Time for some in the GOP to stop wringing its hands over the Iraq War.
It was the right call and by 2009 was close to lasting stability. Because of that, former Vice President Dick Cheney has every reason to speak from the high ground about Obama's failures there.
Imagine buying a junked car. You give it extensive repairs with new parts, get it up and running. It is relatively reliable if you do not put too much pressure on it and sensibly maintain it.
Then you sell it to an irresponsible owner who drives it for six years with no oil changes, no transmission service, no attention to coolant cleanliness or if it even has coolant.
What would you expect to happen? The car would break down at the most inopportune time.
Iraq at the end of the Bush presidency had held free elections, despite terrorists' intentions to disrupt. They had assembled a relatively democratic government. Armed forces were being put together under the tutelage of the US military. American troops remained in place, keeping terrorists at bay. Advisers quietly urged the government towards good policy, albeit with mixed success.
Naysayers forget about the cruelty of Saddam, of his backing of terror, of his plans to leave his country's resources and military into the hands of his sadistic and psychopathic sons. If that day had come, Iraq itself would be a dangerous source of instability in the region.
This Washington Post rebuttal of Cheney's thoughts on Obama and Iraq centers on the Bush Administration's original agreement to keep forces in Iraq until 2011. It infers that Obama's task in renewing that agreement was impossible. How hard did the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even try?
The State Department's fixation on oceans for the past few years indicates that its priorities are a bit out of whack.
Over six years, Obama turned his back on the fragile, but still developing government. He did not negotiate a status of forces agreement to keep US troops in place. American soldiers are the best ambassadors of our system and our way of life, whether fighting for the Iraqi people or simply talking about the US every day. The enemy also fears US troops, knowing that engaging our soldiers brings a potentially heavy price for them.
Obama sent mixed signals to the Middle East. President Bush followed the Reagan tradition of using confident expressions of freedom and liberty to inspire the world. Obama went over there and ruminated about mistakes and problems that historically pale in comparison to the good we have done.
His going to Canossa was the first step in destroying the respect carefully constructed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice.
Many will point to complaints, demonstrations, social media rants as proof that American policy was wrong because we were not loved. They have it wrong. America needs to be not loved, but respected. Respected for our power and the principles behind its use.
Iraq today stands at the edge of the precipice. Obama abandoned it to a cruel fate and now considers a rushed last minute rescue, not because it is the right thing to do, but because Iraq's failure would hurt his legacy even more.
America cannot be the world's policeman. Some situations, however, do call for action. Iraq was one such issue. Had Bush's successor maintained a foreign policy based on engagement and respect rather than golf and celebrities, Iraq and the Middle East would be on a much firmer foundation today.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
The Right to Be Unpopular
Among certain circles, Daniel Snyder is not popular. Okay among most circles outside of his players, Daniel Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, is not popular. Although Redskins players, even in retirement, have respect and affection for "Mr. Snyder" this does not extend to reporters, fans, or almost anyone else.
That image contributed to today's ruling by the US Patent and Trademark Office to strip the Redskins of much of their brand trademark protection. The team and the NFL will no longer have exclusive rights to the word. Whatever one may think of the Redskins, Daniel Snyder, or their name, this bodes ill.
From a business perspective, the team should logically change its name to "Warriors." The Warrior Road connecting the Iroquois to their Catawba and Cherokee enemies followed US 1 and Interstate 95. The name makes sense. But businesses should be able to rely on the law being enforced fairly, regardless of public opinion.
In this case, the Redskins were victimized by a politicized agency.
A business has the right to be unpopular, to fly against public opinion, to try and weather the storms of fashion. Snyder's team joins other teams with names originally derogatory, like Fighting Irish, Tar Heels, and, yes, Mountaineers. They deserve honest regulatory decisions, not ones based on someone's feelings being hurt.
Finally, Snyder himself lies at the root of this. Any player that fumbles as much as his public relations team should be cut. Snyder himself cuts a haughty figure that does not garner much sympathy. This landmark free speech case is only one of many failings. This bumbling attempt to placate Indians was another. Had Dan Snyder the abilities of a Jack Kent Cooke, or if his teams won, the politicos would not have come after the blood in the water.
The ruling here has much greater implication. Any brand that offends anyone, anytime, is now at risk. That is the danger here, the threat of totalitarianism in branding.
That image contributed to today's ruling by the US Patent and Trademark Office to strip the Redskins of much of their brand trademark protection. The team and the NFL will no longer have exclusive rights to the word. Whatever one may think of the Redskins, Daniel Snyder, or their name, this bodes ill.
From a business perspective, the team should logically change its name to "Warriors." The Warrior Road connecting the Iroquois to their Catawba and Cherokee enemies followed US 1 and Interstate 95. The name makes sense. But businesses should be able to rely on the law being enforced fairly, regardless of public opinion.
In this case, the Redskins were victimized by a politicized agency.
A business has the right to be unpopular, to fly against public opinion, to try and weather the storms of fashion. Snyder's team joins other teams with names originally derogatory, like Fighting Irish, Tar Heels, and, yes, Mountaineers. They deserve honest regulatory decisions, not ones based on someone's feelings being hurt.
Finally, Snyder himself lies at the root of this. Any player that fumbles as much as his public relations team should be cut. Snyder himself cuts a haughty figure that does not garner much sympathy. This landmark free speech case is only one of many failings. This bumbling attempt to placate Indians was another. Had Dan Snyder the abilities of a Jack Kent Cooke, or if his teams won, the politicos would not have come after the blood in the water.
The ruling here has much greater implication. Any brand that offends anyone, anytime, is now at risk. That is the danger here, the threat of totalitarianism in branding.
Your Reagan May Not Be My Reagan
In the buildup to the 2012 election, conservatives fretted about nominee Mitt Romney. Like the two Bushes before him, he felt the looming shadow of Ronald Reagan at his back.
Reagan biographer Lou Cannon said "it's (hard) to make a Reagan out of Mitt Romney." The comparisons will be reset for 2016 as Reagan's image stubbornly keeps a hold on many Republican minds. But which Ronald Reagan?
For conservatives, the epitome of Reagan comes through in "the speech." This statement of political principles served as the platform for conservative Republicans for the next three generations. Ostensibly crafted to support Barry Goldwater, Reagan made the ideals his own. They carried him to the California governor's mansion and eventually the White House.
Conservatives don't merely love the text, but also the strident and confident tone, quite unlike the rest of the GOP. It exuded confidence in the future. The delivery also convinced many conservatives that Reagan then and for all time was chiseling out conservative commandments in stone. Somehow, he evolved after his death into a grim sentinel guarding against the idea of deal-making or compromise, hence the negative comparisons with Mitt Romney.
But is this fair?
Both men governed states with electorates to the left of themselves. Reagan led a state determined to forge ahead on abortion, and he had to compromise with the tide of history. Was it the right thing to do? Maybe not. Would the deal have been worse without his part? You bet. Reagan also allowed passage of what Cannon described as "mammoth tax increases."
Romney had the same dilemma with Massachusetts, a state determined to get public health care. Romney crafted a plan that satisfied voters and worked much better than the nationally touted Obamacare. In fact, Obama's law wrecked Romney's design in his own state.
Between the governorship and the presidency, Reagan forged links with decidedly unconservative figures. He reached out to the Rockefeller wing of the party during the 1970s to gain support. In 1976, thinking himself on the cusp of upsetting incumbent President Gerald Ford in the primary, Reagan considered Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania as a running mate. Schweiker had fully backed labor unions during his tenure (tough to see how he could not in 1970s Pennsylvania and win elections.) In a conversation with Schweiker, Reagan admitted "I am not a knee jerk conservative."
Tax increases, compromising with abortion, and saying "I am not a knee jerk conservative" would have doomed Reagan among post Reagan conservatives. Romney's "moderation" actually looks farther to the right of Reagan in the late 1970s.
Romney likely saw himself as a disciple of Reagan too, not the firebrand of 1964 or the candidate trying to navigate a diverse GOP ocean in the mid 1970s. President Reagan likely looked much like aspiring president Romney. The Reagan of the 1980s told advisers that he would rather get 75 percent of what he wanted than drive his wagon off the cliff all banners flying. He worked with a hostile Democratic House of Representatives to hammer through a tax reform bill. Conservatives of the 1980s were even shocked. West Virginia congressman Mick Staton went so far as to write the president a letter of complaint, wondering if he had lost his way.
Staunch conservatives see themselves as disciples of Reagan. And in a way, they are right. But moderates are also right when they claim the same mantle. No great man remains the same as he grows and changes. Reagan did adhere to the same principles, but understood as he gained tangible leadership experience that some success was better than all or nothing.
In 2012, the arguments about the GOP nominee often made the perfect the enemy of the good. All too often, that "perfect" was represented by a Ronald Reagan that never existed, a Reagan image that cobbled together the best parts of 25 years of politics while conveniently ignoring other important attributes.
As we approach 2016, it is time to choose a candidate from this century. Reagan was great in the same fashion as Lincoln and Washington, and also like them, not an option today.
Reagan biographer Lou Cannon said "it's (hard) to make a Reagan out of Mitt Romney." The comparisons will be reset for 2016 as Reagan's image stubbornly keeps a hold on many Republican minds. But which Ronald Reagan?
For conservatives, the epitome of Reagan comes through in "the speech." This statement of political principles served as the platform for conservative Republicans for the next three generations. Ostensibly crafted to support Barry Goldwater, Reagan made the ideals his own. They carried him to the California governor's mansion and eventually the White House.
Conservatives don't merely love the text, but also the strident and confident tone, quite unlike the rest of the GOP. It exuded confidence in the future. The delivery also convinced many conservatives that Reagan then and for all time was chiseling out conservative commandments in stone. Somehow, he evolved after his death into a grim sentinel guarding against the idea of deal-making or compromise, hence the negative comparisons with Mitt Romney.
But is this fair?
Both men governed states with electorates to the left of themselves. Reagan led a state determined to forge ahead on abortion, and he had to compromise with the tide of history. Was it the right thing to do? Maybe not. Would the deal have been worse without his part? You bet. Reagan also allowed passage of what Cannon described as "mammoth tax increases."
