(Almost) 149th Anniversary of McNeill's Rangers' Raid on Cumberland (Story Told in Pictures!)

Sometimes things happen in war that are so gutsy that people on all sides tip their hat.

One such event was McNeill's Rangers' raid on Cumberland, one of the most daring of its kind in American military history.

By winter of 1865, the Confederacy was about to throw in the towel.  Ulysses S. Grant's army slowly constricted around Robert E. Lee at Petersburg.  But a number of Confederate groups remained free.

Like the partisan ranger unit commanded by Lieutenant Jesse McNeill

This unit specialized in causing mischief around Hampshire and Hardy counties.  Lee had one general order, though.  Go steal a lot of these as much as possible.

But in February of 1865, Jesse and his compadres had a different idea.  Pull a crazy stunt that would resound in the annals of war.  Kidnap three of the enemy's general officers.

They moved north from their bases near Moorefield, crossed the shallow and not very broad Potomac and went into the Maryland city of Cumberland

In Cumberland they aimed to kidnap three generals.  Two were staying at a swank hotel in town.

They got captured.

The third believed in sharing the privations of his troops, even in the bitter cold of a mountain winter.  He smartly slept in a freezing tent surrounded by thousands of freezing soldiers.  Safe and sound.

Maybe that's why Rutherford B. Hayes ended up president!

The other two ended up captured.

One was this man

He looked just as perturbed the whole time he was in captivity.  Brigadier General Benjamin Kelley was not a man who enjoyed a good prank.  Maybe because a wound he suffered early in the war never healed and ended up incapacitating him in the 1870s.

The other was this feller

US Army historians consider George Crook to be one of the best small war commanders in American military history.  He knew how to wage war in mountains, hollows, forests, and remote lands.  Crook treated enemies, both Confederate and Indian, fairly, but always fought hard.

Crook delighted his captors by congratulating them on a job well done and joining their gentle mocking of the scowling Kelley.

Getting the generals out was no easy task.  Mountain winters look like this

Although the capture was a humiliation for the Union, especially General Kelley, it produced no lasting effect.  It did not get Grant away from Richmond and it did not net Lee anymore beef.

But it did leave lasting memories of daring and bravado remembered in the Potomac Highlands down to today.

West Va. Governor Earl Ray Tomblin and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio: Symbols of Division

http://www.wvva.com/story/24400444/2014/01/08/transcript-of-gov-tomblins-state-of-the-state-address

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/nyregion/complete-text-of-bill-de-blasios-inauguration-speech.html?_r=0

Above are links to the State of the State Address of Governor Earl Ray Tomblin of West Virginia and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City.  Read the two addresses.  They seem to come from men of different countries, cultures, and traditions.  Hard to believe that these come from men of the same political party in similar roles, in the same country.

Governor Tomblin proudly touted a record of avoiding tax increases, holding the line on spending, and building up a near $1 billion rainy day fund.  He noted the soon to be developed factories in the state that would create coal and natural gas by products.  Tomblin promised to hold schools accountable and promised modest raises for teachers.  Shout outs to veterans and the Boy Scouts of America punctuated his relatively short talk that was built around gardening metaphors.

Bill de Blasio comes from the wing of the Democratic Party that thinks the EPA had better monitor one's gardening.  He praises Sandinistas, not fiscal conservatism.  He fights to gobble up more wealth from the most heavily taxed producers in the nation.  He picks fights with horse drawn carriages instead of teacher unions wary of school ratings.

Governor Tomblin is a relic.  He is a Democrat, there is no doubt of that.  Tomblin approved the federally encouraged expansion of Medicaid. This is expected to hit the budget hard, but his administration plans to make cuts in other areas to face the shortfall. Regulations and tort problems still bedevil development, but Tomblin's wing of the state party understands that social programs need a productive private sector to function.

He also comes from the old school. The Mingo County politics of his youth functioned a lot like the old Tammany and Daley metropolitan machines.  They directly rewarded those who supported them, usually illegally.  But they also understood the common man.  They knew he needed cheap food, cheap energy, decent housing, and a decent job.  And that a good economy could make that happen. Old time Democrats had a lot of flaws, but they believed in their country and in many institutions, like the Boy Scouts, that helped to make it great.  Tomblin is not corrupt, but he does still embrace a pragmatic approach. Cato in 2011 gave him the same rating as the GOP governor of Virginia for fiscal responsibility.

Contrasts between Tomblin and de Blasio illustrate how much the national Democratic Party has changed.  It moved in the direction of federal control over not only state and business, but also individual life decisions. They rely on bureaucrats, lawyers, and businesses that benefit from the Byzantine system of regulations and controls.  They have an idea of the way it ought to be, and that way leads to the regimentation of the daily lives of everyone along certain lines.  To keep us from self-inflicted wounds, or what they would perceive to be wounds.

Has the Republican Party changed? Certainly.  It abandoned unquestioning support of big business.  It now has a robust discussion within its ranks about pot legalization and gay marriage.  It has embraced more tightly than so-called liberals the basic philosophy of the Earl Warren Court that it once hated and feared (conservative publications have made a cottage industry out of reporting police abuses.) The party of small government in the past seven years has worked to make itself more consistent.  And on almost every issue it has moved more toward the freedom of the individual rather than diminishing liberty.

Looking at the addresses of the two Democrats, considering the drift of both parties, it is clear that a broad divide exists in the United States.  We are a house divided again between liberty and control.  We have two cultures that have no common foundation, and, at risk of being overly repetitive, these divides even exist within the Democratic Party itself!

Even in West Virginia, Democrats like Tomblin are a dying breed.  Moderate and pragmatic Democratic voters abandon the party for independence or the GOP.  Tearing oneself away from family and community traditions is hard, but so is stomaching what national Democrats have done to jobs and industry in the state.  Eventually a left wing rump will remain after the defections are over.  It will be more loud and shrill, but less effective in influencing the state.

Perhaps the disastrous Obamacare rollout will enable what is left of the Democratic moderates to regain control. Or it may drive them to more extreme dreams of control. Only time will tell

Ford Introduces the Future

Ford today unveiled a glimpse at the future of automobiles and the power that might get us from point A to point B.

Its latest concept car, described in Christian Science Monitor, features breakthrough hybrid technology combining batteries, a gasoline engine, and solar power.  The difference between Ford and other automakers is that this car carries the panels in its roof.

Engineers have to tackle the problem of cramming enough solar cells into the roof of the car to make it go.  They bolstered its capabilities by putting a concave plastic cover over the cells.  This acts as a lens to concentrate solar energy into the cells.

It takes seven hours to fully charge in sunlight, but can also be plugged in conventionally.  During optimal conditions, 75 percent of its power could come from the sun.

Solar panels should grow more efficient as technology advances. Paradoxically, all that stands in the way of progress is government support.  Subsidies encourage the status quo, which currently means solar panels that are not economically feasible in most situations.  They are either too expensive, or not efficient enough.  Market pressures would encourage more developments that could make them more prevalent in business, home, or automobile use.

Solar power is one of the few renewable energy sources that has a lot of promise.  If we can only refrain from giving it too much help, it could eventually fulfill the potential predicted of it.

Very Sobering Thought As We Embark on a New Year

Consider the situation as the 14th year opens in the new century.

