An amazing phenomenon is unfolding in the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky. Rand Paul is running two campaigns: Paul is running as both a Kentucky conservative and as the national heir to the Ron Paul, libertarian, political machine.
The first campaign involves reassuring Kentucky voters that his documented libertarian views aren't really that extraordinary. Yes, he's against the federal war on drugs, but only because the states can fight it better. Never mind that this is a repudiation of GOP doctrine since Nixon.
Yes, he's against federal regulations on abortion, but he's a staunch pro-lifer who'd turn abortion policy back to the states. Never mind that conservatives have fought dearly for federal pro-life legislation in Congress and pro-life Justices on the federal bench who often vote to uphold such federal laws.
And yes, Rand Paul is against the war on terror, but that's because we never declared war on terrorism. Rand's policies would have America declare war, go in fast and furious, kill all the baddies quick, and come home. Never mind that such a declaration is often politically impossible or that such tactics don't work. Never mind that Republican Presidents from Nixon to Reagan to George HW Bush to George W. Bush never felt compelled to follow such a course, nor did the GOP rank and file do much complaining at the time.
That Paul has succeeded to such an extent in his first campaign is a testament to two things.
First: the stagnation of political thought among the far right. For example, Ayn Rand is actually making a comeback among many conservatives, more than half a century after we thought William F. Buckley and Whitaker Chambers slew that beast once and for all. Beck has replaced Burke, Rush Limbaugh has replaced Russell Kirk in the pantheon of political thought for many right wingers.
Secondly: the lackadaisical manner with which Kentucky journalists have covered this race.
While Kentucky journalists fawn over Paul's fund-raising figures, a bigger story is being ignored. Namely, that second campaign that I referred to above: the one to inherit the Ron Paul political machine.
This second campaign involves people most Kentucky Republicans would find abhorrent. First, there's Ron Paul. He's campaigned to legalize heroin and cocaine, voted against a ban on child pornography, opposed the National Amber Alert, has consistently flirted with so-called truthers (people who believe 9/11 was orchestrated by the "police state"), and has hobnobbed with various public racists and militia types for decades. Of course folks say that the son can't be held accountable for the sins of the father. That didn't stop conservatives from blaming Barack Obama for the rants of Jeremiah Wright. But all Obama did was sit in the choir. When it comes to Ron Paul's silly preaching Rand Paul has actually helped him deliver the sermon. He's been a surrogate for Ron Paul since the early 1980's when Ron ran against Phil Gramm for U.S. Senate and dispatched Rand to debate the future supply sider. In 1988 Rand was Ron's "aide de-camp" in Ron's bizarre Presidential bid. In 2008 he traveled all over the country delivering speeches for his dad.
Ron Paul's political forums are chock full of Rand Paul references and links. His political fundraising machine is churning out full force for Rand Paul and makes no bones about it. Meanwhile, in Kentucky, there's yet to be a single substantive story covering the ties between Rand Paul and a man who received a scant 6.8% of the GOP primary vote in 2008. (Admittedly an improvement from the first time Ron ran for office in Kentucky; in 1988's Presidential contest he received approximately 2,000 votes out of more than 730,000.) Poor Roger Alford of the AP wrote about the election yesterday and said this of the Ron Paul connection: "Ron Paul's son is borrowing a page from his father's playbook... tapping the enthusiasm of young Republicans on college campuses." YR's?? This is Rand's base? Where was Alford during the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shootout?
But it isn't just Ron Paul who's helping Rand Paul raise money. Rand's also getting help from Jamie Kesslo at StormFront. Keslo, a neo-nazi, has openly publicized Paul for months and has linked to his site. Kentuckians deserve to know how much money Rand Paul has raised from such a dubious source, but as yet, there's been zero reporting on this issue.
Of course folks will claim, as they do on the blogs, that Rand Paul can't control content on sites like StormFront. Have they tried? Have they asked StormFront to take down solicitations such as these that clearly work to bring Paul support from StormFront viewers?
And what of Rand's ties to Alex Jones. As the web site Too Kooky for Kentucky has shown, Paul openly regularly appears on Alex Jones radio programs, despite the fact that Jones has made repeated claims that 9/11 was a government orchestrated conspiracy. While there Paul makes shameless pleas to Jones' listeners to give him money to run his primary in KY. Paul and Jones even talk about how Paul's web site crashed the last time he was on the Jones show and how such money... hate money, plain and simple... is used to buy Paul credibility with the mainstream media in KY.
WKU Professor Scott Lasely referred to the Paul campaign as a "guerrilla campaign" in an AP story. That's probably a pretty apt description. Like many guerrilla campaigns, this one receives financial support from shady characters who care not a wit about the locals. Like previous guerrilla campaigns, this one's being waged by a highly ideological cadre who pretend to be the true locals. But the problem for guerrillas is that sooner or later they face a choice: do they attempt to take over the ground they occasionally seize and fight their battles conventionally, or do they disperse back into the countryside and wait for another opportunity to ambush or raid. Unfortunately for Rand Paul, he has to choose the former. That puts him on ground that's more favorable to the conventional forces. Someday soon, expect that to be his undoing.
Read More @ www.tookookyforkentucky.com
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Tom Friedman: Give Up on Mid-East Peace
Is it me, or shouldn't this be big news? One of the most astute and famous pundits on Palestinian-Israeli affairs has said, 'give up, U.S., they don't want peace.'
A snip:
Admittedly, Friedman oscillates between brilliance and sheer stupidity, but I think this is one of his more clairvoyant moments. Maybe now we can stop trying to get Israel to make territorial concessions that would endanger their national security.
Read More @: www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
A snip:
The Israeli-Palestinian peace process has become a bad play. It is obvious
that all the parties are just acting out the same old scenes, with the same old
tired clichés — and that no one believes any of it anymore. There is no romance,
no sex, no excitement, no urgency — not even a sense of importance anymore. The
only thing driving the peace process today is inertia and diplomatic
habit...
Admittedly, Friedman oscillates between brilliance and sheer stupidity, but I think this is one of his more clairvoyant moments. Maybe now we can stop trying to get Israel to make territorial concessions that would endanger their national security.
Read More @: www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Conservative Democrat Says Rand "Too Kooky for Kentucky"
The following column appeared in the (Pikeville) Appalachia News Express and is reprinted here with permission by author:
Paul’s Strange Candidacy, By T. J. Litafik
Buoyed by his father’s aggressive, ragtag band of national followers, Rand Paul has raised a significant amount of money—over $1 million—for his quixotic U.S. Senate campaign. Paul, a Bowling Green eye doctor and political neophyte, is simply channeling the ideas of his father, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), into next year’s Kentucky race.
Congressman Paul has in many instances taken admirable and independent stances on a wide variety of issues, across the spectrum, and it has made him very popular with those outside the political mainstream. During the 2008 presidential cycle, Ron Paul supporters were easily identifiable as loud and unruly party crashers at both Republican and Democratic candidates’ campaign events. At one event this writer attended in Johnson City, TN with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, the rude and crude behavior of the Paulites went so far as to bring their own signs and shouts into Gov. Huckabee’s rally. On the way out, one fellow fervently waving a Ron Paul sign could be heard mumbling something about black helicopters and the Kennedy assassination.
The Paulite philosophy of government is basically this: the Federal government never did anything to help anybody; we’ve got to cut all “pork” out of the budget, scrap a variety of regulatory agencies, including the IRS and (gasp!) the Federal Reserve, and in the name of “freedom” repeal, repeal, repeal and we’ll start with anti-drug laws.
The senior Paul was the 1988 presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party. That was a silly and gratuitous political venture, just like his son’s U.S. Senate bid is now. While the Pauls can undoubtedly find a lot of takers for their ideology across America, the problem they have here is that in Kentucky people know better than the idea that all government is bad. Were it not for the progressive populism of Democratic and Republican leaders, Eastern Kentuckians would have never had a chance. Today we have the roads, schools, airports, flood control projects and hospitals that the Paul philosophy of government would have denied us.
Legislative politics, especially, are about tact, reasonableness and compromise—and yes, bringing home the bacon for the people you represent. The Pauls call such legislative accomplishment “pork” and denounce good public servants like Congressman Hal Rogers who deliver for their districts.
Earl Long once said of an opponent, “He’s got about as much chance to be Governor of Louisiana as I do Pope of Rome, and I’m not even a Catholic.”
Either Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo or Attorney Gen. Jack Conway would steamroll Rand Paul in the general election. Good Kentucky conservative Republicans who honestly seek a fresh political face and a change in Washington should think twice before joining the Paulite crowd. There is room for Ron Paul in the national debate, to be sure. But Kentuckians can’t afford a wild ideologue representing them; we must have earnest advocates for our people who want to continue the work of leaders like Hal Rogers, Carl D. Perkins, John Sherman Cooper and Wendell Ford. The problem with Paul is that he’s just too kooky for Kentucky.
Paul’s Strange Candidacy, By T. J. Litafik
Buoyed by his father’s aggressive, ragtag band of national followers, Rand Paul has raised a significant amount of money—over $1 million—for his quixotic U.S. Senate campaign. Paul, a Bowling Green eye doctor and political neophyte, is simply channeling the ideas of his father, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), into next year’s Kentucky race.
Congressman Paul has in many instances taken admirable and independent stances on a wide variety of issues, across the spectrum, and it has made him very popular with those outside the political mainstream. During the 2008 presidential cycle, Ron Paul supporters were easily identifiable as loud and unruly party crashers at both Republican and Democratic candidates’ campaign events. At one event this writer attended in Johnson City, TN with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, the rude and crude behavior of the Paulites went so far as to bring their own signs and shouts into Gov. Huckabee’s rally. On the way out, one fellow fervently waving a Ron Paul sign could be heard mumbling something about black helicopters and the Kennedy assassination.
The Paulite philosophy of government is basically this: the Federal government never did anything to help anybody; we’ve got to cut all “pork” out of the budget, scrap a variety of regulatory agencies, including the IRS and (gasp!) the Federal Reserve, and in the name of “freedom” repeal, repeal, repeal and we’ll start with anti-drug laws.
The senior Paul was the 1988 presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party. That was a silly and gratuitous political venture, just like his son’s U.S. Senate bid is now. While the Pauls can undoubtedly find a lot of takers for their ideology across America, the problem they have here is that in Kentucky people know better than the idea that all government is bad. Were it not for the progressive populism of Democratic and Republican leaders, Eastern Kentuckians would have never had a chance. Today we have the roads, schools, airports, flood control projects and hospitals that the Paul philosophy of government would have denied us.