Romney had the same dilemma with Massachusetts, a state determined to get public health care. Romney crafted a plan that satisfied voters and worked much better than the nationally touted Obamacare. In fact, Obama's law wrecked Romney's design in his own state.
Between the governorship and the presidency, Reagan forged links with decidedly unconservative figures. He reached out to the Rockefeller wing of the party during the 1970s to gain support. In 1976, thinking himself on the cusp of upsetting incumbent President Gerald Ford in the primary, Reagan considered Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania as a running mate. Schweiker had fully backed labor unions during his tenure (tough to see how he could not in 1970s Pennsylvania and win elections.) In a conversation with Schweiker, Reagan admitted "I am not a knee jerk conservative."
Tax increases, compromising with abortion, and saying "I am not a knee jerk conservative" would have doomed Reagan among post Reagan conservatives. Romney's "moderation" actually looks farther to the right of Reagan in the late 1970s.
Romney likely saw himself as a disciple of Reagan too, not the firebrand of 1964 or the candidate trying to navigate a diverse GOP ocean in the mid 1970s. President Reagan likely looked much like aspiring president Romney. The Reagan of the 1980s told advisers that he would rather get 75 percent of what he wanted than drive his wagon off the cliff all banners flying. He worked with a hostile Democratic House of Representatives to hammer through a tax reform bill. Conservatives of the 1980s were even shocked. West Virginia congressman Mick Staton went so far as to write the president a letter of complaint, wondering if he had lost his way.
Staunch conservatives see themselves as disciples of Reagan. And in a way, they are right. But moderates are also right when they claim the same mantle. No great man remains the same as he grows and changes. Reagan did adhere to the same principles, but understood as he gained tangible leadership experience that some success was better than all or nothing.
In 2012, the arguments about the GOP nominee often made the perfect the enemy of the good. All too often, that "perfect" was represented by a Ronald Reagan that never existed, a Reagan image that cobbled together the best parts of 25 years of politics while conveniently ignoring other important attributes.
As we approach 2016, it is time to choose a candidate from this century. Reagan was great in the same fashion as Lincoln and Washington, and also like them, not an option today.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Iraq's Modern Day Mahdi: Bald Faced Terror On the Move In the Middle East
As the American media drones on about the primary defeat of a Virginia congressman, the lights may be going out around the Middle East.
A wound that started erupting in Syria has now brought infection to neighboring Iraq. The Islamic State of the Levant and Iraq (ISIS) has expanded its reach into many of Iraq's western provinces and the second city of Mosul. Its forces now have started moving towards the central government in Baghdad.
Some see this as a historical correction. From the Roman Empire through the Ottoman period to the League of Nations mandates, boundaries in the Middle East reflected the priorities of other states. Turkey and Israel alone relate to ethnic and historical boundaries.
ISIS militants, however, have imposed the most severe forms of Islamic law with the most violent measures. Hundreds have been brutally killed, including many beheadings. Hundreds of thousands have fled rule by terror.
At stake is the government of Iraq. The Iraq War left the nation in a fragile infancy as a democracy. Millions defied terrorists to dip their fingers in purple ink and vote. American forces remained available as part of a status of forces agreement that would allow the US military to help defend the democratic government when necessary.
Unfortunately, Obama has neglected the victory that American troops (agree or disagree) fought to achieve. He failed to reach a status of forces agreement with Iraq and painted it as his own success.
Well over a century ago, British controlled Egypt governed the Sudan. Egypt employed General Charles George Gordon to help defend their position in Sudan.
Britain had offended Sudanese Muslims, not with imperialistic greed, but their demand that the slave trade end. A charismatic leader, Muhammad Ahmad, emerged to give a religious cloak to discontent over the end of the slave trade, among other things.
Ahmad took on the name "Mahdi" which is something like a messiah. The Mahdi does not restore earthly or heavenly kingdoms, but sweeps through the land killing anything in his path.
The Mahdi annihilated those who would not join. He slaughtered almost all of the city of Khartoum, not just General Gordon and his Egyptian soldiers. Eventually he died at the hands of a British force under Lord Kitchener, sent too late to save Gordon and Egyptian allied troops.
The Mahdi of the 1880s and ISIS of today do not bring historical corrections. They bring only death and suffering. They do not debate the morality of saving other nations from dictators. They torture and destroy.
What has happened while Obama plays golf games and promotes Democratic candidates to high school students is the worst case scenario. A terrifying warlord has gained influence and momentum and could upset the entire political structure of the Middle East. We can turn on all the coal mines and oil and gas taps possible and do very comfortably without the resources of that part of the world. But millions could die and an entire region could lapse into anarchy, a dangerous proposition in the nuclear age.
One could not imagine a worse scenario in which to have a presidential disaster.
A wound that started erupting in Syria has now brought infection to neighboring Iraq. The Islamic State of the Levant and Iraq (ISIS) has expanded its reach into many of Iraq's western provinces and the second city of Mosul. Its forces now have started moving towards the central government in Baghdad.
Some see this as a historical correction. From the Roman Empire through the Ottoman period to the League of Nations mandates, boundaries in the Middle East reflected the priorities of other states. Turkey and Israel alone relate to ethnic and historical boundaries.
ISIS militants, however, have imposed the most severe forms of Islamic law with the most violent measures. Hundreds have been brutally killed, including many beheadings. Hundreds of thousands have fled rule by terror.
At stake is the government of Iraq. The Iraq War left the nation in a fragile infancy as a democracy. Millions defied terrorists to dip their fingers in purple ink and vote. American forces remained available as part of a status of forces agreement that would allow the US military to help defend the democratic government when necessary.
Unfortunately, Obama has neglected the victory that American troops (agree or disagree) fought to achieve. He failed to reach a status of forces agreement with Iraq and painted it as his own success.
Well over a century ago, British controlled Egypt governed the Sudan. Egypt employed General Charles George Gordon to help defend their position in Sudan.
Britain had offended Sudanese Muslims, not with imperialistic greed, but their demand that the slave trade end. A charismatic leader, Muhammad Ahmad, emerged to give a religious cloak to discontent over the end of the slave trade, among other things.
Ahmad took on the name "Mahdi" which is something like a messiah. The Mahdi does not restore earthly or heavenly kingdoms, but sweeps through the land killing anything in his path.
The Mahdi annihilated those who would not join. He slaughtered almost all of the city of Khartoum, not just General Gordon and his Egyptian soldiers. Eventually he died at the hands of a British force under Lord Kitchener, sent too late to save Gordon and Egyptian allied troops.
The Mahdi of the 1880s and ISIS of today do not bring historical corrections. They bring only death and suffering. They do not debate the morality of saving other nations from dictators. They torture and destroy.
What has happened while Obama plays golf games and promotes Democratic candidates to high school students is the worst case scenario. A terrifying warlord has gained influence and momentum and could upset the entire political structure of the Middle East. We can turn on all the coal mines and oil and gas taps possible and do very comfortably without the resources of that part of the world. But millions could die and an entire region could lapse into anarchy, a dangerous proposition in the nuclear age.
One could not imagine a worse scenario in which to have a presidential disaster.
Inspector General Report Makes Mockery of Jon Stewart, Salon's Mockery of Fox News
Fox News is often a left wing whipping boy. Last spring, the network reported stories of "widespread" fraud and abuse involving the food stamp program. Turns out, according to a recent Inspector General's report, Fox had the issue right.
Jon Stewart used the report to bash Fox News, saying for example "We read the chain emails you grandma gets in her inbox out loud like they were true."
Salon piled on. They described Stewart's act as "castigating the right wing propaganda shop" for repeating stories "you hear" about fraud and abuse.
The Department of Justice successfully prosecuted a Camden, New Jersey man for stealing over $2.5 million from the SNAP program. From recipients, he purchased benefits from customers for .50 cents on the dollar, then deposited the benefits as full purchases.
This case has been ongoing since May 2013, well before the Jon Stewart rant and Salon echo.
On the heels of this announcement came reports of the largest food stamp bust in history. Five Georgians, according to the US Attorney's office, "canvassed low income neighborhoods and solicited WIC (a program to help parents buy nutritious food for expecting mothers and small children) and food stamp participants to illegally exchange their benefits not for food, but for cash."
The conspirators allegedly netted $18 million in the scheme.
Despite left wing pontificating, food stamp abuse is alive and well.
Jon Stewart used the report to bash Fox News, saying for example "We read the chain emails you grandma gets in her inbox out loud like they were true."
Salon piled on. They described Stewart's act as "castigating the right wing propaganda shop" for repeating stories "you hear" about fraud and abuse.
The Department of Justice successfully prosecuted a Camden, New Jersey man for stealing over $2.5 million from the SNAP program. From recipients, he purchased benefits from customers for .50 cents on the dollar, then deposited the benefits as full purchases.
This case has been ongoing since May 2013, well before the Jon Stewart rant and Salon echo.
On the heels of this announcement came reports of the largest food stamp bust in history. Five Georgians, according to the US Attorney's office, "canvassed low income neighborhoods and solicited WIC (a program to help parents buy nutritious food for expecting mothers and small children) and food stamp participants to illegally exchange their benefits not for food, but for cash."
The conspirators allegedly netted $18 million in the scheme.
Despite left wing pontificating, food stamp abuse is alive and well.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Hard Times For the Clintons
Give the Clintons credit. They have at least enough self-awareness to understand when they have not been self-aware.
Hillary Clinton let slip a moderately damaging assessment of her family's post presidency finances. "We were dead broke," she said.
Should she run for president, she will find those four words as ubiquitous as Mitt Romney's offhand 47 percent comment. She will have to explain ad nauseum what she meant and that she does really understand what truly broke really means.
This will likely grow tiresome. Neither Clinton entered the world with guaranteed millions and both, especially Bill, understand what poverty feels like. Saying "dead broke" instead of struggling to meet responsibilities was a huge error in judgment.
The Clintons, however, did the right thing. When confronted with their own version of tough times, like good free market entrepreneurs, they cashed in. People wrongly envy Bill Clinton's huge speaking fees. There is nothing wrong with making top dollar. The onus lies on those who pay the fees, especially if they pay from the public purse. Bill Clinton or the town dog catcher can ask a million dollars to speak. No one has to pay.