The US economy is still recovering from a financial disaster in the previous decade.  It is also experimenting with new institutions that expand government control over the economy.

International terrorism struck hard at the United States early in the new century and also hit multiple European states.

The world's power structure has shifted powerfully in a short period of time.  Just a few years prior, a hegemonic power benevolently monitored the world.  It interfered imperfectly at times, but worked hard to maintain a balance between promoting world stability and self-interest.  It faced strong competition from rising powers across the globe, both economically and militarily.  Despite this, it has reoriented its military to confront low intensity conflicts on the periphery, rather than a mass war of nations.

Germany, poised to assume a much more powerful position on the European continent.  Russian expansion into Eastern Europe raises questions about the nature of its imperialism.  Terrorists, however, threaten to destabilize the country despite its attempts to grow into a respected nation militarily and economically.

Japan is once again restive and finds itself in confrontation with Far Eastern neighbors.

Technological advances have revolutionized ways of life and raised standards of living at an astonishing pace over the previous generation.

Although tensions abound throughout the world, few see any danger of a major war in the near future.

The year?  1914.  Seven months into the year came the most destructive war in history in terms of immediate and future impact.  It not only killed millions and consumed untallyable resources, it also served as the midwife of Soviet Communism and National Socialism.  These movements massacred tens of millions of innocents in their own right.

Czars, Kaisers (technically they are the same word), kings, presidents, prime ministers, and chancellors could not fathom the impact of the summer spiral that sucked in all the worlds' Great Powers eventually. Only the United States and Japan came through relatively unscathed.  America expanded its economy and decided in 1920 to abandon internationalism and "return to normalcy."  Japan added German colonies to its slowly growing empire. Meanwhile:

Russia descended into a horrific civil war that brought the murderous Bolsheviks to power.  They eventually murdered over 30 million of their own people under Lenin and Stalin.

Germany lost its ruling family, tried a democracy, and tumbled into Nazi totalitarianism.

France withstood the hell of a war of attrition on its own territory, killing millions of young men and destroying the northern part of the country.

Britain suffered more casualties per capita than any nation.  Its shell shock kept it from rising in time to meet the challenge from Hitler.

Italian chaos invited Mussolini's fascists.

Austria-Hungary disintegrated entirely.

It was not just Russia, Germany, and other countries that revolutionized in a span of five years, it was the world.  World War I brought the United States to the forefront, but also unleashed great evils.

Be prepared for an onslaught of World War I reflection and revision.  Niall Fergusson about a decade ago argued that Britain fought on the wrong side, that it should have stood beside the Germans to maintain the traditional balance of power in Europe.  This comes from the benefit of hindsight that tells us Russian population and resources wedded to ideology produced a powerful and long lasting threat to the continent.  Britain rarely exercised great judgment in its reactions to events and never attempted foresight.  Many spoke of the rise of Russia and America, but few pondered when or how that might happen.

Others will accept the immediate postwar analysis that the war sprung from some sort of madness of civilization.  At first glance, the sheer destruction and length of the war might reflect international insanity.

But that's not true.  If insanity or evil, like Hitler's drive to power, lay at the core of World War I, it could be safely consigned to history.  In reality though, World War I is much more terrifying than World War II because it resulted from each nation acting through its own logic and responding to lessons it learned from history.

Britain dominated the 19th century after the defeat of Napoleon.  For much of that time, it remained more interested in expanding its markets than its empire.  Except for three or four years of the American Civil War, it had the largest navy on earth.  Britain also dominated industrial production.  Most countries, especially the US, mildly resented British dominance.  Its world leadership, however, edged international relations toward more civility while restraining practices like piracy and slavery.

France remained hobbled by a hatred of Germany after their 1871 defeat and an unwieldy republican government that encouraged chronic domestic crises.

Germany did not exist as a nation until 1871.  Prussia plus several minor German states equaled the largest country on the continent besides Russia.  Under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, it comfortably expanded production and trade, built the most impressive army, and enjoyed its unassailability.  No one wanted to challenge the Germans and, between the 1870s and the end of Bismarck's tenure, the Germans seemed content.  The young Kaiser William II in the 1890s found Bismarck's restrained policies anachronistic.  Envious of Britain and his royal cousins there, William wanted an empire of something besides islands and deserts.  Unfortunately, he resolved on boorish aggressive moves to obtain it.

Russia and Austria-Hungary struggled to bring centuries old dynasties into the modern industrial age.  Russia had the upper hand in the era of nationalism because of its dominant ethnic population.  Austria-Hungary contended with 15 different groups, most wanting equal treatment and recognition.  Their economies could not compete with Germany, Britain, or the United States.  Their struggles led them to seek external successes to build public pride.  Unfortunately, they faced off against each other trying to build influence in the Balkans.

Japan and the United States gradually gobbled island empires and developed their own industry.  Both expanded their regional power at the expense of defeatable nations.

Italy doesn't count.

France and Britain lurched from friendship in the 1850s to frenemies in the 1870s, to near war in the 1890s, then back to friendship.  Competition for colonial lands spurred animosity between the two and war could have happened had Kaiser William not abandoned Bismarck's approach.  William's strategy of brinksmanship was designed to bully France and Britain into begging him for an accomodation.  All it did was to push them together.

German prewar policy was based on a calculation of force and pressure, not nihilism and ideology like the Nazis.  It was not particularly defensible, but it also was not too much of a departure from traditional European practice, either.

Friendships coalesced into alliances.  France and Russia concluded an ironclad pact as did Germany and Austria-Hungary.  Britain had no direct obligation to anyone except Belgium, but worked with France on joint planning.  The war started, as most know, when Russian supported Serbia was associated with a terror attack on Austria-Hungary's ruling family.  Austria-Hungary eventually attacked, drawing Russia against it.  Germany protected her ally by attacking Russia's ally France, who wanted nothing to do with the war.  But previous French animosity left Germany convinced that she had to be neutralized in any conflict with Russia.  Britain wanted nothing to do with the war, but Germany's attack plan took her through Belgium, so...

A chain of logic led to war.  If the fact that it led to such a horrible event was omitted, the decisions would not look remarkably stupid (or remarkably intelligent either!)

Does 2014 look much different?

Economic instability

Persistent international terrorism

Relative decline of a hegemonic power

Rise of states opposed to the status quo (China, Iran, among others)

China is actively challenging a neighbor with whom it has long historical emnity (as Germany did with France) Like a hundred years ago, the disputes that China is picking are silly but must receive a response.

International agreements tie powers to smaller countries.  Where North Korea goes, China may have to follow regardless of how insane it is.  Germany's only friend in 1914 was Austria-Hungary.  China's is North Korea.

Digital age technology, like the industrial revolution, has changed nations, economies, militaries, and ways of life beyond recognition to someone thirty years ago.

The US military increasingly realigns to fight in Afghanistan or some other distant and unpleasant place.  Its shrinking, but still well-equipped and highly professional force resembles Britain's "thin red line" of 1914 relative to the size and population of each nation.

The seeds of a world war are planted today.  We cannot keep ignoring international problems such as the behavior of China.  Responding to China's belligerence with more belligerence will not help, but neither will accommodation and weakness.  The United States needs to build a firm economy at home to demonstrate strength and stability.  It also needs a wise foreign policy approach to handle the Far East sensibly.