Legislative politics, especially, are about tact, reasonableness and compromise—and yes, bringing home the bacon for the people you represent. The Pauls call such legislative accomplishment “pork” and denounce good public servants like Congressman Hal Rogers who deliver for their districts.
Earl Long once said of an opponent, “He’s got about as much chance to be Governor of Louisiana as I do Pope of Rome, and I’m not even a Catholic.”
Either Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo or Attorney Gen. Jack Conway would steamroll Rand Paul in the general election. Good Kentucky conservative Republicans who honestly seek a fresh political face and a change in Washington should think twice before joining the Paulite crowd. There is room for Ron Paul in the national debate, to be sure. But Kentuckians can’t afford a wild ideologue representing them; we must have earnest advocates for our people who want to continue the work of leaders like Hal Rogers, Carl D. Perkins, John Sherman Cooper and Wendell Ford. The problem with Paul is that he’s just too kooky for Kentucky.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Rand Paul: Too Kooky for Kentucky Families on Child Porn, Amber Alert, Legal Heroin
Too Kooky for Kentucky continues educating Kentucky voters on the Pauls’ kooky views.
Paul Would Legalize Heroin: This week we’ve learned that, back in 1988 when Rand Paul was Ron Paul’s Presidential Campaign’s “aide de-camp”, the Pauls campaigned to legalize both heroin and cocaine. It’s hard to imagine that a Republican party loathe to legalize expanded gaming in Kentucky would side with a candidate who wants to expand opportunities for KY families to experience the horrors of heroin.
Paul Would Legalize Heroin: This week we’ve learned that, back in 1988 when Rand Paul was Ron Paul’s Presidential Campaign’s “aide de-camp”, the Pauls campaigned to legalize both heroin and cocaine. It’s hard to imagine that a Republican party loathe to legalize expanded gaming in Kentucky would side with a candidate who wants to expand opportunities for KY families to experience the horrors of heroin.
Paul Would Eliminate FDA: The Pauls also advocated for the elimination of the FDA. While common sense conservatives can agree that this government agency, like any, has a history of mission creep, its elimination would undoubtedly put American families at risk of consuming tainted food and drugs.
Pauls Opposed National Amber Alert: It seems that the Amber Alert, that draconian federal legislation that, like the Patriot Act also opposed by Ron and Rand Paul, could lead to the end of the Republic as we know it. Thus the Pauls opposed it.
Pauls Wouldn't Use Federal Law to Ban Computer Generated Child Porn: In the Paul family’s warped version of the U.S. Constitution, banning computer generated child pornography is taboo.
In case after case the Pauls put their warped version of the U.S. Constitution, a view so extreme that it attracts almost no votes in either house of Congress, ahead of what’s good for America’s and Kentucky’s families.
VA's Bob McDonnell on Green Energy: An All of the Above Strategy
McDonnell is running as adept a campaign for Governor in VA as anyone has seen in recent years. Among his campaign planks: more energy. While McDonnell doesn't neglect oil, coal and natural gas, he wisely takes some time to promote Green, that is Renewable, Energy.
Snips from his campaign site:
Bob McDonnell will establish Virginia as a “Green Jobs Zone” to incentivize companies to create quality green jobs. Qualified businesses would be eligible to receive an income tax credit equal to $500 per position created per year for the first five years (up to 350 jobs annually). If the position is created within Virginia’s enterprise zone, the business will qualify for the current enterprise zone grant in addition to the new $500 income tax credit. The existing requirements pertaining to Enterprise Job Creation Grants will also apply. Qualifying businesses could include suppliers, manufacturers, installers and construction contractors for solar, wind, or biomass products and services, energy-efficiency products and services, pollution management systems and production of alternative transportation fuels.
Bob McDonnell will continue his work toward alternative energy that is renewable and sustainable, building on his energy record, including support for hydrogen energy. We must foster innovation by encouraging partnerships between Virginia Universities and private industry that will lead to new technologies and jobs in this field.
While there are several federal tax incentives for alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fuel infrastructure, Virginia lags behind. The Virginia Alternative Fuels Revolving Fund was established to assist local governments that convert to alternative fuel systems, but no funds have been allocated for its use. As Governor, Bob McDonnell will expand the purpose of this fund to include infrastructure such as refueling stations, provide seed money and aggressively pursue additional grants.
Crab Orchard (Lincoln County) Parody
Funny parody of a quaint community in Lincoln County. Lesson: if you don't define yourself, some bored, young whipper-snapper with a video cam and a YouTube account will.
Garrard County Promo Video: IT'S GAR-AD COUNTY!
Nice video with cameos from lots of celebs, including the Guv, Congressman Chandler, Justice Venters, Rep. Lonnie Napier, Judge Exec John Wilson and even me:
PS- You're welcome in Garrard County, anytime.
PS- You're welcome in Garrard County, anytime.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Too Kooky for Kentucky: Ron and Rand's 1st Run for President
While most of the press on Rand's efforts on his dad's political campaign for President (OK, admittedly, there's been little press at all when it comes to Ron and Rand's weird statements) has centered on his 2008 bid, Too Kooky for Kentucky is finding some real nuggets of gold (pun intended, Gold Buggers) in Ron Paul's campaign for President as a Libertarian in 1988.
After deeming Ronald Reagan a failure because government was "in our wallets and into our bedrooms... more than ever before", Paul launched a Quixotic bid for President. And his loyal Sancho Panza: "Randall Paul, Dr. Paul's 25-year-old son and aide-de-camp...".
Among the Pauls' campaign planks:
1. Abolish CIA.
2. Withdraw from NATO. (Dumb enough now, but in 1988 there was the Cold War to contend with)
3. Eliminate Public Schools.
4. Repeal all Drug Laws.
But have no fear, the crowd that harps about "career politicians"... they've lived well pushing their oddball views:
His campaign is a world apart from the long motorcades, chartered airplanes and consultant-laden Republican and Democratic efforts. Even so, his son said, travel expenses come to $40,000 a month.
''It costs $40,000 a month for me to travel?'' Dr. Paul said with evident surprise during a quick lunch stop at a McDonald's north of Houston, where he cadged french fries off his son's tray.
Being kooky ain't easy (or cheap), but it sure it fun.
Read more @:
and
New Release: Rodney Stark Makes the "Case for the Crusades"
Rodney Stark has written on the role of Roman cities in the rise of Christianity, the role the early Catholic church played in the development of capitalism, and a book on how monotheism led to science, with-hunts and the abolition of slavery. These works probably garnered Stark little controversy, but his most recent work has the potential to be a bombshell.
In God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades, Stark argues that the Crusades were a force for good:
In God's Battalions, award-winning author Rodney Stark takes on the long-held view that the Crusades were the first round of European colonialism, conducted for land, loot, and converts by barbarian Christians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. To the contrary, Stark argues that the Crusades were the first military response to unwarranted Muslim terrorist aggression.
Stark reviews the history of the seven major Crusades from 1095 to 1291, demonstrating that the Crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocations, centuries of bloody attempts to colonize the West, and sudden attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places. Although the Crusades were initiated by a plea from the pope, Stark argues that this had nothing to do with any elaborate design of the Christian world to convert all Muslims to Christianity by force of arms. Given current tensions in the Middle East and terrorist attacks around the world, Stark's views are a thought-provoking contribution to our understanding and are sure to spark debate.
Find the book @ Amazon:
Book Review: Berlin Noir (March Violets)
Phillip Kerr’s detective Bernie Gunther is a sort of German Humphrey Bogart just trying to stay alive and make a few Deutschemarks as a wise cracking, fast with his fists, P.I. as Hitler’s Nazi Party forcefully saddles up the German people for a near suicidal world war. Reading Kerr’s work offers insights into a nation on the brink. While Gunther detests the Nazis, he’s occasionally willing to make compromises and work with the future monsters of the Holocaust (they’re mostly just brutal thugs prior to World War II). After all, you don’t say “no” to Nazis in post-Weimar Germany without running the risk of finding yourself taking a prolonged swim in the River Rhine. Kerr’s noir is a must read for fans of detective fare and students of pre-war history.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Will Kentucky Republicans Endorse Rand Paul's Kooky Foreign Policy/Defense Goals
As the latest foray into the proliferating and messy universe that is Kentucky’s political blogosphere has shown, Rand Paul, despite his impressive polling, is a new and unusual phenomenon in Kentucky politics. Too Kooky for Kentucky has, with video proof, shown that Paul is, among other things:
Anti-Department of Homeland Security: Paul is on record as saying we should abolish the DHS. This could be problematic on two levels. First, there's the little problem that this agency and several of the companies its funded provide hundreds of jobs in the most Republican region in the state. In addition to the potential economic losses in the Old 5th (and don't tell me voters there won't notice such things) Paul makes little effort to show how America’s shores will be protected in the absence of the DHS. He simply regards the agency’s very existence an affront to small government principles. That may play well in New Hampshire Republican primaries, but will it work in Kentucky?
Against the Patriot Act: Over the past few years Republicans have made much political hay out of liberal Democrats opposition to this measure. Last year, they even forced a reluctant Candidate Obama to vote for the measure’s latest extension. Yet Ron Paul has consistently voted against the measure and Rand Paul has taken the stump to speak against it for years.
Against Funding the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: Perhaps no line hurt Candidate Kerry in 2004 when he ran for President against George W. Bush as much as this: “I actually did vote for the 87 billion, before I voted against it." Of course part of the hit was that Kerry was a flip flopper. But the reason Kerry felt impelled to resort to such twisted logic in the first place was his fear that he’d be revealed as one who was less than a 100% supporter of the War on Terror. Ron and Rand Paul are both on record as saying the War on Terror should never have been declared. Both have flirted with Truther arguments (especially Ron) and both have essentially laid the blame for 9/11 at the feet of “Imperial America.” It’s hard to imagine that, as was pointed out earlier this week on Too Kooky for KY, Rand’s efforts to defund the war won’t be used against him a state anchored on the west by Fort Campbell. After all, there are likely many soldiers from that base who wouldn’t have received their body armor, their armaments, and other support had Paul’s vision prevailed.