Problem is that being Democrats comes with connection to the party's ideology. One cannot just comfortably defend a million (or tens of millions) dollars honestly made. Nationally, the Democratic Party has moved well to the Left of the centrist comfort zone Bill Clinton always claimed. If Hillary runs in 2016, Leftist candidates such as Martin O'Malley (does anyone doubt that this failure is running for president?) will hurl this statement back at her over and over. Clinton will face class warfare, this time against her and the profits reaped by her family after the presidency.
Hillary Clinton let slip a moderately damaging assessment of her family's post presidency finances. "We were dead broke," she said.
Should she run for president, she will find those four words as ubiquitous as Mitt Romney's offhand 47 percent comment. She will have to explain ad nauseum what she meant and that she does really understand what truly broke really means.
This will likely grow tiresome. Neither Clinton entered the world with guaranteed millions and both, especially Bill, understand what poverty feels like. Saying "dead broke" instead of struggling to meet responsibilities was a huge error in judgment.
The Clintons, however, did the right thing. When confronted with their own version of tough times, like good free market entrepreneurs, they cashed in. People wrongly envy Bill Clinton's huge speaking fees. There is nothing wrong with making top dollar. The onus lies on those who pay the fees, especially if they pay from the public purse. Bill Clinton or the town dog catcher can ask a million dollars to speak. No one has to pay.
Problem is that being Democrats comes with connection to the party's ideology. One cannot just comfortably defend a million (or tens of millions) dollars honestly made. Nationally, the Democratic Party has moved well to the Left of the centrist comfort zone Bill Clinton always claimed. If Hillary runs in 2016, Leftist candidates such as Martin O'Malley (does anyone doubt that this failure is running for president?) will hurl this statement back at her over and over. Clinton will face class warfare, this time against her and the profits reaped by her family after the presidency.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Bad People Do Bad Things
During the Miss USA pageant last weekend, the contestant from Nevada landed herself in the crosshairs of left wing hate.
After being asked about the prevalence of campus rape, Nia Sanchez blasted colleges for sweeping the issue of sexual assault under the rug. The fourth degree black belt holder then advised women to grow more confident and to learn self defense. "I learned from a young age that you need to be confident and learn to defend yourself." she noted.
And somehow, her advice to learn how to beat an attacker into unconsciousness or at least submission is seen as an endorsement of "rape culture." One Twitter respondent claimed that women should not have to learn to defend themselves against rape since rape is wrong.
Marshall University's Women's Center defines rape culture in a number of different ways. One aspect is "teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape."
Ludicrous!
Leftists believe that somewhere lies a magic button. If society just looked hard enough, or if the Koch Brothers and the Republican Party would stop hiding it, rape would end.
Certainly there is nothing wrong with reminding everyone that rape is wrong, no means no, etc. But the left has posited the issue of rape and self-defense as an inane zero sum game. What is wrong with both reinforcing the moral value that rape is an offense against humanity and encouraging individuals to empower themselves. Hope for the best; prepare for the worst.
The problem is that bad people exist. No amount of social engineering or wishing upon a star will erase the fact that evil men and women walk the earth. They do not care about morality or justice. They do not care about you or me. All that keeps them from hurting others is the fear of something unpleasant being visited upon them.
Most men do not want to harm women or anyone else. But a few do not care and will act with impunity.
Solution? Encourage women to learn to protect themselves. Learn self-defense. Carry a handy weapon. Interestingly, feminists used to advocate self empowerment as liberating oneself from the oppression of men.
Ask most Republicans and they would agree that a woman has every right to pull a gun and shoot her would be rapist. If the attacker died, no conservative would shed a tear.
Teaching that rape has consequences is the best way to reduce its instance even further. Every time that a woman shoots or beats an attacker into a hospital bed a lesson has been presented. The media should make sure that it gets learned and learned well.
After being asked about the prevalence of campus rape, Nia Sanchez blasted colleges for sweeping the issue of sexual assault under the rug. The fourth degree black belt holder then advised women to grow more confident and to learn self defense. "I learned from a young age that you need to be confident and learn to defend yourself." she noted.
And somehow, her advice to learn how to beat an attacker into unconsciousness or at least submission is seen as an endorsement of "rape culture." One Twitter respondent claimed that women should not have to learn to defend themselves against rape since rape is wrong.
Marshall University's Women's Center defines rape culture in a number of different ways. One aspect is "teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape."
Ludicrous!
Leftists believe that somewhere lies a magic button. If society just looked hard enough, or if the Koch Brothers and the Republican Party would stop hiding it, rape would end.
Certainly there is nothing wrong with reminding everyone that rape is wrong, no means no, etc. But the left has posited the issue of rape and self-defense as an inane zero sum game. What is wrong with both reinforcing the moral value that rape is an offense against humanity and encouraging individuals to empower themselves. Hope for the best; prepare for the worst.
The problem is that bad people exist. No amount of social engineering or wishing upon a star will erase the fact that evil men and women walk the earth. They do not care about morality or justice. They do not care about you or me. All that keeps them from hurting others is the fear of something unpleasant being visited upon them.
Most men do not want to harm women or anyone else. But a few do not care and will act with impunity.
Solution? Encourage women to learn to protect themselves. Learn self-defense. Carry a handy weapon. Interestingly, feminists used to advocate self empowerment as liberating oneself from the oppression of men.
Ask most Republicans and they would agree that a woman has every right to pull a gun and shoot her would be rapist. If the attacker died, no conservative would shed a tear.
Teaching that rape has consequences is the best way to reduce its instance even further. Every time that a woman shoots or beats an attacker into a hospital bed a lesson has been presented. The media should make sure that it gets learned and learned well.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Somewhere, Andrew Johnson Is Thankful That He Is No Longer the Worst
Until perhaps now, the worst president in the history of the United States has to have been President Andrew Johnson. No one else has managed to reach the same reverse Midas touch (everything he touches turns to name something foul and offensive) ineptness shown by Andrew Johnson . . . again, until perhaps now.
As a president, Johnson deserves his fate. As a man, he deserves some slack. The nation would have never elected Johnson to this office on his own merits. He was an aggressive, sometimes drunken, angry man bearing not chips, but full grown redwood trees on his shoulders. Johnson was useful as a Southern Democrat in the US Senate who hated secession and everyone associated with it.
Johnson tried to follow what he assumed Lincoln's policy would be. But he lacked Lincoln's disarming diplomatic style. His intellect paled in comparison, also. Most importantly, Lincoln earned more political capital than any president since Washington by winning the Civil War. He would have had to spend all of it and test his leadership abilities to their limit to implement his Reconstruction plan and make sure the South abided. Johnson had no such capital and no such abilities.
His suspicious and angry nature alienated moderate Republicans who had been eager to assist and even defend him against Radicals who sought full punishment for the costs of secession. The Democratic Party remained too tainted with the recent Rebellion to have given him substantial backing.
Johnson and Obama have many differences. One grew up in rural poverty, the other in urban comfort. But many similarities link them. They both saw themselves as the moral center of events. This created trouble for both because they could not understand that others may disagree for completely honest reasons.
Johnson, on Washington's Birthday no less, savaged his House Republican opponents. He accused Thaddeus Stevens, among others, for preventing the reconciliation of the country. "I do not intend to be bullied by my enemies!" he shouted. Obama, too has played the morally righteous victim, attacked by unreasonable opponents.
Both men relied on shrinking circles of trusted advisers. Obama has few, other than Valerie Jarrett, at this point after starting off with the capable Rahm Emmanuel and Robert Gibbs. Johnson lost most of his Cabinet outside of the increasingly moderate secretary of state William Seward. Seward had a relatively free hand and gave Johnson one of his few accomplishments, the purchase of Alaska.
Johnson's political influence did not hit its nadir in fall of 1866, even though he invested two weeks into speeches backing Democratic candidates. Those who allowed him to speak in their support found he was little help. Radical Republicans won big in the midterms that year and the nation repudiated Johnson. In 2014, most Democratic candidates avoid Obama. Allison Grimes of Kentucky hopes to build support for her Senate race against Republican Mitch McConnell by attacking the president.
And both men broke the law. Historians generally agree that the Tenure of Office Act was a trap laid out in the open by Republicans hoping to catch Johnson committing "high crimes and misdemeanors." they impeached, but failed to remove him. The odium of violating the law and facing a Senate trial ended whatever influence Johnson had left.
Obama last week violated a more important federal law. He turned five terrorist leaders and strategists back over to the enemy for a Marine who may have been at best a deserter, at worst a traitor. The law requires that any terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay come after consultation with Congress and 30 days for discussion. Obama failed to follow the law, then allowed his National Security Adviser to claim the enemy captured him on the battlefield, which was far from the case. The Taliban must know that if these men plan and execute an attack that harms Americans, that it will spark a Constitutional crisis and the likely impeachment of the president.
Democrats seem to have found their breaking point. Senator Diane Feinstein was livid in her denunciation. This comes on top of the Veterans' Affairs scandal and the War on Coal regulations that provoked open rebellion from Senator Joe Manchin and Congressman Nick Rahall. Obamacare's many failures and burdens on working Americans already define his presidency. Clinton will try to separate herself from the president and his policy, but will not have much success.
Johnson with his flawed personality and good intentions sank his own presidency. He failed in everything that he tried, but Andrew Johnson did not make the country substantially worse off than when he took office. Obama's values and beliefs have underlain every policy decision that he has made, foreign and domestic. The utter wrongness of those ideas has put the nation and the world in a much worse position
As a president, Johnson deserves his fate. As a man, he deserves some slack. The nation would have never elected Johnson to this office on his own merits. He was an aggressive, sometimes drunken, angry man bearing not chips, but full grown redwood trees on his shoulders. Johnson was useful as a Southern Democrat in the US Senate who hated secession and everyone associated with it.
Johnson tried to follow what he assumed Lincoln's policy would be. But he lacked Lincoln's disarming diplomatic style. His intellect paled in comparison, also. Most importantly, Lincoln earned more political capital than any president since Washington by winning the Civil War. He would have had to spend all of it and test his leadership abilities to their limit to implement his Reconstruction plan and make sure the South abided. Johnson had no such capital and no such abilities.
His suspicious and angry nature alienated moderate Republicans who had been eager to assist and even defend him against Radicals who sought full punishment for the costs of secession. The Democratic Party remained too tainted with the recent Rebellion to have given him substantial backing.