Lessons from a hundred years ago are relevant now.  War can happen if today's Great Powers blunder into it as they did then.

Working Smart and Hard For Local Development: College Educations Are Overprioritized

The Mineral County Development Authority yesterday began advertising for a new executive director.  Requirements include a bachelors' degree in business, economics, or a related field or at least seven years of related experience.  

In the past year, experts have started realizing that the priority reflected in this ad is backwards. Real world experience should count more than paper earned by sitting in a series of classrooms.  This is more true now than ever before, considering the changing priorities of higher education.

The digital age means that people can bypass the traditional four year college degree and find low cost or even free training on their own.  Want to be a reporter? The Douglas Reynolds National Center of Business Journalism offers several free webinars per year to teach newsgathering and writing.  Last summer, Business Insider published descriptions of 12 companies offering training in fast growing fields that cost much less than most four year degrees.

Higher education defenders will say that basic training courses are fine, but one needs college courses to understand the big picture of how the economy works.  Not so.  Many colleges and universities have embraced left wing economic agendas.  Positions like West Virginia University's BB&T endowed chair in free market studies are few and far between.  As higher education watchdog groups like Young America's Foundation point out, courses pushing Marxism and government control of the economy are much more common.

Want an education of how the market works?  Read Milton and Rosa Friedman's Free to Choose.  Or watch his series of videos on You Tube.  Another fine work is the 130 word A Capitalist Manifesto by Gary Wolfram.  Also very accessible is Friedrich Hayek's Road to Serfdom which explains how government can ruin an economy and devolve into tyranny from its own best intentions.  Ten videos and a few hundred pages are much cheaper and much more educational than tens of thousands spent for a four year degree.

Even more importantly, many people at a surprisingly young age learn very quickly about business and economics without ever setting foot in a college.  How?  By working in a family business or starting their own.  Nothing teaches like experience.  Investing the effort and resources, taking the risks, developing judgment, all of these are key elements in building a sound economic mind.  

Mike Rowe, famous for hosting and narrating shows like Deadliest Catch, argues against "propaganda" employed by colleges and universities to increase student populations. He says that pushing college education "worked for colleges, that's fore sure.  Enrollments soared."  But high unemployment among graduates and trillion dollar student debt show that it is not the right fit for a lot of people.  Three million jobs are there for the taking, but colleges do not prepare the young for actual work.

On a side note, it is amazing that the current presidential administration tries to make economic policy without relying on a single individual with such experience.

Experience and the right education teach that economic development revolves around a very simple principle, competitive advantage.  West Virginia economic development fails because it tries to ignore that simple truth.  Elaborate webs of regulations and licensing requirements, too many taxes and fees, and a court system stacked against business all conspire to outstrip the advantages of location, low costs, and available workforce.  Only the worse situations created by Maryland and northern Virginia counties have helped West Virginia's Eastern Panhandle grow as it has.  Their higher taxes, ridiculous zoning and environmental laws, among other things, have made their economic climate conducive mainly to government and non profits.  The private sector in Maryland, outside of the service sector near Washington, is near death.  West Virginia is only attractive in relative terms.  

But our state does not take the steps necessary to make the right changes.  We do not reform our court system.  We do not cut regulations.  We have relied too much in the past on huge tax breaks to targeted industries that usually skip town as soon as the breaks are over.  Meanwhile established businesses in the state have to shoulder their burden.

This is why when local governments advertise for economic development officials, they need to list like this: "Seven years of business experience mandatory.  Understanding of basic free market economics plus state and local business conditions necessary.  Four year degree in economics or business helpful, but not needed."

Two Very Different "Men of the Year" and How They Define Our Times

The US magazine Time and the UK newspaper the Times both selected very different men of the year for 2013.  Each reflects ascendant spirits with very different worldviews.

Time magazine chose Pope Francis.  The Times selected Russian president Vladimir Putin.

In some ways, this is amazingly Augustinian.  St. Augustine wrote of the division between the City of Man and the City of God.    Vladimir Putin has emerged as a near czar of an expanding informal Russian Empire.  He follows the early 19th century British model of using economics to influence and profit from other nations. But he also follows a very Russian path of controlling border nations to keep the homeland secure.  In this way, Third Rome very much resembles the first.

Pope Francis, known as Jorge Mario Bergoglio before March 13, has emerged as a Catholic Father for his times.  The Cold War needed, for example, the iron tough, theologically sound, and eternally compassionate Pope John Paul II.  No pope since the Middle Ages had the impact of the man Catholics and many other Christians call "John Paul the Great" (a moniker not bestowed on a Pope since the 600s.)  His leadership made the Roman Catholic Church a mighty fortress again, regaining credibility and luster after the tragic World War II years.

The 21st Century, however, challenges Christianity in a different way.  Many are lost and want to be found.  While the Church certainly will not abandon doctrine, Francis has pointedly emphasized love, forgiveness, and compassion for the vulnerable.  This may not look like power, but it works effectively in contrast.  John Paul II's expression of these sentiments helped the Polish Pope bring down the Eastern Bloc.  Francis' message will thrive in places such as Cuba, where Communism lost credibility years ago.  Or Africa where Christians face determined Islamic expansionists.  The Christian faith at its core remains the simplest and most profound way to make sense of man's place in the world.  Pope Francis, agree or disagree with the details of some of his pronouncements, is a powerful ambassador of faith.  He senses that the world is changing and seeks to adapt Catholic teaching to it without abandoning fundamental foundations of faith.

Power matters to Putin, too.  He has gradually absorbed Belarus, convincing that impoverished republic to cede sovereign right after sovereign right.  Before Christmas, he offered a bailout to corrupt and struggling Ukraine.  Historically Belarus is "White Russia," Russia proper is "Great Russia," and Ukraine is "Little Russia."  Ukraine, however, is where Russia began.  Russian nationalism craves respect and seeks to ground its actions in tradition and history.  Putin's slow moves westward reflect these old habits.

But how well grounded is that power?  Russia has relied heavily on natural gas revenues to fund its return to world prominence.  The United States, however, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon, could undermine Putin's plans.  As West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Texas sprout gas wells that rely on cheap hydrofracturing techniques, they threaten to undercut Russian dominance of this market in the Eastern Hemisphere.  In the same way that late 20th century Middle Eastern oil was cheaper for Americans to buy abroad than produce at home, so US gas undermines Russia and depresses prices in the entire gas market.

Unless Russia can diversify or convince Obama to shut off the tap, the moment in the sun carved out by Putin for Russia could be brief.

Putin's hard nosed domestic approach runs counter to Francis' preaching as well.  The Russian president is essentially conservative in the European sense (not, I repeat, not the American. Or the British, for that matter.)  European conservatives emphasize order above liberty.  They prefer control and predictability in both domestic and international affairs.  Russia particularly has feared the advance of uncontrolled social movements regardless of whether they were ruled by the czar or the Politboro.

These two men both qualify as "Man of the Year" for different reasons.  And there is no reason to think that their influence and appeal will diminish in the next 12 months.  What should be troubling for the United States is that neither figure needs to account for America in any way in terms of his ideals, values, or morality. We are no longer a major part of their conversation.  Whether one sees the US as a powerful example of a Judeo-Christian republic or a force for liberty and natural rights, the demise of America under Obama is underscored by the emergence of these men.