Against the Euro Missile Shield: While Republicans busy themselves taking shots at President Obama for his retreat on missile defense in East Europe, Ron and Rand Paul have long opposed such imperial platforms.
Against the Patriot Act: Over the past few years Republicans have made much political hay out of liberal Democrats opposition to this measure. Last year, they even forced a reluctant Candidate Obama to vote for the measure’s latest extension. Yet Ron Paul has consistently voted against the measure and Rand Paul has taken the stump to speak against it for years.
Against Funding the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: Perhaps no line hurt Candidate Kerry in 2004 when he ran for President against George W. Bush as much as this: “I actually did vote for the 87 billion, before I voted against it." Of course part of the hit was that Kerry was a flip flopper. But the reason Kerry felt impelled to resort to such twisted logic in the first place was his fear that he’d be revealed as one who was less than a 100% supporter of the War on Terror. Ron and Rand Paul are both on record as saying the War on Terror should never have been declared. Both have flirted with Truther arguments (especially Ron) and both have essentially laid the blame for 9/11 at the feet of “Imperial America.” It’s hard to imagine that, as was pointed out earlier this week on Too Kooky for KY, Rand’s efforts to defund the war won’t be used against him a state anchored on the west by Fort Campbell. After all, there are likely many soldiers from that base who wouldn’t have received their body armor, their armaments, and other support had Paul’s vision prevailed.
Against the Euro Missile Shield: While Republicans busy themselves taking shots at President Obama for his retreat on missile defense in East Europe, Ron and Rand Paul have long opposed such imperial platforms.
Doesn't Believe Iran is a National Threat: While Republicans are worried that Obama will use multilateralism and direct talks as an excuse to avoid a strong response on Iran, Rand Paul is on record as saying it's OK if the Iranians acquire a nuclear weapon:
In the above video Paul not only indicates he’s OK with Iranian nuclear weapons, he goes as far as to explain that the Iranians feel threatened by the aggressive actions of the U.S. One can imagine the hue and cry if Barack Obama said such a silly thing.
Critical of Israel: Both Ron and Rand Paul have stated their desire to end foreign aid to Israel. Of course they both say they’d also cut foreign aid to Arab nations as well. But scrutiny of the Paul’s rhetoric yields an impression that they’re somewhat hostile to the Middle East’s sole democracy. While the Chief Correspondent for one of Isreal’s leading daily newspapers, Haaretz Daily, hasn’t found any specific anti-Israel animosity, he has listed many issues that could be problematic for Paul in a GOP primary. Ron Paul has repeatedly criticized the Israel lobby, spoke negatively of Israel’s Gaza invasion, and voted against support for Israel repeatedly. Will his son and assumed political heir be able to convince a conservative, evangelical population that he’s still pro-Israel in spite of such a record?
For years Republicans have used less than hawkish rhetoric and policy by Democrats to good effect. Yet in many cases the Democrats’ words and actions have been more pro-defense than Paul’s rhetoric. And that’s in a general election… not an (assumedly) more hawkish Republican primary in a military state.
Rand Paul faces many barriers to becoming the GOP nominee next spring. He’s a relative newcomer to Kentucky (sorry, 18 years don’t make you an insider in this state), is more of an ideological candidate in a race that usually favors political animals, and is opposed by much of the Republican machine. But a look at Rand’s foreign policy and defense credentials- nay Anti-Credentials- shows that his biggest problem will likely be his own views.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Congratulations Senator Stivers (and Clay County)
Congratulations, Senator Stivers, on your election to the post of Senate Majority Leader.
This is a great day for Robert and his family, but it's also a great day for Clay County. The county's gotten a bad rap in recent weeks but it's guys like Robert who show the county's potential for leadership.
It's no coincidence that Richie Farmer and Robert Stivers were both Clay Countians and have been as successful as they are... especially relative to the rest of the region. This election serves to remind us of the county's potential.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Too Kooky for KY: Rand Paul is from Venus, Not Kentucky
Trey Grayson got it partially right when he cast Rand Paul as a non-Kentuckian. In fact, after looking over some of the things that Ron and Rand Paul have been for over the years, it appears they're actually from Venus. (As in Robert Kagan's seminal work "Americans are from Mars, Euorpeans from Venus.") After all, they practically blame the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., have failed to support the troops in war in Iraq and Afghanistan, seek to end the war on drugs, and were against the Patriot Act. They don't even like the term "War on Terror." Sound familiar? Wasn't that John Kerry's platform?
Remember Lincoln's admonition: "What would you do in my position? Would you drop the war where it is? Or, would you prosecute it in future, with elder-stalk squirts, charged with rose water?"
Read More @: http://www.tookookyforkentucky.com/
Read More @: http://www.tookookyforkentucky.com/
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Rand Paul Must be Kooky: Surrender on War on Drugs Not an Option in Appalachia, KY
Not that it's a surprise, but Rand Paul is Too Kooky for Kentucky. Literally. Last year he served as the one of the principle spokesmen for a Presidential candidate who wants to decriminalize… perhaps legalize… drugs. Here's the Courier Journal's Joe Gerth on Rand and the drug war:
By taking away precious federal resources, such as the DEA, the FBI, and various forms of federal aid for communities, Paul would hamstring our Appalachian communities in their bid to stem the drug tide. What’s more, difficult cases that require US Attorney oversight and cases built using RICO statutes would be harder to make.
Paul’s ideological take is also at odds with the politics of the region. Congressman Rogers has done a yeoman’s job trying to create programs that would alleviate some of the worst ravages that drugs have inflicted on our communities. These often rely on federal funds. Paul’s decision to abandon outright these efforts won’t make his Senate bid easy in the old (or new) 5th C.D.
Some of the programs that could be directly affected by the election of Rand Paul include:
City/County/DEA partnerships (which provide undercover task force officers in local communities)
Appalachian HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas)
Operation UNITE
At the end of the day, for many main street conservatives in KY, choosing our next Senator is a matter of choosing someone who will find you the resources and tools you need to make your communities better. For Rand Paul to abandon outright many of the tools rural communities have come to rely upon is downright kooky.
Read More @ http://www.tookookyforkentucky.com/
Paul said that on federal drug laws, he believes “most policies of crime and punishment should be and are addressed at the state level.”
He wouldn't say if the U.S. laws should be done away with or if the Drug Enforcement Administration should be disbanded, but he said, “I would favor a more local approach to drugs.”
By taking away precious federal resources, such as the DEA, the FBI, and various forms of federal aid for communities, Paul would hamstring our Appalachian communities in their bid to stem the drug tide. What’s more, difficult cases that require US Attorney oversight and cases built using RICO statutes would be harder to make.
Paul’s ideological take is also at odds with the politics of the region. Congressman Rogers has done a yeoman’s job trying to create programs that would alleviate some of the worst ravages that drugs have inflicted on our communities. These often rely on federal funds. Paul’s decision to abandon outright these efforts won’t make his Senate bid easy in the old (or new) 5th C.D.
Some of the programs that could be directly affected by the election of Rand Paul include:
City/County/DEA partnerships (which provide undercover task force officers in local communities)
Appalachian HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas)
Operation UNITE
At the end of the day, for many main street conservatives in KY, choosing our next Senator is a matter of choosing someone who will find you the resources and tools you need to make your communities better. For Rand Paul to abandon outright many of the tools rural communities have come to rely upon is downright kooky.
Read More @ http://www.tookookyforkentucky.com/
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The GOP's Challenge
Lots of indignation on the web about Susan Collins' controversial vote to get the Baucus bill out of committee. Folks are shouting "RINO!, RINO!!" from the rooftops. But here's the political reality:
A new poll of Maine voters from the Pan Atlantic SMS Group, which regularly surveys the state, offers a glimpse at the home state pressure on Olympia Snowe -- and Susan Collins -- to break with her party and back health care legislation, and suggests that they would be rewarded at home for backing a public option.
The survey finds that 58% of Mainers approve of how President Obama is doing his job, and that a plurality of 46% back his plans for health care.
A twenty-point majority favor a public option...
Maybe Collins and Snowe aren't doing a sufficient job explaining to the public why public option is such a silly idea, I don't know. But this suggests that the real challenge the GOP faces isn't with a few recalcitrant members; it's with certain segments of the electorate.
If that's the case, then the GOP has to decide if it can handle a few wayward members in order to make a national party and reach a Congressional majority.
Read more on the polling at:
www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1009/Maine_polls_shows_support_for_Obama_plan_public_option.html?showall
A new poll of Maine voters from the Pan Atlantic SMS Group, which regularly surveys the state, offers a glimpse at the home state pressure on Olympia Snowe -- and Susan Collins -- to break with her party and back health care legislation, and suggests that they would be rewarded at home for backing a public option.
The survey finds that 58% of Mainers approve of how President Obama is doing his job, and that a plurality of 46% back his plans for health care.
A twenty-point majority favor a public option...
Maybe Collins and Snowe aren't doing a sufficient job explaining to the public why public option is such a silly idea, I don't know. But this suggests that the real challenge the GOP faces isn't with a few recalcitrant members; it's with certain segments of the electorate.
If that's the case, then the GOP has to decide if it can handle a few wayward members in order to make a national party and reach a Congressional majority.
Read more on the polling at:
www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1009/Maine_polls_shows_support_for_Obama_plan_public_option.html?showall
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
WYMT Poll: Opposition to Baucus Bill Runs High in EKY
According to an unscientific WYMT TV poll, opposition to Senator Max Baucus's health care bill is running strong:
Results: Do you support the Baucus plan pending before the senate finance committee?
Poll Results:
Yes - 5.7%
No - 80.9%
Undecided - 13.5%
Total Responses - 230
The previous poll, which is already closed, yielded similar lopsided results:
Results: Are you in favor of the proposed senate version of the health care plan?
Poll Results:
Yes - 11.3%
No - 75.3%
Undecided - 13.4%
No word on how many takers in that one.
Read More @:
www.wkyt.com/polls?pollID=64034347&submit=submit&oid=2&mr=1&cid=6500&pid=64034347
Results: Do you support the Baucus plan pending before the senate finance committee?
Poll Results:
Yes - 5.7%
No - 80.9%
Undecided - 13.5%
Total Responses - 230
The previous poll, which is already closed, yielded similar lopsided results:
Results: Are you in favor of the proposed senate version of the health care plan?
Poll Results:
Yes - 11.3%
No - 75.3%
Undecided - 13.4%
No word on how many takers in that one.