Johnson and Obama have many differences. One grew up in rural poverty, the other in urban comfort. But many similarities link them. They both saw themselves as the moral center of events. This created trouble for both because they could not understand that others may disagree for completely honest reasons.
Johnson, on Washington's Birthday no less, savaged his House Republican opponents. He accused Thaddeus Stevens, among others, for preventing the reconciliation of the country. "I do not intend to be bullied by my enemies!" he shouted. Obama, too has played the morally righteous victim, attacked by unreasonable opponents.
Both men relied on shrinking circles of trusted advisers. Obama has few, other than Valerie Jarrett, at this point after starting off with the capable Rahm Emmanuel and Robert Gibbs. Johnson lost most of his Cabinet outside of the increasingly moderate secretary of state William Seward. Seward had a relatively free hand and gave Johnson one of his few accomplishments, the purchase of Alaska.
Johnson's political influence did not hit its nadir in fall of 1866, even though he invested two weeks into speeches backing Democratic candidates. Those who allowed him to speak in their support found he was little help. Radical Republicans won big in the midterms that year and the nation repudiated Johnson. In 2014, most Democratic candidates avoid Obama. Allison Grimes of Kentucky hopes to build support for her Senate race against Republican Mitch McConnell by attacking the president.
And both men broke the law. Historians generally agree that the Tenure of Office Act was a trap laid out in the open by Republicans hoping to catch Johnson committing "high crimes and misdemeanors." they impeached, but failed to remove him. The odium of violating the law and facing a Senate trial ended whatever influence Johnson had left.
Obama last week violated a more important federal law. He turned five terrorist leaders and strategists back over to the enemy for a Marine who may have been at best a deserter, at worst a traitor. The law requires that any terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay come after consultation with Congress and 30 days for discussion. Obama failed to follow the law, then allowed his National Security Adviser to claim the enemy captured him on the battlefield, which was far from the case. The Taliban must know that if these men plan and execute an attack that harms Americans, that it will spark a Constitutional crisis and the likely impeachment of the president.
Democrats seem to have found their breaking point. Senator Diane Feinstein was livid in her denunciation. This comes on top of the Veterans' Affairs scandal and the War on Coal regulations that provoked open rebellion from Senator Joe Manchin and Congressman Nick Rahall. Obamacare's many failures and burdens on working Americans already define his presidency. Clinton will try to separate herself from the president and his policy, but will not have much success.
Johnson with his flawed personality and good intentions sank his own presidency. He failed in everything that he tried, but Andrew Johnson did not make the country substantially worse off than when he took office. Obama's values and beliefs have underlain every policy decision that he has made, foreign and domestic. The utter wrongness of those ideas has put the nation and the world in a much worse position
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Why Is the EPA Out Of Control? Because They Succeeded.
Ever since travel writer Anne Royall regaled early 19th century audiences with tales of environmental destruction in the Kanawha Valley salt works, there has been concern about pollution and destruction. Ronald Lewis' Transforming the Appalachian Countryside chronicles the effect of the later 1800s timber industry on the landscape, eroded mountains, streams devoid of fish, and other disasters. In 1969 came the seminal environmental event, when pollution in Ohio's Cuyahoga River caught fire.
Modern conservatives blame Richard Nixon for the later sins of the Environmental Protection Agency that he created. Nixon, however, knew that systematic abuse of the environment had become standard operating procedure in many industries. This was the problem that the EPA was created to address. The Industrial Revolution brought prosperity, education, higher living standards, and longer lives. It also set a river on fire. Nixon created the EPA to reduce pollutants and enforce new environmental standards to encourage conservation and protect the environment.
And what came of it? The EPA succeeded. According to their own statistics, carbon monoxide levels in the air dropped 83 percent from 1980 levels, from 178 million tons to 51 million. Much of the drop in carbon monoxide emissions came between 2001 and 2009, the years of the George W. Bush presidency. Airborne lead dropped 91 percent. Aggregate emissions of six common pollutants dropped 67 percent.
Percentages and raw numbers dropped even though the US has more people, producing more goods and services, and driving more vehicles than ever.
So the EPA actually succeeded in its most important primary task. It brought reasonable standards into being and provided an enforcement mechanism to ensure that the air and water did not harm us. In any group of people, accidents and even disasters will happen. But they do not have a serious long term impact because industries generally abide by EPA standards.
If the story ended here, we'd call it a government success story. Most people understand, however, that it did not, that the EPA now uses flimsy evidence and bad science to justify destroying industries. Worse, they work at the behest, as Heritage's Stephen Moore describes, of green energy moguls who have a vested interest in its work. So-called green energy cannot replace coal, gas, or oil. It also requires enormous amounts of resources to build and ship which limit their benefit to the environment.
A lot of politics and money have energized the EPA to attack the cleanest coal mining and power production that has ever been seen anywhere in history. But why do they also go after farms? Why, for example, as Delegate Kelli Sobonya said last week, has the EPA gotten so obsessed with limiting "bovine emissions" (that's cow farts to the rest of us.)
Another aspect fuels EPA lunacy. They succeeded and now the agency has little real justification for crusading. Going after bogeymen, real or false, gives bureaucrats a sense of purpose. Secular Saint Georges slaying the mean and nasty pollution dragon, saving the world from global warming, err climate change. This all sounds like much more fun than a scaled down agency administering reasonable regulations that maintain a successful status quo.
The EPA achieved its original goal beyond what was likely expected in 1972. It eventually hit a balance between the needs of a dynamic economy and the needs of a protected environment. Now, to justify itself, it goes out looking for new empires to battle and conquer.
It's human nature to want to matter and have a strong sense of purpose. But this agency level self-fulfillment should not come at the cost of real jobs, real standards of living, and real lives.
Monday, June 2, 2014
Movie Review: To Be Or Not To Be (1983)
Since Hollywood keeps serving up loads of crap, and since the best talent and effort comes from cable television these days, you have to go back into the past to find decent movies to review.
From 1983 comes To Be Or Not To Be. Mel Brooks produces, stars in, but does not direct this updated version of a 1942 Jack Benny movie of similar name and plot. Brooks plays Frederick Bronski, a bad Polish actor whose theater gets caught up in the fear and chaos of newly occupied Poland in late 1939. A key difference between Jack Benny's version and Mel Brooks adaptation is one of grave consequence. In 1942, few in the United States had any notion of the horror engulfing Jews, homosexuals, political dissenters, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, and others pulled into the Holocaust.
Brooks' version has to balance dark comedy against utter darkness.
Starring alongside Brooks is Anne Bancroft, best known for her role as a predatory seducer in The Graduate, here playing Bronski's wife Anna. The alluring Italian star (despite the very American sounding stage name) was Mel Brooks' wife for over 40 years. Her chemistry with Brooks in once sense forms the foundation of the film, their unquestionable adoration for each other saturates every scene containing the both of them. It does, however, undermine a crucial subplot.
Tim Matheson plays a young Polish pilot, Lieutenant Sobinski, who falls for Anna Bronski. Anna Bronski never seems to decide if it is lust or love she feels for Sobinski. At any rate, he flees to London after teh invasion. There he learns that Professor Siletski (Jose Ferrer) has obtained a list of Polish Underground members that he intends to deliver to the Gestapo. Matheson is convincing as the lovestruck dalliance of Anna Bronski. Bancroft, as great as she is in other areas, does not convince anyone that she has any feelings for him, lust or otherwise. And it's not really necessary anyway, because the film itself deals with more important issues.
Most of To Be Or Not To Be centers around Bronski having to play several roles to ensure the success of the caper, which is stealing the list of Polish rebels. Brooks plays Bronski playing a Gestapo colonel, Professor Siletski, and even Hitler.
The film is funny, sometimes hilarious, but always comes back to the underlying horror of the Holcaust. James Haake plays Sasha, the typical flamboyant gay man often seen in Brooks' films. At one point, he complains that his inverted pink triangle clashes with everything else he owns (this was a symbol the Nazis forced homosexuals to wear for identification.) Eventually, the Gestapo arrests Sasha. Bronski must adapt his scheme to help free Sasha from deportation.
To Be Or Not To Be has a tremendous cast for its time. Charles During, known best recently as Mississippi governor Menelaus "Pappy" "Pass the biscuits" O"Daniel in O'Brother Where Art Thou, plays a similar role as Gestapo colonel Gerhardt in that he is a harassed man of authority, dealing with pressures, and blaming much on his idiot subordinate. In this case, the subordinate is "Schultz," played hysterically by Christopher Lloyd who would soon star in Back to the Future. George Gaynes sounds almost Shakespearean as actor Ravitch, who usually appears on screen either as a Shakespearean character or a fake Gestapo general. Gaynes would soon forge his own iconic comedic role as Commandant Eric Lassard in Police Academy.
For a Brooks film, there are surprisingly few trademark gags, such as when Bronski orders the character Sondheim to "send in the clowns." The audience never is allowed to forget that gravity of the subject. Towards the end, when the actors try to sneak a large group of Jews past the Nazis, one older woman grows too terrified to move until another actor allays the suspicion of the Germans and gets her going again.
Mel Brooks often delivers silliness. Silent Movie, Spaceballs, and a few other films have no point except to make the audience laugh. Then, consider a film like Young Frankenstein that satirizes a genre, yet also develops strong and memorable characters. Brooks at his best, in works like Blazing Saddles, The Producers, and To Be Or Not To Be, jabs at mindless discrimination and persecution using both comedy and a powerful optimism in the human spirit. Evil never learns its lesson in these Brooks movies, but those who join together against the evil always prevail with grace and good humor.
From 1983 comes To Be Or Not To Be. Mel Brooks produces, stars in, but does not direct this updated version of a 1942 Jack Benny movie of similar name and plot. Brooks plays Frederick Bronski, a bad Polish actor whose theater gets caught up in the fear and chaos of newly occupied Poland in late 1939. A key difference between Jack Benny's version and Mel Brooks adaptation is one of grave consequence. In 1942, few in the United States had any notion of the horror engulfing Jews, homosexuals, political dissenters, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, and others pulled into the Holocaust.
Brooks' version has to balance dark comedy against utter darkness.