Michigan the Latest to Chip Away At Federal Supremacy

Last week while most continued to enjoy Christmas with family and friends, the Michigan state legislature enacted significant legislation.  It nullified part of an act of Congress.

Michigan targeted section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act which provided for indefinite detention of US citizens.  Governor Rick Snyder, while signing the legislation, noted that even a warrant for detention could not be enforced in Michigan.  Supporters say that the Michigan legislation reaffirms both 5th Amendment rights of due process and 10th Amendment protections of state sovereignty.

This follows on the heels of a South Carolina bill annulling Obamacare within that state.  It passed major hurdles this month and is expected to land on Governor Nikki Haley's desk in January.  There is no doubt that she will sign the legislation.

Nullification has returned from the history books into the undercurrent of state politics.  The doctrine originated with arch slavery defender John C. Calhoun, but was applied to a destructive tariff in the 1830s. Northerners resurrected the ideal while searching for ways to strike down the notorious Fugitive Slave Act in the 1850s.

It was never stricken down by any court of law or force of arms.  Congressional action repealing the Tariff of Abominations in the 1830s placated South Carolina, which suspended the nullification acts.

The main obstacle to nullification lies in the Supreme Court case of McCullough v. Maryland.  This case placed broad limits on the authority of well-established state governments to curtail the actions of weak federal agencies.  After 200 years of federal growth and state weakening, cases arising from nullification acts may be vital to defining down this landmark ruling and carving out a stronger state position.

Acts of nullification generally attack federal authority assumed under the commerce clause. This covers anti-drug actions, the Environmental Protection Agency, and almost any other regulatory part of the Executive Branch. The Constitution states that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and has adopted the broadest possible interpretation of it.  Defining down this interpretation is also essential.

The year 2014 will start off with debt crises, foreign crises, and presidential speculation.  Coming up fast, however, is the showdown between federal and state power.

Inspector General's Report At Department of Justice Mimics Libertarian and Conservative Concerns

Above the Law recently summarized a report by the inspector general of the Department of Justice.  The conclusions reached sound like they came from the pages of Reason and other outlets.

It notes that every dollar spent on prisons is a dollar not spent on enforcement and prevention efforts.  It quotes the assistant attorney general who called prison costs "unsustainable."  In addition to Above the Law's analysis, it is interesting to find the opportunity cost argument used by the government.  Perhaps the sequester made some agencies realize that even a federal budget is finite.

Part of the prison cost will require some rethinking.  The writer explains that quite a few prisoners of means live in cells on the taxpayers' dime well into old age.  Could other options be available for non violent felons besides prison, at least in these circumstances.

The American Bar Association warned in 1998 that overfederalization "strains the fabric of the federal and state system."  It also noted that "there are powerful reasons for the fundamental limitations on federal criminal law."  General police power over day to day crime, according to constitutional law, is better left under the control of the states.  State courts can lose their importance, while federal courts become overburdened.  The ABA cites a number of other hazards of putting more police power in the hands of the federal government.

The inspector general warns that these chickens have come home to roost.  The federal government now can prosecute over 4,000 criminal offenses in federal law.  Add to that 10-100,000 possible federal regulations that could carry federal criminal penalties.  Moving back to state prosecutions of criminal law can "alleviate the budget crisis posed by the federal prison system."

Reevaluating federal prosecution of criminal law is the first step.  Next comes rethinking the mindset that allowed and encouraged this overreach in the first place.  An unrestrained federal leviathan is rampaging through our society.  Curbing the law enforcement prerogatives of this beast is one step toward restoring the proper proportion of power.

Six Fictional Characters From the Mountain State

1.  Clarice Starling

This is one of the most compelling West Virginia born characters ever created.  In Silence of the Lambs her country origins emerge as a powerful part of her anxieties about dealing with superiors and the FBI world itself.  ATF ranked her as the sixth best protagonist in the last hundred years of film.

Her accent was a little off, but Foster was extremely convincing as a West Virginia native character.  her defining role.

2.  Aunt Bee

Francis Bavier had few other roles that anyone today would remember.  But she did get to portray one of American culture's most iconic characters.  The Andy Griffith Show's Aunt Bee was the perfect example of small town grandmotherly love and concern.  In real life, it has been said that she was a little more wild than the kindly woman seen on TV.  On the show, she hailed from Morgantown.  This was the actual hometown of co-star Don Knotts.

3. Harry Powell

This is one of the most disturbing characters to ever make it to the big screen.  Much of the credit goes to Robert Mitchum's portrayal of the dangerous con man/preacher in Night of the Hunter.

Love tattooed on one hand, hate on the other.  Powell seduces a widow on the chance of finding an ill gotten $10,000.  When she discovers the ruse, he kills her.

The plot only gets more diabolical from here.

4.  Connie Mills

The Connie Mills character from The Mothman Prophecies is a breath of fresh air for West Virginia film fans.  She is professional, strong, intelligent, attractive, yet down to earth.  She seems at home in the fake Point Pleasant seen in the film.

5.  Ray Gillette

This is one of the most interesting and hilarious characters ever drawn from West Virginia that manages to not be used to abuse the state.  In the FX show Archer, Ray Gillette is an openly gay field agent.

His backstory includes Olympic gold medals, experience as a Marshall University cheerleader, and former preacher.  The episode "Bloody Ferlin" shows him going home to save his brother from a corrupt sheriff, or so he thinks.  "Ferlin" is set in southern West Virginia and manages to be somewhat accurate wirthout being openly insulting.

The Gillette character and the Ferlin portrayal definitely lead you to think that there is or are West Virginia natives working on this show.

6.  Jennifer Elizabeth Marlowe

Jennifer Elizabeth Marlowe, the beautiful blonde played by Loni Anderson (pre Burt Reynolds) was a smackdown to a slew of stereotypes, not just West Virginians.  She is the receptionist at a struggling Cincinnati radio station called WKRP, but happens to be the smartest one of the bunch.  She uses her charms to attract wealthy older men's attention and money.  One never sees them, but their costly gifts generally show up in the lobby.  After years of West Virginia hicks and ditzy blond bombshells, her character was pretty well drawn.

Ukraine Continues Tilt Toward Russia

In the Middle Ages, Kiev served as the capital of Russia.  Now it serves independent Ukraine in that capacity.  Over time, Russia and Ukraine separated culturally, linguistically, and nationally.  Now Kiev once again looks to Russia for leadership and support.

Ukraine in terms of size is about the size of Texas or France.  Next to the North American Great Plains, its soil potentially can produce more than any region on Earth.  Its 45 million people live in a state of chronic underdevelopment.  The nation suffers from severe corruption and holds the fifth lowest international credit rating.

Twenty years of independence from the old Soviet Union brought disastrously bad government to a nation with energy reserves, a seaport, and food production capacity that could easily provide for a continent.

Ukraine naturally shied away from Russia at first.  Russia dominated the old Soviet Union which in turn terrorized Ukraine.  Stalin ripped away from the land tens of millions of innocent farmers and others.  Over the USSR's entire history, Ukrainian language and culture were stifled.

