even worse was the indictment that followed against Circuit Judge Michael Thornsbury on unrelated charges.
Judge Thornsbury (Indictment) tried to convince the local Homeland Security officer to plant drugs in the truck of a local man identified only as RW (if on Twitter, check out #StandWithRW) RW happened to be the husband of Thornsbury's secretary. By now it's easy to guess that the judge and his secretary were having a affair.
When the drug planting scheme failed, Thornsbury tried to pack a grand jury to indict RW on grand larceny. RW was to be accused of grand larceny in the case of scrap drill bits, which a company had allowed him to salvage for free.
Needless to say, they are all Democrats.
Update: According to Hoppy Kercheval, a West Virginia State Trooper was involved in attempts to harass the unfortunate RW.
This morning, Mingo County Commissioner David Blaisden was indicted and arrested on federal charges. (Indictment)
What did he do? The Mingo County Commission had a contract to purchase tires from a local shop at a discounted rate. Blaisdell allegedly (and one uses that word loosely since he allegedly left a voice mail that was allegedly kept by the alleged victim) threatened to cut off the contract if he refused to sell discounted tires for Blaisdell's personal vehicle.
That was a prime example of ridiculous penny ante corruption mixed with an unhealthy dose of hubris.
Even worse was the indictment that followed against Circuit Judge Michael Thornsbury on unrelated charges.
Judge Thornsbury (Indictment) tried to convince the local Homeland Security officer to plant drugs in the truck of a local man identified only as RW (if on Twitter, check out #StandWithRW) RW happened to be the husband of Thornsbury's secretary. By now it's easy to guess that the judge and his secretary were having a affair.
When the drug planting scheme failed, Thornsbury tried to pack a grand jury to indict RW on grand larceny. RW was to be accused of grand larceny in the case of scrap drill bits, which a company had allowed him to salvage for free.
Needless to say, they are all Democrats.
Update: According to Hoppy Kercheval, a West Virginia State Trooper was involved in attempts to harass the unfortunate RW.
How to Fight the Cyber Wars
Over the past few years, the United States has suffered countless cyberattacks. Some disable government agency sites, others shut down bank websites, ATMs, and other services. Others try to steal personal information that can be used for all kinds of fraud. And still other attackers simply want to cause mischief. For example, today the Assad backing "Syrian Electronic Army" shut down the Washington Post.
Business shells out a fortune to deal with cyberattacks, over $388 billion in 2011. And the expanding problems that come with it will increase as well. At some point, some system will shut down that is not just a nuisance for a business' customers, or readers of an online paper.
Some experts believe that pretty soon, people will die. McAfee Labs experts told CNN last January that nation-states will increasingly sponsor and suffer from cyberwarfare. And at some point, people will actually die as a result. That could push the online cold war into a hot phase fairly quickly.
China, Syria, Iran, among others are suspected of launching attacks. And the United States and Israel have initiated skirmishes of their own. According to an Associated Press account from last spring, the Pentagon has assembled 13 separate teams to battle the threat.
Tangential thinking....
I am wondering if the 13 different Defense Department created teams are capable on their own of engaging in this kind of warfare. Obviously they should be a part of it, especially because experts predict that military forces themselves will be targets.
But here's an idea. Bring back the Office of Strategic Services.
The OSS is the precursor of today's CIA. It wasn't the father or the grandfather as much as the crazy uncle of today's buttoned down intelligence bureaucracy. The OSS was established by Franklin Roosevelt in the early stage of World War II. He appointed noted Republican, William "Wild Bill" Donovan, who would eventually earn the rank of general.
Donovan believed in hiring the most talented people possible, regardless of background. He also never saw an idea not worth looking into. Famous playwrights and chefs served in the OSS, including Julia Child. Some ideas were simply awful, such as assembling a collection of German pornography to drop on the Reichschancellory in hopes of driving Hitler insane. Army Air Force chiefs responded that they preferred to bomb the place and kill the Fuehrer, if possible.
On the other hand, the OSS built up guerrilla movements (okay, one of them was Ho Chih Minh), undermined Vichy French control of North Africa, established contact with the head of German military intelligence, and did a fairly credible job. After all, they did start from scratch.
The OSS was famous, or infamous, for a freewheeling style. It was the home of the "so crazy it just might work" mode of operation. James Bond, with his panache and gadgetry, resembled more the agent of OSS than the MI 6 of today.