Starring alongside Brooks is Anne Bancroft, best known for her role as a predatory seducer in The Graduate, here playing Bronski's wife Anna. The alluring Italian star (despite the very American sounding stage name) was Mel Brooks' wife for over 40 years. Her chemistry with Brooks in once sense forms the foundation of the film, their unquestionable adoration for each other saturates every scene containing the both of them. It does, however, undermine a crucial subplot.
Tim Matheson plays a young Polish pilot, Lieutenant Sobinski, who falls for Anna Bronski. Anna Bronski never seems to decide if it is lust or love she feels for Sobinski. At any rate, he flees to London after teh invasion. There he learns that Professor Siletski (Jose Ferrer) has obtained a list of Polish Underground members that he intends to deliver to the Gestapo. Matheson is convincing as the lovestruck dalliance of Anna Bronski. Bancroft, as great as she is in other areas, does not convince anyone that she has any feelings for him, lust or otherwise. And it's not really necessary anyway, because the film itself deals with more important issues.
Most of To Be Or Not To Be centers around Bronski having to play several roles to ensure the success of the caper, which is stealing the list of Polish rebels. Brooks plays Bronski playing a Gestapo colonel, Professor Siletski, and even Hitler.
The film is funny, sometimes hilarious, but always comes back to the underlying horror of the Holcaust. James Haake plays Sasha, the typical flamboyant gay man often seen in Brooks' films. At one point, he complains that his inverted pink triangle clashes with everything else he owns (this was a symbol the Nazis forced homosexuals to wear for identification.) Eventually, the Gestapo arrests Sasha. Bronski must adapt his scheme to help free Sasha from deportation.
To Be Or Not To Be has a tremendous cast for its time. Charles During, known best recently as Mississippi governor Menelaus "Pappy" "Pass the biscuits" O"Daniel in O'Brother Where Art Thou, plays a similar role as Gestapo colonel Gerhardt in that he is a harassed man of authority, dealing with pressures, and blaming much on his idiot subordinate. In this case, the subordinate is "Schultz," played hysterically by Christopher Lloyd who would soon star in Back to the Future. George Gaynes sounds almost Shakespearean as actor Ravitch, who usually appears on screen either as a Shakespearean character or a fake Gestapo general. Gaynes would soon forge his own iconic comedic role as Commandant Eric Lassard in Police Academy.
For a Brooks film, there are surprisingly few trademark gags, such as when Bronski orders the character Sondheim to "send in the clowns." The audience never is allowed to forget that gravity of the subject. Towards the end, when the actors try to sneak a large group of Jews past the Nazis, one older woman grows too terrified to move until another actor allays the suspicion of the Germans and gets her going again.
Mel Brooks often delivers silliness. Silent Movie, Spaceballs, and a few other films have no point except to make the audience laugh. Then, consider a film like Young Frankenstein that satirizes a genre, yet also develops strong and memorable characters. Brooks at his best, in works like Blazing Saddles, The Producers, and To Be Or Not To Be, jabs at mindless discrimination and persecution using both comedy and a powerful optimism in the human spirit. Evil never learns its lesson in these Brooks movies, but those who join together against the evil always prevail with grace and good humor.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Famous Last Words
Pope Gregory VII
Gregory VII served as Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church from 1073 to 1085. In Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, he found his chief rival for leadership over the Christian world. Henry ignored the Papal edicts and earned an excommunication (was cut off from the Holy Sacraments) and, far worse, interdict. This meant that good Christian subjects of the emperor no longer had a moral duty to obey. How many times in world history has the most powerful temporal leader subjugated himself as Henry did to Gregory, standing in the snow barefoot outside a castle for three days.
Not that Henry changed his ways, but for Gregory the submission of governmental power to the spiritual made the point clearly enough. At the end of his life, Norseman raiders drove the Papal government away from Rome. As he died, Pope Gregory VII lamented:
I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore I die in exile.
Major General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson C.S.A.
In 1859, Thomas Jackson was a classic campus radical. Offspring of a western Virginia "fine family" and veteran of the Mexican War, Jackson probably got more slack than most contemporaries. His eccentricities (later called obsessive compulsive disorder) included a fear of slouching due to the possibility that his organs might get compressed. Once, told by his superior at Virginia Military Institute to wait outside, he obeyed completely. Of course the superior forgot Jackson, left by another door, and found the professor still sitting there the next morning. Jackson angered many by opening classes to teach slave children to read.
The Civil War revealed Jackson's brilliance. More than most other military minds, he understood the value of maps. He commissioned the first detailed maps of the Shenandoah Valley and proceeded to own it for two years. At Chancellorsville, he met death in the form of an accidental bullet from one of his own troops.
Stonewall Jackson left posterity with typically beautiful, typically Christian imagery:
Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees
Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus
Or just plain "Nero." Emperor Nero ruled between 37 and 68 Anno Domini, although most of those years may not have seemed like the years of any good lord to most Romans. Eccentricity turned to despotism as the mad singer imposed his horrible songs and depraved lusts indiscriminately. After the great fire of Rome, often blamed on Nero himself, the emperor targeted the Christians. St. Peter died hanging upside down on a cross by Nero's order.
Nero considered himself first and foremost a great singer and few would disagree with him while he held power. Finally he was condemned as a public enemy and forced to commit suicide, at which point the ever dramatic Nero proclaimed
What an artist is now about to perish!
Lou Costello
One half of the great mid century comedy team Abbott and Costello. Costello was one of many comics outsized in physique and personality, inspiring future greats like John Belushi, John Candy, and Chris Farley. Abbott and Costello performed in live acts, movies, and eventually television. Most remember the duo for their fast paced, complicated, several minute long "Who's On First" routine. Although both men were staples of American entertainment for decades, neither grew rich. These, of course, were the days of the 98 percent tax bracket that made Ronald Reagan a Republican. Both men died broke, the IRS harassing them to their grave.
Costello's last words summed up his public perception and love of life
That was the best ice cream soda I ever tasted
President John Adams
It's hard to find a picture of John Adams with even a hint of a smile. Even as president, Adams seemed to fear showing the world the impish personality shared with his family. Too often, conflicts over ideals boiled into personal feuds with the sensitive intellect.
History pairs him with the equally sensitive disposition of Thomas Jefferson. When young Jefferson's Declaration of Independence met the tough editing hand of Adams, the writer sulked back to Monticello for most of the rest of the Revolution. Building the Republic, at least early on, kindled a deep friendship based on shared abilities and goals.
That is, until the 1790s. They differed over President Washington, principles of government, and almost everything else. Adams' victory over Jefferson in the election of 1796, by a soon corrected constitutional flaw, made Adams president and Jefferson his second. Neither man was ever capable of keeping political rivalry from growing personal. They soon hated each other.
After Jefferson's two stormy terms of office, tempers cooled. The two Founding Fathers, seen less as inspiration and more as living relics by the younger generation, did as old men usually did. They complained about the young. They reopened a correspondence and a friendship that produced some of the greatest political letters and debates ever put from pen to paper.
They rarely saw each other, but their friendship deepened over time. On July 4, 1826, Adams lay suffering on his deathbed in his beloved Braintree farmhouse. As he felt his last moment coming, he sputtered in relief
Thomas Jefferson still survives
Unfortunately Adams was mistaken. Jefferson died earlier that same day.
Major General John Sedgewick
Sedgewick carries the unfortunate distinction of being the highest ranking Union officer to die on the field of battle in the drive on Richmond. He started his adult professional life as a teacher, but soon went to West Point, following the footsteps of his grandfather, a Revolutionary War general.
Revolutionary War and Civil War officers shared a higher mortality rate than command officers today. They followed the example of George Washington who, when necessary, believed in leading his troops from the front.
Frustrated with his units' lines not going exactly where he wanted them to go, he endeavored to instruct them in person. Warned by his aide to not go to a certain spot due to Confederate snipers, Sedgewick exclaimed
Why, what are you dodging about? They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!
The snipers proved him wrong, putting a bullet through his eye. He died with the smile on his face that accompanied his underestimation of his enemies' shooting prowess.
Charles George Gordon
Probably the most acclaimed British hero between Lord Nelson and Winston Churchill. He had already enjoyed military success in China before going to Africa.
In Africa, he led an Egyptian force into Khartoum. His purpose was to hold it against the army of a self-proclaimed Islamic prophet called the Mahdi. The Mahdi whipped up anti British sentiment, mostly based on the suppression of the slave trade, and laid siege to Gordon and his Egyptian troops. While they held out, they waited for a hesitant British government led by William Gladstone for relief. Eventually help was sent, but too late.
His men lasted until they ran out of food and ammunition, then fought to the death. Death would have been their fate regardless. Alan Moorhead in The White Nile described Gordon's end.
He stood at the top of the stairs of the palace that served as his headquarters. As the mob rushed towards him, swords drawn, Gordon calmly turned his back.
Without a word, Gordon met his grizzly fate.
Deincentivizing Mass Murder
Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic may not have a sure fire way to stop mass murders. But his idea may erode the perverse allure that it has for those who do it.
Traditional serial killers differ from mass murderers in one sense. Serial killers work in the dark over time. The media and nation knew their deeds, but not their name. When finally caught, they turn out to be much more pathetic than the anonymous image imagined. Mass murderers in the new century prefer to go out, as the song says, in a blaze of glory. One vast and violent act so that their name may be written across the sky (or the internet.) They expect to be defined by their ghastly acts and violent death.
The latest killer mistakenly thought this was not cruel and cowardly, but being an "alpha male."
Friedersdorf proposes that the media impose a self-discipline on itself that it has already done in other fields. Outlets do not publish the names of rape victims, for instance. They also stopped releasing manifestos from the Unabomber during his domestic terrorism rampage. Sporting event coverage always turns its cameras away from streakers. So why not refuse to release the names or manifestos of mass murderers.
In fact, these killers could be called narcissism terrorists. They have an agenda, to put their name on the historical record through death and mayhem. Perceived imbalance in society, namely that no one pays attention to them, drives their actions. Expectation of attention motivates them.
So why not just stop going on and on about them; deny them their posthumous place in the sun.
Friedersdorf does not propose to make information a "state secret." Just keep their attention seeking drivel and their names out of the media, at least for a while. Hopefully, this would undercut their absurd motivations for visiting such cruelty on their fellow man.