Ties to Europe and the United States grew.  Ukraine wanted to participate in institutions such as the European Union and NATO.  Economic instability in the past several years has made help from the EU come with conditions.  These include applying to the IMF and signing a free trade agreement.

Full free trade with Europe would help Ukraine develop itself.  It can cheaply produce enough food to sell to all of Europe.  France, Germany, and other countries, however, continue to cling to agricultural subsidies.  For Ukraine to get ahead, it needs to be able to exploit its competitive advantages in land and cheap labor.  A free trade pact would merely open the door to European manufactures without helping Ukraine develop its agricultural sector.  Some in the United States have floated the idea of a bailout, but with the US and the EU experiencing their own debt crises, this will not happen.

Enter Vladimir Putin and Russia.

Putin seems to have figured out what Britain learned after the American Revolution.  Gain influence over an independent nation's economy and get the benefits of colonialism without the costs of administration.  Britain, the United States, Japan, and others have all adopted that lesson at some point after hard lessons learned about war, conquest, and colonialism.

Russia has extended its hand to Ukraine, offering a trade deal and other forms of assistance.  This will tie Ukraine more strongly to the nation that served as its overlord during Czarist and Soviet times.

Many in Ukraine see this as too risky.  Thousands have rioted in protest against rising Russian influence.  Russian ties to Belarus have resulted in the near merger of the two states.  This will likely not change Ukraine's official position.

Putin will continue to channel efforts into building an informal empire dependent on Moscow.  This is a less risky strategy than China's new belligerence in the Far East, but it is no less important.

As for Ukraine, its potential remains untapped.  But a country the size of France with oil, gas, and food capability is not a forgettable part of the world's balance of influence.

The EPA's War On Common Sense

I rarely post something in the first person, but sometimes it's needed.

A couple of days ago, I was warming up my wife's car.  I didn't check the gas when I started the car and it ran out.  I figured, no problem, I'll just go get a gas can, get a gallon of gas, then put it in, right?

I go to the store and buy a gas can.  They are a lot more expensive than they used to be, but I chalked it up to inflation.  Then I get to the gas station and open it up.  It looks like some kind of system that belongs on the space shuttle, I mean, that used to belong on the space shuttle when we used such things.  I put the gallon in anyway.

When I got home, I tried using the can.  The nozzle system was more complicated than I ever dreamed and all I accomplished was spilling about a pint of gasoline onto the ground.

At this point, I figured out that this must be the EPA's fault.  The private sector is best known for selling products that are easy to use and get easier over time.  The gas can used to be simple, a nozzle and a vent in the back.  It operated on the same principle as canned juice.  Open both ends for a smooth and easy pour.

Now it works on impossible to discern engineering principles.  As sure as I had just ruined my leather gloves by accidentally spilling gasoline all over the place, I smelled an EPA rat here.

Sure enough, I was right.  Long story short, the EPA forced mind numbing, California originating, standards on gas cans to do what?  Prevent spillage.  Apparently, all over the country, people are spilling gas from these stupid things.  I spilled more gas with the new can than in 40 years of life combined.

They also have a tendency to inflate in hot weather and rupture, spewing gas everywhere.  Why?  They are airtight.

And I still couldn't get gas in my car.  But my daughter came to the rescue.  She and her friends had run out of gas months before.  They also couldn't work the gas can, so they came up with a good solution.

Cut the bottom off of a water bottle and get a coat hanger.  Use the upside down bottle as a funnel while the coat hanger opens the tank.  Take the entire nozzle apparatus off the can and pour the gas out directly.  No muss, no fuss.  And try to find a safe place to dispose of the bottle and hanger.

Or, figure out where racing teams buy their gas cans.  They still use the old style.

Thanks EPA.  One more thing that you have done to make everyone's life a little more frustrating.  Now I will have to remember you more often than when my low flow toilet backs up.

Columnist From DC Paper For the Homeless Blasts "Partisans of the Left", Promotes Free Market

The Republican Party and many conservative groups have shied away from inner cities in the past.  Collectively, they may see little point in confronting what they feel will be universal hostility.  As individuals, few want to go to speak at events where they may be derided for the duration.

Are either one of these fears based in reality?  One DC columnists' writings suggest not.

Jeffrey McNeill writes an opinion column for Washington DC's Street Sense.  Through much of 2013, his work shows growing affinity for free markets while feeling disgust and disdain for "partisans of the left."

McNeill's most recent column, "A Critique of Liberalism," begins by citing studies showing black Americans to be more socially conservative than many Tea Party advocates.  "Truth is," he writes, "a conservative vein runs deep in the black community."  McNeill condemns what he calls "victim rhetoric" and explains "as a minority, I yearn for a new black leader to emerge, someone who will inspire a new generation . . . to be independent and self-reliant."

He then cites Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, and West Virginia's Booker T. Washington as examples.

"Latte liberals" draw much of his ire.  McNeil describes them as standing up for the little guy until they "go off to their suburban homes pontificating about what others might do for humanity."  Their "social theories border on arrogance."

McNeill discusses his own struggles with how these ideas brought him into conflict "with those I once agreed with."  A summer 2012 piece of his angrily decried anti-Obama conservatives as racist.  While McNeill refuses to call himself conservative, he does call free enterprise "harsh and cruel (but) it is the ticket out of poverty."

The Republican Party and conservative groups would do well to closely look at McNeill's writings.  He came from "some of the worst projects" in New Jersey and Philadelphia, but saw "miracles" such as single mothers, addicts, and others getting off welfare, overcoming obstacles, educating themselves, and becoming successful in life.

A message of self-reliance never falls on deaf ears.  Many people strive to do for themselves.  The inner cities are oppressed by poverty in part because government restrictions, regulations, taxes, fees, and other burdens always kill entrepreneurial initiative in the poorest areas.  Prosperity cannot take root so hope dies. Free market advocates can bring a powerful message to the inner city if they will but go.  McNeill's writings are proof that many will listen.

Street Sense is a newspaper published in Washington DC for the benefit of the homeless.  Vendors write for and sell the paper to earn money.  All are homeless and struggling.

West Virginia's Sole Obamacare Provider Has 1/20th Expected Participation Rate

Is Obamacare collapsing?  West Virginia may be a part of its demise.

The state's Democratically dominated executive and legislative branches enthusiastically signed on for the Obamacare exchange plan.  Only one provider, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, is available.

West Virginia Metro News reports that only 1,200 of the expected 20-25,000 participants have been registered.  They also have concerns that not enough healthy and young people are interested in the program.

Obamacare's success hinges on young people paying out more and using less care.  Many have chosen to take the tax penalty rather than pay for insurance they do not think they will need.

Some conservatives fear that Obamacare collapse was not only predictable, but planned. They believe that the ultimate goal is a nationalized health care system with mediocre care for the masses and high quality only available for those who can pay in cash. It is unlikely, however, that voters will trust the same people who bungled Obamacare to make further drastic changes.

House Republicans have offered to meet with the president to discuss solutions, according to The Hill.  The White House has, thus far, brushed them off.

West Virginia Citizens' Defense League Releases First Round of Candidate grades.