Read More @:
www.wkyt.com/polls?pollID=64034347&submit=submit&oid=2&mr=1&cid=6500&pid=64034347
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth vs. EKY Folk, Coal Miners
KYians for the Commonwealth are liveblogging the event.
As noted in our previous post, the anti's are outnumbered, big time, by the pro-coal people.
You can sense the frustration reading KFTC's posts. A few snips:
"Bob Mitchell - Coal industry supporters are cheering after everything he says, causing him to go over time. He claims coal provides 50% of the nation's energy, but the number is actually closer to 43%."
"Dan Mongiardo compares MTR to surgery in his operating room. "It may look bad while it is happening, but in the end it will only leave a small scar." "We should stop calling it mountaintop removal, instead call it mountaintop development." Stuff about trails and adventure tourism."
"The hearing is starting to feel more like a pep rally than a public hearing. "Coal provides us energy security." "
"Doug Doerrfeld is on the stand. The boos and expletives from the crowd continue making it difficult to hear his comments. There seems to be an increasing number of coal supporters leaving the arena. About 1/3 of the original audience remains."
www.kftc.org/blog/archive/2009/10/13/live-blogging-the-pikeville-valley-fill-hearing/view
As noted in our previous post, the anti's are outnumbered, big time, by the pro-coal people.
You can sense the frustration reading KFTC's posts. A few snips:
"Bob Mitchell - Coal industry supporters are cheering after everything he says, causing him to go over time. He claims coal provides 50% of the nation's energy, but the number is actually closer to 43%."
"Dan Mongiardo compares MTR to surgery in his operating room. "It may look bad while it is happening, but in the end it will only leave a small scar." "We should stop calling it mountaintop removal, instead call it mountaintop development." Stuff about trails and adventure tourism."
"The hearing is starting to feel more like a pep rally than a public hearing. "Coal provides us energy security." "
"Doug Doerrfeld is on the stand. The boos and expletives from the crowd continue making it difficult to hear his comments. There seems to be an increasing number of coal supporters leaving the arena. About 1/3 of the original audience remains."
www.kftc.org/blog/archive/2009/10/13/live-blogging-the-pikeville-valley-fill-hearing/view
At Last, The Worm Turns: "Raucous pro-coal crowds pack mining hearings"
This AP headline says it all: "Raucous pro-coal crowds pack mining hearings." Of course notice the subtle dig... "pack." Still, it's going to be hard to keep up the facade that the anti-coal, anti-mountaintop removal crowd are anything other than a few Eastern KY malcontents and a bunch of Central KY hippies. Eastern KY folk support mining and believe MTR is an important source of employment.
One more snip from the AP story: "Thousands of coal miners fearing the loss of jobs if mountaintop removal mining is curtailed or outlawed shouted down a handful of environmentalists at crowded public hearings Tuesday on the much-debated practice."
Oh, the AP did find one person to comment on the ills of MTR in Kentucky. A retired Richmond prof. Par for the course...
Read More @: www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5giHtT8Pyma73d73FFOJx-evlk65QD9BAI1BG4
One more snip from the AP story: "Thousands of coal miners fearing the loss of jobs if mountaintop removal mining is curtailed or outlawed shouted down a handful of environmentalists at crowded public hearings Tuesday on the much-debated practice."
Oh, the AP did find one person to comment on the ills of MTR in Kentucky. A retired Richmond prof. Par for the course...
Read More @: www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5giHtT8Pyma73d73FFOJx-evlk65QD9BAI1BG4
More Miners Laid Off
Pray for the workers and the families of the workers who've lost their jobs in this, the most anti-coal era in our nation's history:
Coal miners who worked in three eastern Kentucky counties are looking for new jobs tonight.
Officials with Miller Brothers Mining say they were forced to lay off 85 employees yesterday from sites in Magoffin, Floyd, and Knott Counties. The company is operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy right now, and is reducing production at several mine sites.
The work day ends around 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at Miller Brothers Coal, but this Monday ended a little different than usual. At the end of the shift, 85 workers lost their jobs.
[...]
Even though he could sense it, Skaggs said the layoffs were still devastating, even for the boss.
"You could tell it destroyed him. You know because it's kinda like a family on jobs like that," Skaggs said.
[...]
"I don't know what to expect. Got bills to pay, just gotta work thru it," Skaggs said.
And lest anyone has any doubts about why: "Miller Brothers officials say the layoffs were in response to weak demand for coal and the uncertainty of issuance of new mining permits."
Both can be laid at the feet of an uncertain and downright anti-coal regulatory regime.
Read more @: www.wkyt.com/wymtnews/headlines/64155952.html
Coal miners who worked in three eastern Kentucky counties are looking for new jobs tonight.
Officials with Miller Brothers Mining say they were forced to lay off 85 employees yesterday from sites in Magoffin, Floyd, and Knott Counties. The company is operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy right now, and is reducing production at several mine sites.
The work day ends around 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at Miller Brothers Coal, but this Monday ended a little different than usual. At the end of the shift, 85 workers lost their jobs.
[...]
Even though he could sense it, Skaggs said the layoffs were still devastating, even for the boss.
"You could tell it destroyed him. You know because it's kinda like a family on jobs like that," Skaggs said.
[...]
"I don't know what to expect. Got bills to pay, just gotta work thru it," Skaggs said.
And lest anyone has any doubts about why: "Miller Brothers officials say the layoffs were in response to weak demand for coal and the uncertainty of issuance of new mining permits."
Both can be laid at the feet of an uncertain and downright anti-coal regulatory regime.
Read more @: www.wkyt.com/wymtnews/headlines/64155952.html
Appalachian Poverty Too Complex to Blame on Coal
The Lexington Herald Leader rehashes the old canard that poverty in Appalachia is tied to coal:
Kentucky's coal counties rank among the poorest 10 percent in the nation, while other Appalachian counties, where there is no coal, have figured out how to build stronger economies.
A list of ARC designated distressed counties in Appalachia includes 38 counties. The list runs from Pike County in the east to Monroe County in the west. Most of the distressed counties aren’t even coal producing counties.
A look at counties producing coal in Appalachian Kentucky shows roughly 10 counties (out of 38) that are, in fact, large scale, coal producing counties. These 10 counties have mines that generate coal valued in excess of $100 million. They are: Perry, Bell, Pike, Floyd, Breathitt, Harlan, Knott, Martin, Letcher and Leslie County. Two additional counties, Magoffin and Lawrence, mine coal valued at approx. $45 million. These numbers aren’t a great way to gauge how sizable these counties coal operations are, but they are a nice approximation.
Many of the ARC’s distressed counties don’t even mine coal. They include Monroe, Bath, Carter, Casey, Clinton, Cumberland, Estill, Hart, Lee, Lewis, Lincoln, McCreary, Powell, Robertson, Russell and Wayne County. That’s 16 economically distressed counties where zero mining takes place. Further, it doesn’t include distressed counties where there are a very limited number of mines.
An unbiased editorial board might look at these numbers and conclude that poverty is entrenched in the region for reasons other than coal. They might look to finger other culprits, such as culture or the excesses of the welfare state. Much of the poverty in the region is generational and affects hundreds of families whose only experience with coal is its use in the stoves and stokers. Alas, when it comes to coal, there’s no such thing as an unbiased editorial board at the Lexington Herald Leader.
Kentucky's coal counties rank among the poorest 10 percent in the nation, while other Appalachian counties, where there is no coal, have figured out how to build stronger economies.
A list of ARC designated distressed counties in Appalachia includes 38 counties. The list runs from Pike County in the east to Monroe County in the west. Most of the distressed counties aren’t even coal producing counties.
A look at counties producing coal in Appalachian Kentucky shows roughly 10 counties (out of 38) that are, in fact, large scale, coal producing counties. These 10 counties have mines that generate coal valued in excess of $100 million. They are: Perry, Bell, Pike, Floyd, Breathitt, Harlan, Knott, Martin, Letcher and Leslie County. Two additional counties, Magoffin and Lawrence, mine coal valued at approx. $45 million. These numbers aren’t a great way to gauge how sizable these counties coal operations are, but they are a nice approximation.
Many of the ARC’s distressed counties don’t even mine coal. They include Monroe, Bath, Carter, Casey, Clinton, Cumberland, Estill, Hart, Lee, Lewis, Lincoln, McCreary, Powell, Robertson, Russell and Wayne County. That’s 16 economically distressed counties where zero mining takes place. Further, it doesn’t include distressed counties where there are a very limited number of mines.
An unbiased editorial board might look at these numbers and conclude that poverty is entrenched in the region for reasons other than coal. They might look to finger other culprits, such as culture or the excesses of the welfare state. Much of the poverty in the region is generational and affects hundreds of families whose only experience with coal is its use in the stoves and stokers. Alas, when it comes to coal, there’s no such thing as an unbiased editorial board at the Lexington Herald Leader.
Coal Miners vs. Kentuckians for the Commonwealth
Coal miners are finally taking aim at the folks who're trying to put them out of work:
Environmentalists in West Virginia released a report Tuesday blasting mountaintop removal mining and police in eastern Kentucky were preparing to handle large crowds as supporters and opponents of the practice mobilized for federal hearings this week.
[...]
[KSP troopers will be providing security at the expo center tonight.]
Coal miners, fearing they may lose their jobs if mountaintop removal ceases, were expected to attend, alongside environmentalists who have fought for decades to end [a manner of mining that allows KY coal to be productive alongside western coal].
Read more @:
www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5giHtT8Pyma73d73FFOJx-evlk65QD9BADKNO0
Coal has been losing this battle thus far, largely by default. Now that they're engaged, we'll see how they fare. Regardless, one thing is certain: this administration is the most anti-coal we're likely to see in our lifetimes. Environmental groups are at their peak; but when you're at your peak, there's only direction you can move.
Environmentalists in West Virginia released a report Tuesday blasting mountaintop removal mining and police in eastern Kentucky were preparing to handle large crowds as supporters and opponents of the practice mobilized for federal hearings this week.
[...]
[KSP troopers will be providing security at the expo center tonight.]
Coal miners, fearing they may lose their jobs if mountaintop removal ceases, were expected to attend, alongside environmentalists who have fought for decades to end [a manner of mining that allows KY coal to be productive alongside western coal].