Traditional serial killers differ from mass murderers in one sense. Serial killers work in the dark over time. The media and nation knew their deeds, but not their name. When finally caught, they turn out to be much more pathetic than the anonymous image imagined. Mass murderers in the new century prefer to go out, as the song says, in a blaze of glory. One vast and violent act so that their name may be written across the sky (or the internet.) They expect to be defined by their ghastly acts and violent death.
The latest killer mistakenly thought this was not cruel and cowardly, but being an "alpha male."
Friedersdorf proposes that the media impose a self-discipline on itself that it has already done in other fields. Outlets do not publish the names of rape victims, for instance. They also stopped releasing manifestos from the Unabomber during his domestic terrorism rampage. Sporting event coverage always turns its cameras away from streakers. So why not refuse to release the names or manifestos of mass murderers.
In fact, these killers could be called narcissism terrorists. They have an agenda, to put their name on the historical record through death and mayhem. Perceived imbalance in society, namely that no one pays attention to them, drives their actions. Expectation of attention motivates them.
So why not just stop going on and on about them; deny them their posthumous place in the sun.
Friedersdorf does not propose to make information a "state secret." Just keep their attention seeking drivel and their names out of the media, at least for a while. Hopefully, this would undercut their absurd motivations for visiting such cruelty on their fellow man.
Conservatives Winning On Key Social Issues, Partly Thanks to MTV?
While social conservatives face a looming time of decision on whether or not to continue fighting gay marriage, they can claim victories on other fronts.
The Washington Times reports that teen birthrates and abortions have plummeted to lows not seen in decades. Birthrates among teens fell 10 percent just in the past two years. Statistics indicate that teens are also having record low numbers of abortions (since legalization.) While many do use contraceptives, studies also show that teens are waiting longer to have sex, and even then doing it less often.
According to the Washington Post, studies indicate that over 5 percent of the drop in teen conceptions come from the impact of shows like MTV's "Teen Mom." Far from glamorizing early parenthood, the shows have shown the difficult side of raising children when too young.
Lower abortion rates show that teens are also less willing to consider abortion as birth control. Those same shows most likely have an impact on the perception of abortion being not a clinical procedure so much as the death of a child.
These numbers do show victories for social conservatives in important fields. Advocates must remember, however, that part of the success came not from "thou shalt not" approaches, but generally respectful portrayals of individuals taking responsibility for unwise choices.
The Washington Times reports that teen birthrates and abortions have plummeted to lows not seen in decades. Birthrates among teens fell 10 percent just in the past two years. Statistics indicate that teens are also having record low numbers of abortions (since legalization.) While many do use contraceptives, studies also show that teens are waiting longer to have sex, and even then doing it less often.
According to the Washington Post, studies indicate that over 5 percent of the drop in teen conceptions come from the impact of shows like MTV's "Teen Mom." Far from glamorizing early parenthood, the shows have shown the difficult side of raising children when too young.
Lower abortion rates show that teens are also less willing to consider abortion as birth control. Those same shows most likely have an impact on the perception of abortion being not a clinical procedure so much as the death of a child.
These numbers do show victories for social conservatives in important fields. Advocates must remember, however, that part of the success came not from "thou shalt not" approaches, but generally respectful portrayals of individuals taking responsibility for unwise choices.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
So Judd Apatow Kills People Now?
A disturbed 22 year old son of Hollywood privilege went and killed two sorority women after stabbing his roommates. So naturally, a Washington Post film critic blames Seth Rogen?
The gunman in his manifesto described his inability to get the girl and proclaimed his intent to go out as a "true alpha male."
Ann Hornaday, Washington Post film critic, blamed "outsized frat boy fantasies like Neighbors." The Judd Apatow directed film starring Seth Rogen features a 30 something year old couple. Rogen plays an undermature, kind of dumpy looking guy married to a beautiful woman.
Hornaday must assume that such men never "get the girl" and claims that such "fantasies" frustrate men in the real world. It is actually the case that many men, regardless of looks, have some sort of charm and promise of providing for a family someday. Even without dashing looks, they still get the girl.
Insanity often is a strong barrier against meeting a nice girl.
Another odd part of Hornaday's analysis lies in her assumption that "alpha males" are represented in these movies. Apatow movies boil over with admitted and unadmitted insecurities. Like them or not, they portray individuals dealing wit and overcoming insecurities in a demanding world. Alpha males are the best produced by the military, also CEOs, Peyton Mannings, John Walls, and other men in control, capable, respected, disciplined, and decent. When not perfect, they find ways to confidently achieve whatever it is they have set as a goal. Apatow characters reach their goals, but stumble and bumble their way to them. Their charm lies in their perseverance, despite the fact that in many ways all men are not created equal.
Hornaday's use of the word fantasy is perplexing. Hollywood markets fantasy. Why on earth would people go to the movies to see exactly what they see in real life? The crime gets solved, the polis gets re-established, the wrong is set right. And yes, the hero gets the girl.
Society's problem, not unnoticed, lies in the fact that much of the country has simply abandoned the idea of teaching boys how to be boys. One author explained that schools now treat boys like "defective girls." Traditionally, boys were expected to be rougher around the edges, more fidgety, more prone to fistfights and quick reconciliations, less able to handle sitting still for long periods. Boys have got to be boys, we used to say.
Boys now get taught that their behavior is bad, that playing war is anti-social (even though boys have done this for millenia), that they need pills to make them behave. Boys need to learn discipline, but they also need more outlets for the pent up energy most of them have growing up. And the problem gets progressively worse. In fact, if you didn't want a boy, no worries, you can send him to re-education camp.
From day one, males need to learn responsibility, discipline, responsibility, work ethic, leadership, responsibility, how to defend themselves, responsibility, and how to treat women. They also need to learn that, starting at age 18, they need to start putting away childish things. This means getting a job, helping to provide for your family whether you intended to start one or not, making commitments and meeting them.
Hollywood is not to blame for boys not knowing how to be boys, not when young people watch fewer movies than ever. Schools, experts, and parents are to blame for not recognizing that boys are different.
The gunman in his manifesto described his inability to get the girl and proclaimed his intent to go out as a "true alpha male."
Ann Hornaday, Washington Post film critic, blamed "outsized frat boy fantasies like Neighbors." The Judd Apatow directed film starring Seth Rogen features a 30 something year old couple. Rogen plays an undermature, kind of dumpy looking guy married to a beautiful woman.
Hornaday must assume that such men never "get the girl" and claims that such "fantasies" frustrate men in the real world. It is actually the case that many men, regardless of looks, have some sort of charm and promise of providing for a family someday. Even without dashing looks, they still get the girl.
Insanity often is a strong barrier against meeting a nice girl.
Another odd part of Hornaday's analysis lies in her assumption that "alpha males" are represented in these movies. Apatow movies boil over with admitted and unadmitted insecurities. Like them or not, they portray individuals dealing wit and overcoming insecurities in a demanding world. Alpha males are the best produced by the military, also CEOs, Peyton Mannings, John Walls, and other men in control, capable, respected, disciplined, and decent. When not perfect, they find ways to confidently achieve whatever it is they have set as a goal. Apatow characters reach their goals, but stumble and bumble their way to them. Their charm lies in their perseverance, despite the fact that in many ways all men are not created equal.
Hornaday's use of the word fantasy is perplexing. Hollywood markets fantasy. Why on earth would people go to the movies to see exactly what they see in real life? The crime gets solved, the polis gets re-established, the wrong is set right. And yes, the hero gets the girl.
Society's problem, not unnoticed, lies in the fact that much of the country has simply abandoned the idea of teaching boys how to be boys. One author explained that schools now treat boys like "defective girls." Traditionally, boys were expected to be rougher around the edges, more fidgety, more prone to fistfights and quick reconciliations, less able to handle sitting still for long periods. Boys have got to be boys, we used to say.
Boys now get taught that their behavior is bad, that playing war is anti-social (even though boys have done this for millenia), that they need pills to make them behave. Boys need to learn discipline, but they also need more outlets for the pent up energy most of them have growing up. And the problem gets progressively worse. In fact, if you didn't want a boy, no worries, you can send him to re-education camp.
From day one, males need to learn responsibility, discipline, responsibility, work ethic, leadership, responsibility, how to defend themselves, responsibility, and how to treat women. They also need to learn that, starting at age 18, they need to start putting away childish things. This means getting a job, helping to provide for your family whether you intended to start one or not, making commitments and meeting them.
Hollywood is not to blame for boys not knowing how to be boys, not when young people watch fewer movies than ever. Schools, experts, and parents are to blame for not recognizing that boys are different.
Friday, May 23, 2014
Casey, Rockefeller Blasted Over Offensive Comments About Obama Opponents
Yesterday,
the Daily
Caller reported on
offensive comments made by Senator Rockefeller about those opposing Obamacare.
Second District Congressional nominee Alex Mooney fired back and also
referred to similar remarks by his opponent Nick Casey. Full release
below.
MOONEY
CALLS ON CASEY TO CONDEMN RACIST COMMENTS BY SEN. ROCKEFELLER
For
Immediate Release: May 23, 2014
Media
Contact: Nick Clemens (304) 702-5009
Martinsburg,
WV - Today, Alex Mooney, Republican nominee for Congress in West Virginia’s
second congressional district, called on Nick Casey to condemn recent comments
by Senator Jay Rockefeller who accused opponents of Obamacare of opposing
Obamacare simply because President Obama is "the wrong color."
Wednesday,
Sen. Rockefeller remarked: "I'll be able to dig up some emails that make
part of the Affordable Care Act that doesn't look good—especially from people
who made up their mind that they don't want it to work because they don't like
the president. Maybe he's of the wrong color, something of that sort. I've seen
a lot of that and I know a lot of that to be true. It's not something you're
meant to talk about in public but it's something I'm talking about in public
because that is very true." (National Journal, 05/21/14)
Nick
Casey has similarly made offensive comments, saying in 2008, "John McCain
is confident that ignorant, redneck racists are not going to vote for Barack
Obama, because Barack Obama is black." (Politico, 10/19/08)
"Nick
Casey's 2008 comments were offensive and insulting to the good people of West
Virginia," Alex Mooney said. "I call on Nick Casey to condemn Sen.