The West Virginia Citizens' Defense League, a group dedicated to fighting for Second Amendment rights, released its grades of candidates running in 2014.  These were not endorsements, but ratings based upon return of a survey and record.  

For United States Senate, the WVCDL gave both Shelley Moore Capito and Pat McGeehan an A+ rating.  Capito's House of Representatives and McGeehan's House of Delegates voting record on gun rights was spotless.  The WVCDL noted that Capito repeated some of its arguments in the days after the Sandy Hook shooting.

Natalie Tennant received an F for supporting gun control schemes and previous statements.

So far, WVCDL has only rated two candidates for the 2nd Congressional District.  Alex Mooney received an A+ for a strong record of defending gun rights at the legislative level.  Meshea Poore of Charleston received the dreaded F- rating, along with the admonition "DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS CANDIDATE."

The group also handed out grades for state legislators.  In the Eastern Panhandle, Craig Blair, Gary Howell, Allen Evans, Dave Sypolt, Larry Faircloth, John Overington, Larry Kump, Jason Barrett, Michael Folk, and Eric Householder all received A+ ratings.  John Unger only earned an A, but the WVCDL expected him to rise to A+ at the end of this session.

Senator Joe Manchin is not running, but WVCDL marked its displeasure with the Democrat by criticizing statements made supporting his gun proposals.

WVCDL rated many Democrats among its A+ grades, indicating that West Virginia's stance on full Second Amendment rights remains a bipartisan affair. 

Is the Social Conservative Fight Against Gay Marriage Worthwhile?

Last year, Minnesotans opposed to legalized same sex marriage spent $200,000 in a little over five months.  Those donations went towards a campaign to preserve state laws prohibiting legal recognition of gay marriage.  Social conservatives complained that gay marriage supporters had "10 times more" funds to fight.  One said "it's proof that if you spend enough money, you can get legislators to do almost anything."   Despite the tens of millions spent by opponents, legislatures continue to void anti- gay marriage laws.  Sixteen states have taken such laws from the books, eleven by political action instead of through the courts.

Social conservatives argue that legalized gay marriage represents a threat to traditional marriage.  If a state allows a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman, they argue that what is to stop legal recognition of polygamy, or human marriage to animals.  

American marriages certainly face threats to stability.  According to the Centers For Disease Control, from 2004 to 2011, between 840,000 and 880,000 couples divorced every year.  At the same time, the marriage rate per 1,000 people declined by one seventh.  Fewer couples marry and divorces remain constant.

Is gay marriage part of the problem?  It is hard to see how it could be, either logically or statistically.  The statistics came from years that predate the legalized gay marriage surge.  Marriage as an institution was already in trouble.  Also, the social impact of gay marriage simply is not that profound.  A Huffington Post writer in 2011 cited a study that pegged the gay population of the US at around 4 million.  

To put that number in perspective, there are more divorces every four and a half years than there are gay people.  

What has happened to marriage then?  Focus on the Family's Glenn Lutjens puts some of the blame on unrealistic expectations.  Most people's most thorough experience with relationships comes from first hand experience with their parents or parent.  Dysfunctional upbringings could conceive poor or even abusive interpersonal skills.  Or they could lead to a crusade to manufacture a perfect relationship.  Dating, according to Lutjens, creates a false reality.  It has "escape valves" such as ones own home, finances, etc. that are not there during marriage.  

Another problem is cultural.  At least one writer speculates that American romantic comedies have as bad, or an even worse effect on marriage than pornography.  Matt Lewis of Daily Caller writes that individuals instinctively need a deity to reach self-fulfillment.  When modern society has abandoned God, or at least set Him aside, it placed the perfect relationship on that deified pedestal. 

"And popular culture only reinforces this notion, via movies and music.  Unlike porn, this fantasy is not discourages by polite society, and is, in fact, even celebrated."

The counterpart of the romantic comedy fantasy relationship is the one and done ideal.  One mistake leads to a break.  In many movies, television shows, and popular songs, divorce follows a serious violation of the marriage.  It even follows a cooling of feelings of love and commitment between the spouses.  Most marriages require work and forgiveness.  Long marriages rarely escape at least one of the following:  financial problems, cheating, the ebb and flow of feelings of love or attraction, substance abuse issues, etc.  

Again, the abandonment of the Christian ethic may be part of the problem.  The Judeo-Christian ideal of original sin was not meant as a negation of the goodness of humanity, but as a powerful reminder that nobody is perfect.  People can be good and still hurt others, either purposefully, incidentally, or accidentally.  Christ commands forgiveness, which is the only was to ensure a lasting marriage. 

Of course the Bible also teaches self-respect, self-preservation, and free will.  Staying with an abusive, dangerous, or contemptible person who refuses to change is not part of the marriage vow contract.  

If bad cultural perceptions of marriage are not the biggest problem, they certainly rank at the forefront.  But these can be changed.

In California alone, supporters of a gay marriage ban raised over $28 million according to the Christian Coalition. What if part of that $28 million went toward establishing and promoting more pre-marriage counseling?  This used to be done in many churches as a matter of course and is certainly still an option.  Some may want a more secular based venue, and that should be available.  Certainly at the very least, some group seminars that got partners to think about their commitment before making the plunge would help.  

On the popular culture front, realistic marriage must make a comeback.  Breaking Bad's characterization of Hank Schrader took the old Clint Eastwood style rough around the edges hero and put him into a modern marriage.  Schrader started off as an unintentionally condescending, yet very capable and fast rising, DEA agent in a strong marriage.  As the series continues, he grows obsessed with finding a drug kingpin who, unbeknownst to him, happens to be his brother in law.  Schrader suffers a temporarily debilitating physical injury that throws him into a serious depression.  He does, eventually, recover physically and mentally.  Schrader's character is usually annoyed with, but always loves his wife.  No hint of sexual misconduct ever happens.  But both spouses have to grow and deal with each other's flaws and problems.  The final season of the series finds them in their most difficult and isolating situation.  Their love and commitment forged over all the previous struggles binds them together to face their biggest adversary.

Schrader's marriage is a perfect portrait of a successful one.  Lots of struggle, much forgiveness, and standing together in the toughest times.  Why don't more authors, screenwriters, and songwriters celebrate this kind of bond?  

Marriage is an essential element in the fabric of society.  It needs support and it would benefit from more honest portrayals.  The tens of millions of dollars spent now to fight a potentially very rare occurrence would be better spent in the cause of saving traditional marriage from that which truly threatens it.

Full disclosure, I am for civil unions for all couples and getting government out of marriage entirely.

Those Who Will Not Learn From History . . .

Consider the scenario.  A Great Power who has dominated world affairs is in relative decline.  Production and wealth are expanding at much slower rates than other rising nations.  Some of those nations feel their own expanding strength; they aspire to find a "place in the sun."  So they try to carve out larger spheres of influence, challenge weaker partners of the dominant power, issue bellicose statements where diplomacy would work better.

A follower of current affairs will immediately recognize this as a description of China's effort to evolve from a regional into a world power.  Students of history will recognize the German Empire under the Kaiser.  His personal ambitions and insecurities vis-a-vis his British royal family relatives fused with the rising nationalism of the age.  The Kaiser was no evil nihilist like Hitler, but by following his own logical path he helped bring on a war that revolutionized Europe and destroyed his family's position.  Both are right.  The behavior of 21st century China mimics that of the Germans from exactly a century ago.  And one need not be an expert to know how that turned out.