Read more @:
www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5giHtT8Pyma73d73FFOJx-evlk65QD9BADKNO0
Coal has been losing this battle thus far, largely by default. Now that they're engaged, we'll see how they fare. Regardless, one thing is certain: this administration is the most anti-coal we're likely to see in our lifetimes. Environmental groups are at their peak; but when you're at your peak, there's only direction you can move.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Obama Laying Groundwork to Deny McChrystal's Afghan Surge?
Is this a war of necessity or not?
The Obama administration seems to be backpedalling on that notion today.
First they reproach McChrystal:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan
Then they leak to the NY Times that they're rethinking merits of additional troops:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33161460/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times
This is no time to go wobbly in Afghanistan!
The Obama administration seems to be backpedalling on that notion today.
First they reproach McChrystal:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan
Then they leak to the NY Times that they're rethinking merits of additional troops:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33161460/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times
This is no time to go wobbly in Afghanistan!
Friday, October 02, 2009
EU Treaty Defeated in Ireland (UPDATED AND CORRECTED)
A big setback for the EU as Ireland again rejects ratification of their treaty. Skepticism, not just Euro-skepticism, seems to be the hallmark of voters worldwide. Pols take notice...
Read More @: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7452171.stm
PS- Does this create opportunties for a tigher Anglosphere?
UPDATE: OK, I jumped the gun on this. I did a Google New search of "Ireland EU Vote" and got the above story. It's right, of course; the treaty was defeated. But there's a problem: the article's from the last time the treaty was defeated in 2008. Unfortunately, I missed that little tidbit.
This year, it looks as if it'll pull through. Sorry for the SNAFU.
Read More @: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7452171.stm
PS- Does this create opportunties for a tigher Anglosphere?
UPDATE: OK, I jumped the gun on this. I did a Google New search of "Ireland EU Vote" and got the above story. It's right, of course; the treaty was defeated. But there's a problem: the article's from the last time the treaty was defeated in 2008. Unfortunately, I missed that little tidbit.
This year, it looks as if it'll pull through. Sorry for the SNAFU.
Rogers Brings Flood Control Dollars to EKY
A snip from WYMT TV:
U.S. Congressman Harold “Hal” Rogers (KY-05) announced today that the U.S. House of Representatives has approved federal funding for flood control efforts in southern and eastern Kentucky.
Today, the House passed the FY10 Energy & Water Appropriations Conference Report, which included $9.5 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to protect the region from future flooding.
Read More @: www.wkyt.com/wymtnews/headlines/63204402.html
Is the type of funding that Rand Paul criticizes when he speaks out against KY Congressmen bringing home projects to their district?
U.S. Congressman Harold “Hal” Rogers (KY-05) announced today that the U.S. House of Representatives has approved federal funding for flood control efforts in southern and eastern Kentucky.
Today, the House passed the FY10 Energy & Water Appropriations Conference Report, which included $9.5 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to protect the region from future flooding.
Read More @: www.wkyt.com/wymtnews/headlines/63204402.html
Is the type of funding that Rand Paul criticizes when he speaks out against KY Congressmen bringing home projects to their district?
Southeast Telephone Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy; Stems from AT&T Suit
An EKY company is going through a bad patch.
Pike County's Appalachia News Express has the scoop:
A locally owned and operated telecommunications company has filed for bankruptcy protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
According to the filing, minus the $24 million contested judgment, the company’s assets actually exceed its liabilities by more than $8 million.
The judgment stems from an ongoing legal battle between the two companies over SouthEast Telephone’s usage of AT&T’s equipment to provide services and how much that usage is worth.
The case has not reached a final resolution.
Darrell Maynard, president and founder of SouthEast Telephone, would not comment on the issues, but announced the Chapter 11 filling through a press release.
“SouthEast Telephone is not closing,” Maynard said in the statement. “Customers will not experience any interruption of service. This does not affect the day-to-day operations of the company.
“We will continue to serve our customers as usual,” he continued. “The decision to file for reorganization was a difficult step for us to take. It is our desire to remain strong so that we can continue to support and serve rural Kentucky communities.”
According to the statement, the company, which employs 184 people, hopes to create a reorganization plan and emerge from Chapter 11 protection within a few months.
Read More @: www.news-expressky.com/articles/2009/10/02/top_story/01setel.txt
Pike County's Appalachia News Express has the scoop:
A locally owned and operated telecommunications company has filed for bankruptcy protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
According to the filing, minus the $24 million contested judgment, the company’s assets actually exceed its liabilities by more than $8 million.
The judgment stems from an ongoing legal battle between the two companies over SouthEast Telephone’s usage of AT&T’s equipment to provide services and how much that usage is worth.
The case has not reached a final resolution.
Darrell Maynard, president and founder of SouthEast Telephone, would not comment on the issues, but announced the Chapter 11 filling through a press release.
“SouthEast Telephone is not closing,” Maynard said in the statement. “Customers will not experience any interruption of service. This does not affect the day-to-day operations of the company.
“We will continue to serve our customers as usual,” he continued. “The decision to file for reorganization was a difficult step for us to take. It is our desire to remain strong so that we can continue to support and serve rural Kentucky communities.”
According to the statement, the company, which employs 184 people, hopes to create a reorganization plan and emerge from Chapter 11 protection within a few months.
Read More @: www.news-expressky.com/articles/2009/10/02/top_story/01setel.txt
Sunday, September 27, 2009
R.I.P., Bill Safire
Two great thinking-conservatives have passed over the past few days. First, Irving Kristol, now, Bill Safire.
Safire was a compassionate yet realistic pundit whose commentary I always enjoyed. I will especially miss his New Year's Day predictions in the future.
A snip from WaPo's obit reminds us what a full life Safire lived:
Born in New York City, he dropped out of Syracuse University after two years. He returned a generation later to deliver the commencement address and became a university trustee. He was a correspondent in the U.S. Army and a radio, television and newspaper reporter before running a public relations firm in New York. As a PR man, he was responsible for bringing then-Vice President Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev together in the 1959 Moscow kitchen debate.
In 1968, he joined Nixon's presidential campaign and became a senior speechwriter, credited with coining the phrases "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "hysterical hypochondriacs of history" that Vice President Spiro Agnew used to describe the U.S. media.
He is the author of four novels: Freedom (1987), Full Disclosure (1977), Sleeper Spy (1995) and Scandalmonger (2000) [which I'm currently reading and a book that is quite fascinating for its behind the scenes look at history]. His other titles include a dictionary, a history, anthologies and commentaries.
Read More @:
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom, and the Path Not Taken
Quote of the day: What this country needs above everything else is a body of laws which will look after the men who are on the make rather than the men who are already made. Because the men who are already made are not going to live indefinitely, and they are not always kind enough to leave sons as able and as honest as they are.
While not a Glenn Beck watcher, or reader, I noted his interesting comment that John McCain would have been a worse President than Barack Obama for conservatives. Beck's reasoning was that McCain would have been a more subtle statist with GOP support, while with Obama, conservatives know what they're getting and are willing to fight. In that piece, Beck cited a speech, nearly 100 years old, that TR made in his Quixotic third party bid for the Presidency as evidence against McCain.
In that campaign, there were essentially three schools of thought. The establishment GOP argument, that business should left alone and trusts shouldn't be busted but actually aided by the government; the Bull Moose philosophy that government needed to curb certain trusts and aid others; and Woodrow Wilson's more Jeffersonian argument that the small man and the small enterprise needed assistance.
Then there's this passage:
There has come over the land that un-American set of conditions which enables a small number of men who control the government to get favors from the government; by those favors to exclude their fellows from equal business opportunity; by those favors to extend a network of control that will presently dominate every industry in the country, and so make men forget the ancient time when America lay in every hamlet, when America was to be seen in every fair valley, when America displayed her great forces on the broad prairies, ran her fine fires of enterprise up over the mountain-sides and down into the bowels of the earth, and eager men were everywhere captains of industry, not employees; not looking to a distant city to find out what they might do, but looking about among their neighbors, finding credit according to their character, not according to their connections, finding credit in proportion to what was known to be in them and behind them, not in proportion to the securities they held that were approved where they were not known. In order to start an enterprise now, you have to be authenticated, in a perfectly impersonal way, not according to yourself, but according to what you own that somebody else approves of your owning. You cannot begin such an enterprise as those that have made America until you are so authenticated, until you have succeeded in obtaining the good-will of large allied capitalists. Is that freedom? That is dependence, not freedom.
I've only just started mining this work, but thought it interesting enough to share.
Read More of Wilson's philosophy (which he ultimately chucked as soon as he became President) @: www.gutenberg.org/files/14811/14811-h/14811-h.htm
While not a Glenn Beck watcher, or reader, I noted his interesting comment that John McCain would have been a worse President than Barack Obama for conservatives. Beck's reasoning was that McCain would have been a more subtle statist with GOP support, while with Obama, conservatives know what they're getting and are willing to fight. In that piece, Beck cited a speech, nearly 100 years old, that TR made in his Quixotic third party bid for the Presidency as evidence against McCain.
In that campaign, there were essentially three schools of thought. The establishment GOP argument, that business should left alone and trusts shouldn't be busted but actually aided by the government; the Bull Moose philosophy that government needed to curb certain trusts and aid others; and Woodrow Wilson's more Jeffersonian argument that the small man and the small enterprise needed assistance.
Then there's this passage:
There has come over the land that un-American set of conditions which enables a small number of men who control the government to get favors from the government; by those favors to exclude their fellows from equal business opportunity; by those favors to extend a network of control that will presently dominate every industry in the country, and so make men forget the ancient time when America lay in every hamlet, when America was to be seen in every fair valley, when America displayed her great forces on the broad prairies, ran her fine fires of enterprise up over the mountain-sides and down into the bowels of the earth, and eager men were everywhere captains of industry, not employees; not looking to a distant city to find out what they might do, but looking about among their neighbors, finding credit according to their character, not according to their connections, finding credit in proportion to what was known to be in them and behind them, not in proportion to the securities they held that were approved where they were not known. In order to start an enterprise now, you have to be authenticated, in a perfectly impersonal way, not according to yourself, but according to what you own that somebody else approves of your owning. You cannot begin such an enterprise as those that have made America until you are so authenticated, until you have succeeded in obtaining the good-will of large allied capitalists. Is that freedom? That is dependence, not freedom.
I've only just started mining this work, but thought it interesting enough to share.