Rockefeller's recent comments and disavow his 2008 comments. Obamacare has been
a disastrous policy for West Virginia families, killing our jobs, increasing
taxes, and causing premiums to skyrocket. It is downright offensive to imply
that the president's race is the reason for hardworking West Virginians'
opposition to the Obamacare train wreck."
Senator
Alex Mooney, his wife, Dr. Grace Mooney, and their children reside in Charles
Town, West Virginia. Mooney is taking his campaign to defend conservative
values to every part of West Virginia's second congressional district.
###
Paid
for by Mooney for Congress
Thursday, May 22, 2014
WVGOP Speaks Frankly On Taxpayer Paid Mailings
Democrats call it a tempest in a teapot, but the aura of scandal has attracted the attention of both state outlets and the Washington Post. Officials with the West Virginia Republican Party, after an exhaustive study, say that House Democrats have abused their franking privileges.
Franking dates back to the beginning of the Republic, well before the advent of broadcast media and the internet. Newspapers did not even really report news as much as attack those holding other political ideals. Constituents in far flung areas relied on their congressmen or legislators to send them news through the mail. Under law, legislators can send constituents mail with the understanding that it is for information, not politicking.
Republican Party chair Conrad Lucas claims that House Democrats, fearful of losing their slender majority, have sent campaign style letters to targeted voters. Specifically, 12 House Democrats mailed nearly 65,000 items to overwhelmingly Democratic recipients. Delegates David Walker (Clay), Justin Marcum (Mingo), and Nancy Guthrie (Kanawha) mailed, according to the WVGOP, 95 percent of the time or more to Democrats alone.
Interestingly, Walker sent over 8,300 pieces of mail. His district, men, women, and children, adds up to approximately 24,000 individuals. Almost 2,800 of them turned out to vote in the primary in his 33rd District.
The letters sent out include photographs of the delegates. This is highly unusual in constituent correspondence because the extra ink needed to print color photographs is cost prohibitive. Typically, the body contains a list of Democratic accomplishments and good wishes for the constituent. Since the mass mailings did not include regular GOP voters, however, the letters are seen as campaign mobilization rather than trying to inform every voter.
Democrats fired back by saying they do mail to Republicans. Delegate Don Perdue from Wayne, who sent out over 4,000 pieces himself, noted on West Virginia Metro News' Talkline that it was "much ado about nothing" because he had gotten a complaint from one Republican voter. Democrats also attacked the mailing practices of Congressman David McKinley, who has returned almost $370,000 to the US Treasury from his office budget since taking office. (Author's note: As a long time and regular 1st District voter, I can say that I have never received mail from David McKinley except in response to a specific concern.)
What makes the scandal more noteworthy is that elected officials have more free ways to reach the public than ever before. Instead of a deluge of thousands of letters into Mineral County, Delegate Gary Howell writes a regular newspaper column and puts live legislative updates on his Twitter and Facebook accounts. For no charge, the State Legislature itself puts out a comprehensive bulletin of all its activities while in session to anyone interested. This renders a specific mailed list pointless.
Republican's figures date back to the beginning of the year and analysis is not complete. Democrats may well fall back to the defense that the mailing added up to mere thousands of dollars out of millions in the state budget. First, every bit counts. The state may be on the verge of cutting the popular Courtesy Patrol, which helps stranded motorists on state highways. Budgets will get vastly tighter when Medicaid expansion costs, agreed to by Democrats, start to sink in. West Virginia cannot afford to pay for delegates' campaigns.
Second, this reflects an arrogance that has plagued state politics for a long time. Elected officials too often exploit the gray areas. Board of Public Works officials used state funds to pay for trinkets and billboards featuring their names until voters finally punished the most egregious offender, Darrel McGraw. The state deserves better.
Franking dates back to the beginning of the Republic, well before the advent of broadcast media and the internet. Newspapers did not even really report news as much as attack those holding other political ideals. Constituents in far flung areas relied on their congressmen or legislators to send them news through the mail. Under law, legislators can send constituents mail with the understanding that it is for information, not politicking.
Republican Party chair Conrad Lucas claims that House Democrats, fearful of losing their slender majority, have sent campaign style letters to targeted voters. Specifically, 12 House Democrats mailed nearly 65,000 items to overwhelmingly Democratic recipients. Delegates David Walker (Clay), Justin Marcum (Mingo), and Nancy Guthrie (Kanawha) mailed, according to the WVGOP, 95 percent of the time or more to Democrats alone.
Interestingly, Walker sent over 8,300 pieces of mail. His district, men, women, and children, adds up to approximately 24,000 individuals. Almost 2,800 of them turned out to vote in the primary in his 33rd District.
The letters sent out include photographs of the delegates. This is highly unusual in constituent correspondence because the extra ink needed to print color photographs is cost prohibitive. Typically, the body contains a list of Democratic accomplishments and good wishes for the constituent. Since the mass mailings did not include regular GOP voters, however, the letters are seen as campaign mobilization rather than trying to inform every voter.
Democrats fired back by saying they do mail to Republicans. Delegate Don Perdue from Wayne, who sent out over 4,000 pieces himself, noted on West Virginia Metro News' Talkline that it was "much ado about nothing" because he had gotten a complaint from one Republican voter. Democrats also attacked the mailing practices of Congressman David McKinley, who has returned almost $370,000 to the US Treasury from his office budget since taking office. (Author's note: As a long time and regular 1st District voter, I can say that I have never received mail from David McKinley except in response to a specific concern.)
What makes the scandal more noteworthy is that elected officials have more free ways to reach the public than ever before. Instead of a deluge of thousands of letters into Mineral County, Delegate Gary Howell writes a regular newspaper column and puts live legislative updates on his Twitter and Facebook accounts. For no charge, the State Legislature itself puts out a comprehensive bulletin of all its activities while in session to anyone interested. This renders a specific mailed list pointless.
Republican's figures date back to the beginning of the year and analysis is not complete. Democrats may well fall back to the defense that the mailing added up to mere thousands of dollars out of millions in the state budget. First, every bit counts. The state may be on the verge of cutting the popular Courtesy Patrol, which helps stranded motorists on state highways. Budgets will get vastly tighter when Medicaid expansion costs, agreed to by Democrats, start to sink in. West Virginia cannot afford to pay for delegates' campaigns.
Second, this reflects an arrogance that has plagued state politics for a long time. Elected officials too often exploit the gray areas. Board of Public Works officials used state funds to pay for trinkets and billboards featuring their names until voters finally punished the most egregious offender, Darrel McGraw. The state deserves better.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
West Virginia Republicans Shatter Stereotypes
Most people can list common stereotypes of West Virginians. After all, academia and the media perpetuated them for years. Demographically, the state is merely described as overwhelmingly white. Many would add uneducated, insular, suspicious, misogynist, and a number of other three and four syllable words that add up to what West Virginians call "backwards." In other words, they spread the smear that West Virginia Republicans are resentful of advancing women and are inherently racist.
Nationally, Democrats and other leftists work tirelessly to attach the same stereotype to the GOP as a whole. In both cases they are wrong. Elections over the past ten years prove it.
Do West Virginians, and Republicans in particular, mistrust immigrants who come, live, and thrive here legally? State Republicans have nominated at least three first or second generation immigrants to important offices. In 2006, second generation Lebanese-American Chris Wakim was nominated and strongly supported by the Republican base and independents. Left wing conventional wisdom assumes that Republicans are racist and West Virginians even more so, but Wakim's ancestry was no issue for GOP voters.
Two years later, state Republicans nominated Charleston businessman and Nigerian immigrant Charles Minimah for secretary of state. Minimah, who also works to promote black history and cultural events in the Kanawha Valley, again garnered Republican and independent support despite a huge funding discrepancy between him and his opponent. This year, he is in a tightly contested race for the 37th delegate district in Charleston. Republicans often cite his experience, kindness, and honesty when talking about their support for him.
Just this month, Republicans in the West Virginia Second District nominated Alex Mooney for Congress. Voters responded positively to the story of his mother's escape from Cuban tyranny as forming part of the foundation for his ideals. National predictions still see the district as "lean Republican."
As for the national liberal "War on Women" scheme to tar the party, the Mountain State shatters that myth too. For many years, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito and former secretary of state Betty Ireland served as pillars of leadership for the state GOP. Ireland has since stepped back, while Capito is expected to cruise to victory in her US Senate race.
Also if state legislative races show anything, it's that the good ol' "boy" network of the Democratic Party remains alive and well. Fifty percent more women ran in state senate and delegate races on the Republican side than the Democratic. Many of them, including several incumbents, won their primaries or ran unopposed. Seventeen year old Saira Blair received national and international attention for upsetting her primary opponent.
Democrats, mostly white male Protestant liberals in positions of influence, will rush out the tired old tales of Republicans being racist and hating women. But the truth is not what is said, but what is done. The West Virginia Republican Party has attracted and supported more female and minority candidates than its Democratic counterparts due to its more inclusive atmosphere and its more effective set of ideals.
Nationally, Democrats and other leftists work tirelessly to attach the same stereotype to the GOP as a whole. In both cases they are wrong. Elections over the past ten years prove it.
Do West Virginians, and Republicans in particular, mistrust immigrants who come, live, and thrive here legally? State Republicans have nominated at least three first or second generation immigrants to important offices. In 2006, second generation Lebanese-American Chris Wakim was nominated and strongly supported by the Republican base and independents. Left wing conventional wisdom assumes that Republicans are racist and West Virginians even more so, but Wakim's ancestry was no issue for GOP voters.
Two years later, state Republicans nominated Charleston businessman and Nigerian immigrant Charles Minimah for secretary of state. Minimah, who also works to promote black history and cultural events in the Kanawha Valley, again garnered Republican and independent support despite a huge funding discrepancy between him and his opponent. This year, he is in a tightly contested race for the 37th delegate district in Charleston. Republicans often cite his experience, kindness, and honesty when talking about their support for him.
Just this month, Republicans in the West Virginia Second District nominated Alex Mooney for Congress. Voters responded positively to the story of his mother's escape from Cuban tyranny as forming part of the foundation for his ideals. National predictions still see the district as "lean Republican."