At this moment, Vice President Biden is in the Far East.  He first visited Japan and is now in China. Biden's immediate goal is to personally reaffirm the United States' inflexibility on the issue of China's self-declared air defense zone.  In a not so subtle move last week, the U. S. Air Force flew several gigantic and loud B 52 strategic bombers over the defense zone.  China scrambled fighters, but offered no additional aggressive moves.  Xinhua News published the statement that "several combat aircraft were scrambled to verify the identities" of the US and Japanese aircraft.

Biden yesterday issued a special challenge to young Chinese to "challenge the government" to force change in a system they oppose.  He reminded the students applying for visas that in America, opposing the system is admired.

China proclaimed the air defense zone over a broad swath of the South China Sea that happens to include islands governed by Japan.  It also mostly covers international waters.  Most likely they announced it as a test of Obama's resolve.  Fortunately, Obama did strongly defend American and Japanese rights in the region.  But this is the latest in a long series of provocations.  China has forcefully argued claims against Vietnamese and Filipino territory and even claimed suzerainty over thousands of shipwreck sites.

A hundred years ago the Kaiser provoked two near war crises over Morocco, his navy shelled Venezuelan barrier islands, among other belligerent bullying actions.  His government believed that a hyper-aggressive stance everywhere from the Sahara to Samoa would win Germany respect in the world, especially from Britain.  This reversed the balancing act of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in the late 1800s. He sought to minimize risky conflicts while cultivating good personal relations with American leaders like Ulysses S. Grant.
The United States faces some of the same concerns as Britain a century ago.  Both the current US and the former British Empire had retooled their militaries to project power against disorganized and mostly non national opposition.  Both nations retained the means to project power (Royal Navy, US Air Force and Navy), but the armies emphasized small war concepts. This meant smaller forces relying on high levels of skill, technology, and experience.  The armies were also smaller in terms of ratio to population than potential adversaries.

Britain's pre-World War I army was annihilated within 18 months of the beginning of World War I.  It simply could not handle mass conventional warfare. Our current military does not have the resources to be ready for both a mass conventional and unconventional war at the same time.  Perhaps if less went to bureaucrats and more to actual fighting preparedness, this could be achieved.  The US, however, has often started major wars in a near skeleton state, ramping up to full mobilization fairly quickly.  Then again, it has never faced an adversary with the population and territorial size of China.

China is likely not determined to start a war.  This would cut it off from its largest market and automatically void America's massive debt.  The German Empire likewise did not want a continental war as it entered 1914.  Things can happen and events can move quickly, however.

If China, like 1941 Japan, saw war with the United States as inevitable, the time to strike would be 2015.  Obama has more chance of seeing a fully Republican Congress than one that stands behind him.  Striking before the 2014 election could give Obama an outside shot at a Democratic Congress.  He certainly would not hesitate to use a war as an excuse to push for one.

In 2015, the full effects of Obamacare will put the nation in economic and social turmoil.  Despite Obama's show of resolve over the defense zone, he remains a weak president with little political backing or ability.  Since a war would almost certainly result in a Republican hawk (Chris Christie comes to mind) winning the presidency in 2016, a China determined to strike would want as much lame duck Obama as they could get.

China has expanded their blue water naval capabilities, collected a number of bases far from their homeland, and has carefully built up a conventional first strike capability.

Where are some of the potential starting points?

1.)  Korea

World War I did not start because Germany attacked France and Britain.  Germany's ally Austria-Hungary suffered a terror attack encouraged by Russia's ally Serbia.  A long standing regional grievance flared into a European, then a World War.  How committed would China be in backing a foolish and unapproved move by North Korea. This state is less an obedient client of China and more of the obnoxious loud cousin.

2.)  Direct Strike on US and/or Japanese regional military assets

Chinese anti ship missiles are built to sink ships in one shot.  That being said, these missiles are crafted by the same country that has an epidemic of poorly built buildings falling over on their sides.  They should be feared, but they likely will have a low success rate.  But they are first strike weapons, make no mistake.

Because of the close alliance and Japan's post World War II constitution, an attack on Japan is tantamount to an attack on the United States itself.  But China might realistically question Obama's willingness to fully commit to a war to protect Japan.

3.)  India

The two countries have fought over a few barren strips of territory in the past.  India also has natural sympathy for the Tibetan Buddhists who continually oppose Chinese rule.  The recent pact could satisfy both sides or be a temporary fix.  Both are nuclear powers and China gets along better with Indian rival Pakistan.

4.)  Vietnam

Border disputes over islands, just like with Japan and the Philippines.  The difference is that China once ruled Vietnam as a vassal.  Vietnam never forgot and still regards China with suspicion.  In a post Cold War world, the United States actually has a better chance at good relations with Vietnam than China.

This is not to say that war will happen, or that it is even likely.  Then again, a far East conflagration is also firmly within the realm of possibility.

5.)  Russia (highly unlikely in short term)

Russia and China have grown closer in this century, focusing on their mutual distrust of American influence.  Territorial issues still divide them.  The Maritime Province, or Primorskya Oblast, was once Chinese territory seized under the Czars. It contains the major Russian port and naval base Vladivostok.  China regards this land as it once did Hong Kong, territory that will inevitably revert to Beijing's rule.  Russia disagrees.  Not a bone of contention now, but certainly potentially a problem in the future.

China, as a former imperial power and a regime currently bullying its neighbors, has a long list of potential adversaries should a general war break out.  Almost certainly the United States and Japan would form the core of the effort.  North Korea (perhaps China's closest bordering friend) involvement brings in the modern and well-trained military of South Korea.

Taiwan has every reason to fear Chinese hegemony in the Far East, but could convince itself that non belligerency could save it if China won the war.  It would not, but humanity has enormous powers of self-deception.

Definite maybes include Australia, New Zealand, and Great Britain.  Britain's shrunken role as a Great Power has not deterred it from assisting the United States in opposing aggression. It remembers well the inability of Neville Chamberlain's goodwill in heading off Hitler.  Because Japan and the US would shoulder most of the load, the three British Commonwealth countries would.

Vietnam and the Philippines also have every reason to fear Chinese aggrandizement.  The former US colony sits right in the path of China's oceanic power play.  A Chinese victory would almost certainly reduce them to satellite status.  Both countries also have difficult geographical features and long traditions of guerrilla warfare that would cost China resources and benefit it very little.  Still, a Far Eastern general war would likely mean American use of the Philippines as a major base, something China would want to prevent.  The Philippines would very likely join.  Vietnam only if they felt menaced during the war or by the possible outcome.

India looms as possibly the next great English speaking democratic power.  It remains an X factor because the United States has done very little to cultivate good relations with this potential powerhouse.  Currently some in India have asked that the United States lift natural gas export restrictions. Purchasing from the United States, from their point of view, is both less expensive and better for their security concerns.

China, however, has a strong relationship with Iran.  Iran aggression coordinated with China could pose major problems for a Western alliance.

As the president has embarked on the 23 days of Obamacare and everyone follows along, it does not hurt to remind ourselves that foreign dangers lurk as well.