It would not work to bring back the OSS for its tangible world work in intelligence gathering and operations. We actually have too many different bureaus and organizations scrounging around. A new OSS would scour the country for top talent and channel it towards cyberwarfare, both defense and attack.
A new organization is necessary because it needs an organizational culture all its own. It may need to recruit individuals who have had parking tickets, are less than physically fit, may have consumed drygs at some point, etc. America's cyberenemies come from regimented and strictly authoritarian systems. The best way to drive them cyber crazy is to gather a freewheeling group together to foil it.
This means foiling attacks and launching our own. Find creative ways to apply Sun Tzu to the online world.
Not that previous efforts by the US been without effectiveness or creativity. When a virus shut down Iranian nuclear computers to the tune of AC/DC's "Thunderstruck," that was a nice touch.
Anyway, cyberwarfare is real and it is a growing threat. It is only a matter of time before the cyber version of Pearl Harbor strikes, People will get hurt or killed. We must be ready to attack, defend, or quickly rebuild. And have the flexibility to innovate on the fly.
Business shells out a fortune to deal with cyberattacks, over $388 billion in 2011. And the expanding problems that come with it will increase as well. At some point, some system will shut down that is not just a nuisance for a business' customers, or readers of an online paper.
Some experts believe that pretty soon, people will die. McAfee Labs experts told CNN last January that nation-states will increasingly sponsor and suffer from cyberwarfare. And at some point, people will actually die as a result. That could push the online cold war into a hot phase fairly quickly.
China, Syria, Iran, among others are suspected of launching attacks. And the United States and Israel have initiated skirmishes of their own. According to an Associated Press account from last spring, the Pentagon has assembled 13 separate teams to battle the threat.
Tangential thinking....
I am wondering if the 13 different Defense Department created teams are capable on their own of engaging in this kind of warfare. Obviously they should be a part of it, especially because experts predict that military forces themselves will be targets.
But here's an idea. Bring back the Office of Strategic Services.
The OSS is the precursor of today's CIA. It wasn't the father or the grandfather as much as the crazy uncle of today's buttoned down intelligence bureaucracy. The OSS was established by Franklin Roosevelt in the early stage of World War II. He appointed noted Republican, William "Wild Bill" Donovan, who would eventually earn the rank of general.
Donovan believed in hiring the most talented people possible, regardless of background. He also never saw an idea not worth looking into. Famous playwrights and chefs served in the OSS, including Julia Child. Some ideas were simply awful, such as assembling a collection of German pornography to drop on the Reichschancellory in hopes of driving Hitler insane. Army Air Force chiefs responded that they preferred to bomb the place and kill the Fuehrer, if possible.
On the other hand, the OSS built up guerrilla movements (okay, one of them was Ho Chih Minh), undermined Vichy French control of North Africa, established contact with the head of German military intelligence, and did a fairly credible job. After all, they did start from scratch.
The OSS was famous, or infamous, for a freewheeling style. It was the home of the "so crazy it just might work" mode of operation. James Bond, with his panache and gadgetry, resembled more the agent of OSS than the MI 6 of today.
It would not work to bring back the OSS for its tangible world work in intelligence gathering and operations. We actually have too many different bureaus and organizations scrounging around. A new OSS would scour the country for top talent and channel it towards cyberwarfare, both defense and attack.
A new organization is necessary because it needs an organizational culture all its own. It may need to recruit individuals who have had parking tickets, are less than physically fit, may have consumed drygs at some point, etc. America's cyberenemies come from regimented and strictly authoritarian systems. The best way to drive them cyber crazy is to gather a freewheeling group together to foil it.
This means foiling attacks and launching our own. Find creative ways to apply Sun Tzu to the online world.
Not that previous efforts by the US been without effectiveness or creativity. When a virus shut down Iranian nuclear computers to the tune of AC/DC's "Thunderstruck," that was a nice touch.
Anyway, cyberwarfare is real and it is a growing threat. It is only a matter of time before the cyber version of Pearl Harbor strikes, People will get hurt or killed. We must be ready to attack, defend, or quickly rebuild. And have the flexibility to innovate on the fly.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Baltimore Cop Saves Pooch From Ruffians, Breed Specific Legislation Called Into Question
Recently, Baltimore police officer Dan Waskiewicz responded to a vicious dog call. Many of these go unreported in the media and usually end up in the capture of killing of the dog. The officer did not find viciousness in the dog so much as the ruffian children chasing it down the street, pelting it with rocks and bottles.