As for the national liberal "War on Women" scheme to tar the party, the Mountain State shatters that myth too. For many years, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito and former secretary of state Betty Ireland served as pillars of leadership for the state GOP. Ireland has since stepped back, while Capito is expected to cruise to victory in her US Senate race.
Also if state legislative races show anything, it's that the good ol' "boy" network of the Democratic Party remains alive and well. Fifty percent more women ran in state senate and delegate races on the Republican side than the Democratic. Many of them, including several incumbents, won their primaries or ran unopposed. Seventeen year old Saira Blair received national and international attention for upsetting her primary opponent.
Democrats, mostly white male Protestant liberals in positions of influence, will rush out the tired old tales of Republicans being racist and hating women. But the truth is not what is said, but what is done. The West Virginia Republican Party has attracted and supported more female and minority candidates than its Democratic counterparts due to its more inclusive atmosphere and its more effective set of ideals.
Monday, May 19, 2014
An Alternative to America's Archaic Teacher Education System
Although one should always take statistics and standardized test scores with a grain of salt, the numbers indicate that US students get less out of public education than they did in 1980. Several factors contribute to that, notably the life sucking increase of federal involvement. It is possible, however, that those aspiring to teach are less prepared than ever. Also, the rising cost of college education combined with rising student debt price many candidates out of the profession.
What's the answer? Replace most of current teacher education with an apprenticeship program.
West Virginia University, in an effort to try and improve teacher education, put together a five year program. It combines the heavy weight of endless education courses with more opportunities for the aspiring teacher to actually learn about what they are going to teach. This is a considerable improvement from the content light programs in the 1990s. Except, of course, that a five year program means that much more debt following the teacher into their low paying profession.
A better alternative could be the following:
Aspiring teachers take 66 hours for a two year degree. Three hours of educational foundations, three hours of an education course about the age group they will teach. Six hours of classes outside of their field. That leaves 54 hours worth of classes to learn about their field and any related subjects.
Next step, apprenticeship. A junior apprentice would function as a teacher's aide only. They would grade papers, assist with projects, observe the teacher handling their classroom. Next would come the senior apprentice stage where the aspiring teacher would get to teach classes under the direct supervision of the classroom teacher.
Once a teacher passes the apprenticeship, then they reach "assistant teacher" status. The assistant teacher can work as a substitute, at first only short term, later long term. They would still work as aides when not filling in for others. An assistant teacher can be trusted to handle and manage a classroom alone and also teach lessons.
Throughout this process, the candidates should be taking approved free online courses and webinars, attending presentations, reading on their subject.
After that stage, then one would become a full-fledged teacher, ready to design curricula and handle a classroom all year.
What are the benefits?
An apprenticeship could be paid or unpaid, depending on the finances of the school system. Either way, the aspiring teacher benefits because he or she pays nothing. WVU boasts that their teacher education program can put a student in the classroom for a thousand hours. Isn't that nice. Future teachers can pay for the privilege of helping schools out.
Apprenticeships put a premium on the real world instead of the theoretical. Substitute teaching teaches more about classroom management than 40 hours of education courses. Two courses can teach some basics. Experience should teach the rest.
Right now, going to the most pampered and elite schools gives any aspiring professional a mark of distinction. A broad based apprenticeship system does the opposite. Just as a Royal Navy midshipman earned respect by going on the yardarms in treacherous storms, aspiring teachers can earn the most professional respect by going to the schools and the districts that have the most challenges and need the most help.
Finally, in the epidemic coverage of teachers gone wrong, a system of supervised apprenticeship helps the schools to vet out those who might be considered suspect. The downside is that this can include vetting out candidates who simply disagree with the ideals of their mentors. But it also renders other potential problems much more easy to spot.
Teacher education in the current climate does not help the aspiring teacher. Get students out of five years of high tuition and get them into schools where they can learn the craft, help the schools, and help themselves.
Friday, May 16, 2014
How the West Virginia Second Congressional District Was Won
Last Tuesday, Alex Mooney won the West Virginia Second Congressional District primary in commanding fashion, outdistancing his nearest of six other competitors by 13 percent of the final tally. While Sasse's win in Nebraska and West Virginia's own 49th delegate district winner, 17 year old Saira Blair got more coverage, Mooney's win illustrates real changes in the 2nd.
It Has Grown More Conservative
In 2000, when Shelley Moore Capito beat Jim Humphries (and many do not remember what an underdog she was, outspent 3 to 1) the district had around 2/3 of its registered voters signed up as Democrats. Republicans trailed significantly and way fewer voters were independent. Capito then and now has never seen "moderate" as derogatory. Her style and charisma won over centrists who were not sold enough to join the Republican Party, but believed in her.
Capito's ascension to Congress came in the same year as West Virginia's favorite living president. George W. Bush also sold in West Virginia a moderate Middle American conservatism. His style, ridiculed by elitists elsewhere, endeared him to a state that enthusiastically supported his administration regardless.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party on the national level abandoned its roots. Jefferson founded it as the party of farmers. Jackson expanded it to include the poor country people. Later, it fully embraced the working man's cause. Since Bill Clinton, it neglected and even attacked all of these former rock solid constituencies. What Senator Zell Miller wrote about the South is true of all these groups, "if Southern voters think you don't understand them - or even worse, if they think you look down on them - they will never vote for you."
Al Gore attacked their livelihood. Massachusetts John Kerry never had a prayer. And Barack Obama's high church academic style that even Northeastern conservatives secretly admire looks condescending to West Virginians. Then the War on Coal, snide remarks about religious people and gun owners. Obama couldn't even carry his own primary in West Virginia by 2012. Romney won it by 22 points.
Somewhere between Bush and Obama, the district shifted far to the right. They still love Capito, but they have also embraced a candidate much more aggressively conservative across the board.
Add to that the exodus of conservatives from Maryland and Northern Virginia. Civil liberties in the Free State and the heavily regulated Fairfax Proprietary counties of the Old Dominion have decreased dramatically. Anti-gun attitudes, zoning laws, strict regulations all combined to push the population of Jefferson and Berkeley counties much higher. Many of these people, seeking a literally freer way of life, are very conservative.
The Eastern Panhandle Is Becoming a Republican Center of Power
West Virginians in other parts of the state are not used to hearing that people are moving here for opportunities and a better lifestyle. Bad economic conditions perpetuated by bad state level policies for decades bred a determination that better times looked more Utopian than possible. No one coming to the state could possibly move because the Mountain State offered something better.
The political success of Mooney and Attorney General Patrick Morrissey (who moved from out of state to Charles Town several years ago) illustrates a deeper trend. Maryland has lost business and residents to Jefferson, Berkeley, Hampshire, and Mineral counties. Hampshire also has attracted many who work and do business in Winchester, Virginia. Affluent private sector oriented families, such as those moving in, tend to be conservative and Republican. According to USA Today, Berkeley and Jefferson increased their populations by three to five percent between 2010 and 2012.
Kanawha's population declined to under 200,000 while Berkeley's is now near half that and ranked second, ahead of Cabell.
But It Was Not Just the Panhandle
Mooney won 15 of the 17 counties in the district. Ken Reed won his own county of Morgan; Charlotte Lane carried her home of Kanawha by a surprisingly small margin. The rest of the counties responded overwhelmingly to a message and a record of unabashed conservatism in gun ownership, pro life, and opposition to the EPA. A deluge of mailings, television, and radio ads reinforced Mooney's message. Certainly the broadcast advertisements helped to implant him in the minds of conservative Democrats and independents as well.
The Kanawha Valley bloc, that includes Putnam, gave the Charles Town resident much more support than what might have been predicted.
His opponents were unable to convince voters that residency mattered, regardless of region. Concerns about West Virginia's supposed hostility to "outsiders" is likely more stereotypical than true, voting in large numbers for Mooney, Morrissey, and Jay Rockefeller, among others would seem to confirm that.
Personal Wealth Also Did Not Matter
Two candidates tapped their own fortunes to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars to finance their campaigns. Mooney, without a personal fortune, still ended up with a more substantial campaign chest by first having to appeal to donors. This certainly undercuts the usual Democratic narrative of rich Republicans simply "buying elections" (as if one could simply spend money and guarantee a win.)
Was the Campaign All That Rough?
No one was accused of wanting to establish monarchy, put "dwellings in flames," or see "female chastity violated." Candidates never heard the accusation that they imported mistresses from Europe. All in all, the campaign developed in a way more spirited than nasty, more populist than personal. Certainly some issues got exaggerated, others spun, but even modern campaigns in different areas have gotten far worse and for a much longer period of time.
The West Virginia Second, however, had not seen a really tough primary fight in at least a generation. Leading up to election day, more people paid attention as they saw the fight take place on TV and radio, over their phones, and in their mailbox. Interestingly, the focus on this race did not inflate voter numbers beyond what had been predicted shortly before balloting.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Black Bear Burritos Bashed By Feds
Morgantown's Black Bear Burritos must pay over a hundred former employees nearly a quarter of a million in back pay, says the US Department of Labor.
According to the State Journal, the business, which only has two locations, concocted an illegal tip sharing scheme that divided all tips evenly amongst all employees on the shift, including managers and kitchen staff. Black Bear owners used Facebook to apologize to employees and customers, pleading that they made a mistake.
They also explained that the policy was made clear to every employee upon hiring.
While the policy itself was likely not productive (what incentive do servers have if they know they will not get their full tips?) why is a tip distribution plan agreed to by all employees any business of the federal government?
If one does not like the plan and it is fairly explained from the beginning, go work somewhere else.
Black Bear is known for supporting local live music while offering deliciously prepared food and spirits in a relaxed setting.
According to the State Journal, the business, which only has two locations, concocted an illegal tip sharing scheme that divided all tips evenly amongst all employees on the shift, including managers and kitchen staff. Black Bear owners used Facebook to apologize to employees and customers, pleading that they made a mistake.
They also explained that the policy was made clear to every employee upon hiring.
While the policy itself was likely not productive (what incentive do servers have if they know they will not get their full tips?) why is a tip distribution plan agreed to by all employees any business of the federal government?
If one does not like the plan and it is fairly explained from the beginning, go work somewhere else.
Black Bear is known for supporting local live music while offering deliciously prepared food and spirits in a relaxed setting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)