Read More of Wilson's philosophy (which he ultimately chucked as soon as he became President) @: www.gutenberg.org/files/14811/14811-h/14811-h.htm
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Fox News in Hollers Causes Census Killing in Clay County?
That's what one contributor at Daily Kos is suggesting:
Another problem people make when discussing Clay County (and Appalachia in general) is to assume that it’s monolithic. Crime happens in Clay County the same way it happens in Fayette County. The difference is that crime isn’t segregated to certain communities to the same extent it is in urban areas. Low income and high income families alike live in the same neighborhoods, but crime is, as in other places, nearly exclusively the domain of lower income families.
It’s too early to jump to any firm conclusions in this man's sad death, but at least commentators should get their generalizations correct. 'Hollers, Fox News and Murder' are, despite the left's uninformed contentions to the contrary, just not combinations you typically see in EKY.
Clay County Kentucky (Where this murder happened) is a verySimplistic views like these don’t do justice to the complexity, or the diversity of Clay County. Having grown up in Leslie and Clay County, and having represented criminal clients there for a period time as a lawyer, I can say with some certainty that most people in the area capable of killing a man in cold blood (assuming that is what happened, as appears) are not Fox News viewers. They don’t read papers and don’t have political ideologies. To the extent they have developed politics, it’s almost exclusively local and patronage-based. Many of the more dangerous elements actually draw public assistance (and thus have very little to lose) and traffic in drugs… drugs that are usually obtained by Medicaid fraud.
conservative part of this state, and out in the deep hollers, there are people
whose only source of the outside world is Fox News and their likes.
Another problem people make when discussing Clay County (and Appalachia in general) is to assume that it’s monolithic. Crime happens in Clay County the same way it happens in Fayette County. The difference is that crime isn’t segregated to certain communities to the same extent it is in urban areas. Low income and high income families alike live in the same neighborhoods, but crime is, as in other places, nearly exclusively the domain of lower income families.
It’s too early to jump to any firm conclusions in this man's sad death, but at least commentators should get their generalizations correct. 'Hollers, Fox News and Murder' are, despite the left's uninformed contentions to the contrary, just not combinations you typically see in EKY.
Census Worker Hanged in Clay County, Anti-Government Sentiment Suspected
Shock:
Read More @: http://www.wkyt.com/wymtnews/headlines/60797072.html
A U.S. Census worker found hanged from a tree near a Kentucky cemetery had
the word "fed" scrawled on his chest, a law enforcement official said Wednesday,
and the FBI is investigating whether he was a victim of anti-government
sentiment.
[...]
The Census has suspended door-to-door interviews in rural Clay County,
where the body was found, pending the outcome of theinvestigation. An autopsy
report is pending.
Read More @: http://www.wkyt.com/wymtnews/headlines/60797072.html
India Probe Finds H2O on Moon
Potentially big news in the world of science:
Read More @:
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-moon24-2009sep24,0,791176.story
"Within the context of lunar science, this is a major discovery," said Paul
G. Lucey, a planetary scientist with the University of Hawaii, who was not
involved in the current research. "There was zero accepted evidence that there
was any water at the lunar surface, [but] now it is shown to be easily
detectable, though by extremely sensitive methods. As a lunar scientist, when I
read about this I was completely blown away.
"The discovery "will forever change how we look at the moon," added Roger
Clark, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver and the author of
one of three papers -- each dealing with data from a different spacecraft --
appearing in this week's edition of Science magazine.
Read More @:
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-moon24-2009sep24,0,791176.story
Sarah! , Energy Independence, Renewables and Global Warming
Bit historical now, but intriguing. A report was released in January 2009 from then Gov. Sarah! Palin's Energy Coordinator on Energy Independence for Alaska.
Some highlights:
1. The state has created renewable energy fund.
2. The state also created an energy research fund.
3. Does Sarah believe in global warming: "Energy efficiency and renewable energy are twin pillars of a sustainable energy policy. Becoming more energy efficient is seen as one solution to common, critical problems such as energy security, global warming, and fossil fuel depletion." ??
4. Alaska is bullish on natural gas: "900 of 1,000 future power plants will be fired by natural gas."
5. AK is actually considering "land use policy" to restrict property rights and require green buildings. (Scary!)
Worth reading sometime:
http://www.aidea.org/aea/PDF%20files/AK%20Energy%20Final.pdf
Some highlights:
1. The state has created renewable energy fund.
2. The state also created an energy research fund.
3. Does Sarah believe in global warming: "Energy efficiency and renewable energy are twin pillars of a sustainable energy policy. Becoming more energy efficient is seen as one solution to common, critical problems such as energy security, global warming, and fossil fuel depletion." ??
4. Alaska is bullish on natural gas: "900 of 1,000 future power plants will be fired by natural gas."
5. AK is actually considering "land use policy" to restrict property rights and require green buildings. (Scary!)
Worth reading sometime:
http://www.aidea.org/aea/PDF%20files/AK%20Energy%20Final.pdf
Natural Gas, Energy Independence and the Greens
Interesting piece in the BBC about natural gas. In a critical tone they acknowledge new discoveries in places like Appalachia (the Marcellus Shale) and bemoan the fact that energy independence could actually come about as a result of.... Heaven forbid... natural gas. (Scary music plays in the background!)
Snips:
While the BBC is taking a purist view, in a sign of splits within the "green movement" to come, the Dem leadership is having a "lovefest" over Natural Gas:
Did everyone see the fault lines? Natural Gas vs. Environmentalists... Environmentalists vs. Establishment Dems... Natural Gas vs. Coal... Energy Independence vs. Green Energy... lots of room for agreement when it comes to alternative energy, but lots of room to disagree too.
Links:
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8224295.stm
2. http://earth2tech.com/2009/08/10/vegas-clean-energy-summit-natural-gas-lovefest/
Snips:
Then comes the killer comment, as far as US politics is concerned right
now: "The natural gas that's being used in this country at this time can really
get us to energy independence."
"Energy independence" has almost become the Holy Grail in the US.
Here, the environmental debate often does not concern saving the planet, or
reducing the effects of human action on the global climate.
[...]
It is easier to sell the idea that changing where the US gets it fuel from
will make the country less reliant on potentially difficult regimes.
For a while that argument helped encourage environmentalists that this
country was entering a new phase, in which it would generate clean, green
energy.
Now, some of them fear natural gas discoveries may be delivering
(inexpensive) energy independence, without delivering a sustainable solution to
the country's energy needs.
[...]
For many though, any environmental costs are outweighed by the economic
benefits. Natural gas is seen here as a realistic alternative source of fuel -
to be used in cars, in homes, to power industry and business.
Americans use more energy than anyone else on the planet. Natural gas
is cheap, and available.
It is not the "green revolution" some, including President Obama once spoke
of. But it may be how, in the short term at least, the US chooses to meet its
energy needs.
While the BBC is taking a purist view, in a sign of splits within the "green movement" to come, the Dem leadership is having a "lovefest" over Natural Gas:
Al Gore even joined the natural gas praise, specifically calling out natural gas shale as an important potential resource and endorsing Pickens’ plan for natural gas-powered trucks. Gore had previously largely been advocating electric vehicles in his controversial plan for the U.S. to use clean power for 100 percent of its electricity.
Most of the speakers noted that natural gas is still a fossil fuel with considerable carbon emissions, but compared with coal and gasoline-powered vehicles, it’s much better.
Did everyone see the fault lines? Natural Gas vs. Environmentalists... Environmentalists vs. Establishment Dems... Natural Gas vs. Coal... Energy Independence vs. Green Energy... lots of room for agreement when it comes to alternative energy, but lots of room to disagree too.
Links:
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8224295.stm
2. http://earth2tech.com/2009/08/10/vegas-clean-energy-summit-natural-gas-lovefest/
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Cap & Trade Battle Far From Over, But Signs Point to Defeat; Alternative Energy Bill Gains Traction
The NY Times describes Cap and Trade as being “in limbo.” The EPA and Senator Barbara Boxer, whose Senate committee will produce the ultimate Senate Bill, are not giving up on the legislation. Meanwhile, Senator Inhofe says put a fork in it:
Complicating the effort is a looming Copenhagen summit intended to be a platform for a new, international global warming treaty; think of it as Kyoto II. Environmentalists feel the administration’s hand will be weakened if there’s not a Cap and Trade bill by that summit.
Then there are ongoing discussions with China which could result in a bilateral agreement (presumably a treaty) on emissions.
To complicate things further, there’s the recent EPA decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant:
GreenTechMedia is even more pessimistic than the NY Times:
We’ve been saying for weeks that an Alternative Energy Bill is much more likely. The Billings (Montana) Gazette, one of the leading newspapers in the state for a couple of moderate Senate Dems, reccomends just such a bill.
Here’s their take:
“The delay is emblematic of the division and disarray in the Democratic
party over cap-and-trade and health care legislation, both of which are big
government schemes for which the public has expressed overwhelming
opposition,"
Complicating the effort is a looming Copenhagen summit intended to be a platform for a new, international global warming treaty; think of it as Kyoto II. Environmentalists feel the administration’s hand will be weakened if there’s not a Cap and Trade bill by that summit.
Then there are ongoing discussions with China which could result in a bilateral agreement (presumably a treaty) on emissions.
To complicate things further, there’s the recent EPA decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant:
Also coming soon: U.S. EPA rules to control greenhouse gas emissions from
motor vehicles and power plants -- regulations that are more than a decade in
the making and premised on the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v.
EPA.
"You can take a big bite out of the U.S. global warming pollution under the existing law," Doniger said, who added that it would not be too difficult to quantify the emission reductions from combining the new federal rules.
GreenTechMedia is even more pessimistic than the NY Times:
The hopes of passing a massive climate and energy bill through Congress this
year appear to be dimming, as the bill takes a back seat to health care and
financial reform.
Or perhaps the "climate" and the "energy" portions of the bill will be separated, since boosting clean energy and energy efficiency is a far less controversial prospect than the carbon cap-and-trade regulations that are now part of the American Clean Energy and Security Act.
That's the word from Democrats in the Senate, including high-ranking Sen. Dick Durbin, Reuters reported Thursday. The Illinois Senator told Reuters that health care reform and financial regulation could supersede action on the climate and energy bill, which passed the House in June but faces an uphill battle in the
Senate.