Government Continues to Concoct Bizarre Ad Hoc Obamacare Solutions

Reuters reported this week that Obamacare has a stunningly fatal flaw in its system.  The government "has not yet finished building the part of the website that would transfer billions of dollars in subsidies for plan premiums and cost-sharing payments to insurance companies."

Rest assured.  An insurance spokesman defended the administration and said that for now, the system would rely on estimates.  Late on, government and health plans could "true up" the actual difference.

Set aside the horrific abuse of the English language here.  Simply put, a lot of people are not going to get paid what they are actually owed for a while.

This is why government should never operate in any kind of business arrangement.  Running a business in this fashion is at least unethical and likely criminal.  Yet because it is the government, one has to rely on their willingness to faithfully "true up" and concoct a "workaround" scheme, whatever the heck that all means.

The fact is that businesses always work out first how everyone gets paid.  Next they focus on delivering a high quality product to the consumer.  After that they sell the service, and lastly they try to anticipate bugs and correct them quickly.

Government does number three first, then number four, and oh yes, still working on how to deliver a product of dubious value. Number one priority is still apparently a mystery.

It becomes increasingly clear why some Republicans fought a no win, last ditch battle to stop this monstrosity.  They knew all about that rough beast, its hour come round at last slouched toward Washington, waiting to be born.

New Site Alerts Public to Latest Social Media Scams

In 2012, identity thieves plundered over $20 billion from 12 million in the United States alone.  According to a study from Javelin Strategy, this was a rise of over a million victims from 2011.

One of the most common frauds is called the "419" scam.  Most have seen some variation on this trick.  An individual claims to need help in transferring a large amount of money from Nigeria to the United States.  For some reason, they usually need the help of an elderly American with limited funds.  All the victim is told to do is to wire money to Nigeria until they either run out or conclude they have been scammed.

Scam Alert Central has been publicizing the latest twist on the 419 scam.  In previous years, the victim was told that they were dealing with some member of the non existent Nigerian royal family.  Now they have started stealing pictures of attractive young women, sometimes even adult film stars, to add to the pitch.  They pose as refugees, potential girlfriends, or even escorts who claim they need to be paid through a "booking agent" in the Philippines.  Although some claim to be in Nigeria, others identify any number of countries as a point of origin.

Scam Alert Central updates regularly on the names and backstories of the women featured on the pitches.

It is important to know that the pictures have been stolen from social media.  The women pictured are almost never in on the scam.

This is the latest version of an old fraud scheme. The FBI has identified a large number of schemes, listed and described here.  It is a good idea to occasionally reread the most current information on scams as the criminals update their tactics to get your money.

Scotland Independence Referendum Shows Weakening Of Old Dynastic Ties

Less than a quarter of Scottish voters say they will vote for independence in next year's referendum, according to a recent Daily Mail story.  About 56 percent say they will vote no. The fact that a vote is even happening shows that the peculiar assemblage of some European states may be less stable than assumed.

Scotland's union to the United Kingdom took place in the early 1600s.  When Queen Elizabeth died childless, her closest relative eligible for the throne was the Scottish king James VI.  He ascended the throne as James I, uniting England, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland.  When his Stuart dynasty died out in the early 1700s, Parliament passed an Act of Union that further bound the two states.

Since then, Scotland settled, fought for, and administered the British Empire to a great extent.  Scots peopled the Appalachian Mountains, Australian outback, and Kenyan prairies.  They escaped poverty in their own country to fight for and administer the Empire for most of its existence.  The United Kingdom has relied heavily on Scotland for centuries, but must sell the idea of remaining in the Union by next September.  Although polls heavily favor union, Scottish independence supporters just unveiled a 667 page tome on what an independent Scotland would look like.

Britain is not the only country whose territorial integrity faces uncertainty.  Spain's Catalans want to follow the United Kingdom's path of popular sovereignty, but find themselves faced by a Spanish constitution that emphasizes the "indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation."  Spain as of yet has also refused to allow an official referendum.

Such resistance, spelled out in one official's comment that "you cannot divide sovereignty within Spain,"  could give Madrid more headaches in the long run than London.  Periodic independence votes in Canada's Quebec and the United States' Puerto Rico have satisfied promoters and allowed positive venting.  Buildup of frustrations in Catalonia could lead to a nastier result.

Europe has several states cobbled together through dynastic relations or treaty arrangements over the centuries.  Some have a tradition of cultural separatism from the central government.  For example, Sicilians generally do not consider themselves to be Italian.  Most do not currently have enough problems with the central government to pursue secession.  However, treaty states, such as Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, split after the Cold War.  Slovakia, Slovenia, and Croatia have proved that hiving off from the core state does not inevitably lead to failure.

Independence movements are hitting states whose constituent parts never had a chance to affirm the national connections.  Even when the central government has capably fulfilled its primary role, people may still want their say.  As anxious as Scotland's independence vote may make some in London and even Washington (since they are still our primary ally) allowing the vote is the best chance to keep the United Kingdom whole.

Regardless of how it turns out, Scotland's scheduling of a vote does mean that the old ties that bind have loosened somewhat.  And these have consequences for Britain, her friends, and other European states.

Is Obamacare This Century's Equivalent of "Who Lost China?"

In 1947, President Harry Truman engineered the passage of an aid package to Greece and Turkey.  At the time, both countries feared Communist takeover.  He used it as a foundation of his famous Truman Doctrine, which simply promises aid to any country resisting Communist takeover.

The very next year, Chiang Kai Shek fled China for Taiwan, leaving the massive mainland portion in the hands of the bloody Communist Mao Tse Dong.  Although "losing China" did not lose Truman the 1948 election, it frightened Democratic presidents for a generation.  They knew the electorate saw them as soft on foreign policy so they endeavored to not lose again.  Kennedy and Johnson fought in Vietnam for American, but also Democratic Party credibility.  Losses of both in Vietnam convinced future Democrats, rightly or wrongly, that course was unwise.  Could the Obamacare disaster do the same to their Big Government ideals?

The health care law is called the Affordable Care Act.  Since October, Americans have found out how Orwellian that moniker is.  Premiums have skyrocketed; millions lost their plans altogether.  The government system, based mostly on a $634 million website, does not work.  It is also only about 60 percent completed.

You might say that the healthcare.gov site gave Americans a crash course in why it should not run a business.

Meanwhile, Obama's poll numbers sank.  One might expect a serious dip in job performance.  But for the first time, a majority of Americans find him both dishonest and incompetent.

The long term effect of this on American politics could be profound.  The "who lost China" effect made Democratic presidents more bellicose for the next two decades.  At least one pundit believes Obamacare could make Democrats very gun shy about pursuing massive overhauls on this level again.

The cumulative effect of the first two presidential administrations on the country could be a body blow to backers of aggressive government action in any sphere.  Many still see the Iraq War (which the United States actually won) as a breakdown and a failure.  Obamacare has crashed a major segment of the country's economy and thrown millions into suffering and turmoil.  Both of these add up to further popularize libertarian concepts of government's role.

Time will tell whether this cows the Democrats and leads to a long term revision of what Americans expect from government.  But in the short term, confidence in government in any sphere is extraordinarily low.

And that is not necessarily a bad thing.