Baltimore's CBS affiliate reported that Officer Waskiewicz called the dog over. He meekly responded with his tail between his legs. When the policeman bent over to examine him further, the dog responded with kisses.
Waskiewicz put the dog into his squad care where he received more thankful kisses. A spokesman for the Baltimore Humane Society praised the officer's "astute response," adding that he certainly saved a dog's life.
The catch here is that the rescued dog inspires reactive fear at the mere mention of the type or the sight of its bricklike head. Waskiewicz saved the life of an American Pit Bull.
Pit bulls are often targeted by "breed specific legislation" referring to statutes aimed at curbing the ownership and breeding of certain types of dogs deemed dangerous. Two years ago, Waukesha, Wisconsin considered banning pit bulls except for commercial uses. These would include owning them as guard dogs in junk yards.
Last April, Bluefield, West Virginia and its surrounding county of Mercer battled over the breed ban. Bluefield banned pit bulls within city limits and ordered the dogs to be taken to the county animal shelter. Mercer County refused to prevent owners from reclaiming their animals, saying that they "we're not on the dog containment business." The mayor threatened to take the county to court, despite the absence of a state or countywide ban.
Organizations such as Pit Bull Rescue Central claim that the fear stems from hysteria and misinformation. Pit bulls were bred to withstand violent attacks in dogfighting competitions. Breed advocates claim, however, that they are no more inherently violent by nature than many other types of dogs. They emphasize that responsibility for dog behavior lies with owners and how animals are trained and treated.
Another problem is that "pit bulls" are actually not a specific breed, but a group of breeds with similar characteristics. They include the American Staffordshire Terrier. This means that authorities often cannot identify what is and is not actually a pit bull. One city's breed specific legislation was written so poorly that the councilman who proposed the ban saw his own labrador retriever seized.
Officer Waskiewicz's experience does raise questions about breed specific laws aimed at pit bulls. An inherently violent animal in a terrifying experience usually wouldn't react with meekness in that situation. Certainly bad owners make bad dogs. But increasingly, education and awareness have caused many to question blanket laws banning certain breeds
Baltimore's CBS affiliate reported that Officer Waskiewicz called the dog over. He meekly responded with his tail between his legs. When the policeman bent over to examine him further, the dog responded with kisses.
Waskiewicz put the dog into his squad care where he received more thankful kisses. A spokesman for the Baltimore Humane Society praised the officer's "astute response," adding that he certainly saved a dog's life.
The catch here is that the rescued dog inspires reactive fear at the mere mention of the type or the sight of its bricklike head. Waskiewicz saved the life of an American Pit Bull.
Pit bulls are often targeted by "breed specific legislation" referring to statutes aimed at curbing the ownership and breeding of certain types of dogs deemed dangerous. Two years ago, Waukesha, Wisconsin considered banning pit bulls except for commercial uses. These would include owning them as guard dogs in junk yards.
Last April, Bluefield, West Virginia and its surrounding county of Mercer battled over the breed ban. Bluefield banned pit bulls within city limits and ordered the dogs to be taken to the county animal shelter. Mercer County refused to prevent owners from reclaiming their animals, saying that they "we're not on the dog containment business." The mayor threatened to take the county to court, despite the absence of a state or countywide ban.
Organizations such as Pit Bull Rescue Central claim that the fear stems from hysteria and misinformation. Pit bulls were bred to withstand violent attacks in dogfighting competitions. Breed advocates claim, however, that they are no more inherently violent by nature than many other types of dogs. They emphasize that responsibility for dog behavior lies with owners and how animals are trained and treated.
Another problem is that "pit bulls" are actually not a specific breed, but a group of breeds with similar characteristics. They include the American Staffordshire Terrier. This means that authorities often cannot identify what is and is not actually a pit bull. One city's breed specific legislation was written so poorly that the councilman who proposed the ban saw his own labrador retriever seized.
Officer Waskiewicz's experience does raise questions about breed specific laws aimed at pit bulls. An inherently violent animal in a terrifying experience usually wouldn't react with meekness in that situation. Certainly bad owners make bad dogs. But increasingly, education and awareness have caused many to question blanket laws banning certain breeds
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)