We’ve been saying for weeks that an Alternative Energy Bill is much more likely. The Billings (Montana) Gazette, one of the leading newspapers in the state for a couple of moderate Senate Dems, reccomends just such a bill.
Here’s their take:
To create a win-win for Montana, cap-and-trade portions of the bill should be
replaced with incentives for entrepreneurial solutions.Specifically:
• Replace costly subsidies for politically favored technologies with preferential tax treatment for increased research and development spending on both proven and experimental energy sources. Entrepreneurs, not Washington politicians, are more likely to discover cost-effective solutions for cleaner energy.
• Improve patent protection for new energy technology discoveries to improve the cost/benefit of entrepreneurial risk-taking.
• Limit frivolous lawsuits that obstruct both proven and experimental domestic American energy development to lower energy costs.
We have a long tradition of sending representatives to Washington who stand up for hardworking Montanans. We're confident that Sens. Baucus and Tester will do the right thing for Montana's unique environment and economy.
Cumberland Gap in the NY Times Travel Mag
The New York Times travel section has a piece on the Cumberland Gap today. A snip:
The Cumberland Gap, a V-shaped notch in the Appalachian mountain chain 60-some miles north of Knoxville, Tenn., is, like Ellis Island, an icon in the settling of America. Historians estimate that 200,000 to 300,000 people made it through the gap in the years between 1775 and 1810, leaving the coastal states behind and putting down roots in land that would become Kentucky and Tennessee. The gap was the only practical way through the Appalachian chain for 100 miles to the north and south. The danger of Indian attacks made the more expensive alternate way — down the Ohio River — particularly risky.
Earlier, herds of buffalo, deer and elk once migrated through this gap. The Shawnee and Cherokee used it for hunting and war parties.
[…]
The fertile land beyond the Appalachians had a siren call to many whose families had been landless peasants or tenant farmers back in Europe. For the Indians who were already there, the story is one of displacement and disruption of hunting grounds, and one of the most interesting aspects of the interpretive exhibits in the park’s
visitor center is that it tells the story from both sides, on rotating panels.
But the settlers, of course, prevailed.In early 1775 Daniel Boone, working for a land speculation company, led a crew blazing a rough trail through the gap, part of what became known as Boone’s Trace and the Wilderness Road. Later that spring he led a group of families, including his own, west on the steep, narrow path.
After the American Revolution, the trickle of travelers became an unstoppable river of men, women and children, and of packhorses loaded with salt, gunpowder, bedding, skillets and seed for the first planting. In 1796 the trail was widened for wagons, as authorized by the legislature of the new state of Kentucky.
Over the past couple of weeks I've argued that Jefferson Davis should leave KY's Capitol Rotunda, the center of the Commonwealth's government, and be moved to a lesser perch. His spot should be taken by a statue of someone else. Here's a bit of evidence for Daniel Boone being that someone.
Iron Lady Takes Heat Over Secretly Opposing German Unification
Maggie Thatcher, former PM to the United Kingdom, is taking some hits this weekend over her secret opposition to German reunification.
From Der Spiegel:
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher bitterly opposed Germany's reunification. 'We beat the Germans twice, and now they're back,' she allegedly remarked after the fall of the Berlin Wall. But a new raft of documents reveals just how isolated in her opinion the Iron Lady really was.
[...]
It's no secret that Thatcher was a bitter opponent of German reunification. But new documents released Thursday by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office show how she insisted that her government resist the historic development. She repeatedly reined back then-Foreign Minister Douglas
Hurd and Christopher Mallaby, Britain's ambassador in Bonn, who wanted to signal his support for reunification on the day the wall came down.
[...]
Thatcher, for her part, believed up until February 1990 that she would be
able to slow the pace of reunification. She felt it was all happening far too
quickly and feared that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev would be destabilized by
reunification, a concern borne out by history. She backed a five-year
transitional period with two German states and did not share Mitterrand's
optimism that the Germans could be tamed by being incorporated into European
institutions. "The problems will not be overcome by strengthening the EC" she
wrote on February 2, 1990, in an internal memo, referring to the predecessor
organization of the European Union. "Germany's ambitions would then become the
dominant and active factor."
[...]
The fact that France, the Soviet Union and the United States supported
German reunification also had an impact on her stance. Gradually Thatcher moved
into the German political mainstream -- but she never lost her deep-seated
suspicion of the Germans.
Aussie Takes Helm at Morgan Stanley
Evidence of the Anglosphere as an Australian takes the helm at Morgan Stanley, a company descended from the old J.P. Morgan & Co.
A snip from the Sydney Morning Herald:
I can't claim this is a new phenomenon because J.P. Morgan & Co. was started by a couple of Boston bankers in London, but it's a testament to the power of language, shared culture and a uniform common law template that allows these different players from different countries to come together and take part in global commerce.
Read More @: www.smh.com.au/business/australian-banker-takes-the-helm-at-morgan-stanley-20090911-fkr6.html
A snip from the Sydney Morning Herald:
AUSTRALIAN-BORN James Gorman has ascended to one of the most prestigious
roles in international banking.
Educated at Xavier Grammar and Melbourne University's law school, Mr
Gorman, 51, will replace legendary Wall Street blue-blood John J. Mack at the
helm of Morgan Stanley.
Mr Gorman is the quiet power behind a new push to
lure ordinary investors to the bank's blossoming brokerage business.
The appointment ends months of speculation over who would succeed Mr Mack
as head of what was, until recently, one of the most successful banks on Wall
Street. Unanswered are the many questions still swirling over Mr Mack's legacy -
and over Mr Gorman, his hand-picked successor.
I can't claim this is a new phenomenon because J.P. Morgan & Co. was started by a couple of Boston bankers in London, but it's a testament to the power of language, shared culture and a uniform common law template that allows these different players from different countries to come together and take part in global commerce.
Read More @: www.smh.com.au/business/australian-banker-takes-the-helm-at-morgan-stanley-20090911-fkr6.html
Breathitt County Startup Partners with Museum for Magna Carta Exhibit
Great news from a company I've worked with for three years now. Cary Briggs, the inventor, has worked like an energizer bunny to bootstrap this project from one level to the next. He's never given up despite hard times and has always maintained his sunny optimism. Here's the presser:
Envelop Media Builds World’s First Clarifier, on display with Magna Carta Exhibit in New York Innovative kiosk/display case to feature Fraunces Tavern history and artifacts
Envelop Media, an eastern Kentucky [Breathitt County] technology start-up, has built the first prototype of the unique patent pending kiosk/display case to hold several historical artifacts from the 18th century. The device tells the Fraunces Tavern story as part of the Magna Carta and the Foundations of Freedom exhibit in New York City from September 15th through December 15th. The Clarifier can best be described as a glass enclosed display environment where people interact with a multi-media touch interface that is incorporated into the display case glass. The device also features “electric glass” technology that when turned “on” creates projection surfaces that display content and when turned “off” are clear allowing a person to view items in the case. The interactive nature of the device allows both information dissemination and transactions, making the device the kiosk format of the future.
Cary Briggs, inventor of the technology and the veteran of more than eight start-ups, had the idea to integrate several leading edge technologies after a visit to a department store five years ago. “I wondered why something as simple as a bottle of perfume can cost $300 and figured there was a story there to tell the consumer. The Clarifier is all about telling the complex story behind something simple, in a clear, concise way. We are excited to finally bring this idea to life and grateful to have such a wonderful forum to showcase the Clarifier.”
Envelop Media believes the Clarifier may well be the future of self service devices. “Kiosks are great technology but the industry has always been challenged by telling consumers what they can do on a kiosk and with creating a single device for multiple users. The Clarifier draws the consumers’ immediate attention with the display items and the touch interfaces accommodate multiple users and can tell a story, or sell a product. This device is the future of the kiosk industry,” says Scott Templeton, CEO and the veteran of a number of self service and digital signage projects.
Envelop Media is completing an initial seed round capitalization and is working with the Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation and the Morehead State University Innovation Center [at West Liberty] to bring the product to market. Fleetwood Enterprises, Dawar Technologies, Smart Glass Systems, Awesome Inc. and Dogwood Technology [Mike Bryant] are major development partners. Envelop Media is in discussions with The 2010 Alltech FEI World Equestrian Games, Corey Advertising, The Morgan Library and Museum and others to deploy Clarifiers in the coming months.
About Envelop Media
Envelop Media focuses on deploying unique digital signage and display solutions into high traffic public spaces, based on recurring revenue business models. They build, and operate digital signage networks using a combination of internal resources and best in class service providers with proven track records. The company was founded by Cary Briggs, inventor of the Clarifier technology and Scott Templeton who has a strong background in digital signage and retail technology. For more information on Envelop Media please go to www.envelopmedia.tv.
About the Magna Carta
The year is 1215 and the days of "the divine right of kings" are numbered. A group of English Barons call King John to the fields of Runnymede to set his seal to Magna Carta, a document which, for the first time, limited his powers and put the wheels of liberty in motion that continue to roll forward today. Originally known as "The Charter of Liberty," deep within was the revolutionary clause forming the basis of ideas that would later find their way into the Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution and other documents of liberty. Magna Carta is one of the most important documents in the history of democracy, directly influencing human rights throughout the centuries.
About Fraunces Tavern Museum
Fraunces Tavern Museum is a survivor of the early days of New York City. It was built in 1719 as an elegant residence for the merchant Stephan Delancey and his family. In 1762, the home was purchased by tavern-keeper Samuel Fraunces, who turned it into one of the most popular taverns of the day. Though it is best known as the site where Washington gave his farewell address to the officers of the Continental Army, in 1783, the tavern also played a significant role in pre-Revolutionary activities. After the war, when New York was the nation’s first capital, the tavern was rented to the new government to house the offices of the Departments of War, Treasury and Foreign Affairs. In 1904, the Sons of the Revolution in the State of New York purchased the tavern and hired preservation architect William Mersereau to return the building to its colonial appearance. Fraunces Tavern® Museum opened to the public in 1907. Today, the museum complex includes four 19th century buildings in addition to the 18th century Fraunces Tavern building. Fraunces Tavern® Museum is located at 54 Pearl Street, Manhattan.
For more information on the Magna Carta Exhibit, please go to: http://www.frauncestavernmuseum.org/magna-carta.html
Envelop Media Builds World’s First Clarifier, on display with Magna Carta Exhibit in New York Innovative kiosk/display case to feature Fraunces Tavern history and artifacts
Envelop Media, an eastern Kentucky [Breathitt County] technology start-up, has built the first prototype of the unique patent pending kiosk/display case to hold several historical artifacts from the 18th century. The device tells the Fraunces Tavern story as part of the Magna Carta and the Foundations of Freedom exhibit in New York City from September 15th through December 15th. The Clarifier can best be described as a glass enclosed display environment where people interact with a multi-media touch interface that is incorporated into the display case glass. The device also features “electric glass” technology that when turned “on” creates projection surfaces that display content and when turned “off” are clear allowing a person to view items in the case. The interactive nature of the device allows both information dissemination and transactions, making the device the kiosk format of the future.
Cary Briggs, inventor of the technology and the veteran of more than eight start-ups, had the idea to integrate several leading edge technologies after a visit to a department store five years ago. “I wondered why something as simple as a bottle of perfume can cost $300 and figured there was a story there to tell the consumer. The Clarifier is all about telling the complex story behind something simple, in a clear, concise way. We are excited to finally bring this idea to life and grateful to have such a wonderful forum to showcase the Clarifier.”
Envelop Media believes the Clarifier may well be the future of self service devices. “Kiosks are great technology but the industry has always been challenged by telling consumers what they can do on a kiosk and with creating a single device for multiple users. The Clarifier draws the consumers’ immediate attention with the display items and the touch interfaces accommodate multiple users and can tell a story, or sell a product. This device is the future of the kiosk industry,” says Scott Templeton, CEO and the veteran of a number of self service and digital signage projects.
Envelop Media is completing an initial seed round capitalization and is working with the Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation and the Morehead State University Innovation Center [at West Liberty] to bring the product to market. Fleetwood Enterprises, Dawar Technologies, Smart Glass Systems, Awesome Inc. and Dogwood Technology [Mike Bryant] are major development partners. Envelop Media is in discussions with The 2010 Alltech FEI World Equestrian Games, Corey Advertising, The Morgan Library and Museum and others to deploy Clarifiers in the coming months.
About Envelop Media
Envelop Media focuses on deploying unique digital signage and display solutions into high traffic public spaces, based on recurring revenue business models. They build, and operate digital signage networks using a combination of internal resources and best in class service providers with proven track records. The company was founded by Cary Briggs, inventor of the Clarifier technology and Scott Templeton who has a strong background in digital signage and retail technology. For more information on Envelop Media please go to www.envelopmedia.tv.
About the Magna Carta
The year is 1215 and the days of "the divine right of kings" are numbered. A group of English Barons call King John to the fields of Runnymede to set his seal to Magna Carta, a document which, for the first time, limited his powers and put the wheels of liberty in motion that continue to roll forward today. Originally known as "The Charter of Liberty," deep within was the revolutionary clause forming the basis of ideas that would later find their way into the Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution and other documents of liberty. Magna Carta is one of the most important documents in the history of democracy, directly influencing human rights throughout the centuries.
About Fraunces Tavern Museum
Fraunces Tavern Museum is a survivor of the early days of New York City. It was built in 1719 as an elegant residence for the merchant Stephan Delancey and his family. In 1762, the home was purchased by tavern-keeper Samuel Fraunces, who turned it into one of the most popular taverns of the day. Though it is best known as the site where Washington gave his farewell address to the officers of the Continental Army, in 1783, the tavern also played a significant role in pre-Revolutionary activities. After the war, when New York was the nation’s first capital, the tavern was rented to the new government to house the offices of the Departments of War, Treasury and Foreign Affairs. In 1904, the Sons of the Revolution in the State of New York purchased the tavern and hired preservation architect William Mersereau to return the building to its colonial appearance. Fraunces Tavern® Museum opened to the public in 1907. Today, the museum complex includes four 19th century buildings in addition to the 18th century Fraunces Tavern building. Fraunces Tavern® Museum is located at 54 Pearl Street, Manhattan.
For more information on the Magna Carta Exhibit, please go to: http://www.frauncestavernmuseum.org/magna-carta.html
Saturday, September 12, 2009
In Britain, Blackshirts do Battle with Islamists
From the Herald Scotland:
Read More @: www.heraldscotland.com
A Cabinet minister raised fears of a return to 1930s fascism, comparing
modern right-wing groups to Oswald Mosley’s Blackshirts.
Communities Secretary John Denham’s comments came as he announced a drive to prevent white working-class people being "exploited" by extremists.
He singled out protests being organised by the English Defence League, some of which have turned violent over recent months. Hundreds of supporters are expected to gather in Trafalgar Square tomorrow.
Yesterday protesters from the Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) group were involved in a demonstration outside a mosque in Harrow, north east London, to mark the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
"I think that the English Defence League and other organisations are not actually large numbers of people," Mr Denham said. "They clearly, though, have among them people who know what exactly they’re doing.
"If you look at the types of demonstrations they’ve organised ... it looks pretty clear that it’s a tactic designed to provoke and to get a response and hopefully create violence."
Mr Denham pointed to historical "parallels" with the so-called ‘Battle of Cable Street’ in October 1936, a clash between Police overseeing a legal march by the British Union of Fascists and anti-fascists...
Read More @: www.heraldscotland.com
Eastern KY's Health Stats Should be Red Flag for Proponents of Governtment Run Health Care
In my previous post I took offense to the state’s #2 newspaper calling Congressman Hal Rogers, a man who’s served his district with amazing electoral success for 29 years, a liar. I neglected to mention that it wasn’t just Rogers’ criticism of budget deficits that irked the Herald.
Rogers’ spoke out against the President’s “health care reform” measure as well and that drew this response:
If I were cut of the same cloth as the Herald Leader editorialists I might say “liar, liar”, instead, I’ll just say the Herald’s being a bit misleading. It’s misleading because, while EKY’s life expectancy is indeed at the bottom of the list, it’s not due to a lack of health coverage. As a region with some of the nation’s largest percentages of folks “on the draw”, health insurance is in fact paid for by the Federal Government. That means that Eastern Kentucky, which has some of the worst health stats in the nation, could be used as an argument AGAINST government sponsored insurance.
Here’s how one physician who’s served in Appalachia describes the health problems there:
I don’t expect the Herald’s editorial board to get Appalachia, being, as they are, cloistered within the comfortable confines of New Circle Road, but it would nice if they tried.
Rogers’ spoke out against the President’s “health care reform” measure as well and that drew this response:
In Congress for 29 years, Rogers represents a poor region whose residents have
the shortest life expectancy of those of any congressional district. He should
be on the forefront of improving access to health care, not lobbing misleading
talking points from the sidelines.
If I were cut of the same cloth as the Herald Leader editorialists I might say “liar, liar”, instead, I’ll just say the Herald’s being a bit misleading. It’s misleading because, while EKY’s life expectancy is indeed at the bottom of the list, it’s not due to a lack of health coverage. As a region with some of the nation’s largest percentages of folks “on the draw”, health insurance is in fact paid for by the Federal Government. That means that Eastern Kentucky, which has some of the worst health stats in the nation, could be used as an argument AGAINST government sponsored insurance.
Here’s how one physician who’s served in Appalachia describes the health problems there:
After working in Appalachia where medical care is government-entitled and often
multi-generational, the most disturbing consequence we saw was the corrupting
effect it had on the community's character. As people grow accustomed to viewing
themselves as wards of the state, they lose a sense of any responsibility toward
the resources they consume. If the current debate ignores the role of personal
responsibility, it will be a costly mistake both financially and culturally.
I don’t expect the Herald’s editorial board to get Appalachia, being, as they are, cloistered within the comfortable confines of New Circle Road, but it would nice if they tried.
Herald Leader Cheapens Political Discourse, Accuses Hal Rogers of Lying
Q: When’s it cool to call a respected political leader a liar?
A: It’s not, but you can get away with it if you’re the Herald Leader and that politician is a conservative speaking out against huge budget defecits.
Earlier this week the political left erupted when Congressman Joe Wilson quite tackily yelled “you lie” as the President of the United States gave a speech to a joint session of Congress. As John McCain said, Wilson was totally disrespectful.
But why is it OK for the Herald Leader to similarly call Kentucky’s longest serving Congressman a liar? That’s what the Herald did today when it wrote an editorial called “Hal Rogers’ Whoppers.” The piece was a response to a Rogers’ interview on WYMT earlier this week where Rogers something to the effect of:
The editorial board of the Herald Leader took offense, and rather than cooly explain their position, here's. Here’s how they handled it:
U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers' nose must be about nine feet long after a television interview this week.
Rogers played Sen. Mitch McConnell's wooden puppet on WYMT's Issues & Answers when he parroted a whopper originated by the Senate Republican leader in February.
I count three personal insults in that short snip:
1. Rogers is a liar
2. Senator McConnell is a liar
3. Rogers is a puppet of McConnell’s. (A strange accusation from folks expected to know KY politics.)
Apparently there’s a double standard in American politics. The left decries- in some instances rightfully- uncivil responses to Obama’s policy, but the Herald Leader can, as the state’s #2 newspaper, in committee in a deliberate manner call a man who’s served in Congress 29 years a liar.
And what of Rogers’ claim? The Herald said Rogers lied because:
I went to law school because of my poor math skills, so I may be off base here, but by my calculations that’s more than a trillion dollars on the stimulus and housing… before you get into the health care proposal.
Was Rogers’ spinning and putting things in a certain context favorable to his argument? Duh! That’s what politicians do. But lying? Of course not!
Civil discourse should return to American politics. But the liberal media has a role to play too, especially when they disspassionately write editorials. Calling a Congressman who’s gotten more votes in EKY than the Herald Leader has ever sold papers isn’t very civil.
A: It’s not, but you can get away with it if you’re the Herald Leader and that politician is a conservative speaking out against huge budget defecits.
Earlier this week the political left erupted when Congressman Joe Wilson quite tackily yelled “you lie” as the President of the United States gave a speech to a joint session of Congress. As John McCain said, Wilson was totally disrespectful.
But why is it OK for the Herald Leader to similarly call Kentucky’s longest serving Congressman a liar? That’s what the Herald did today when it wrote an editorial called “Hal Rogers’ Whoppers.” The piece was a response to a Rogers’ interview on WYMT earlier this week where Rogers something to the effect of:
“the federal government spent more money in the first months of the Obama
administration than on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Hurricane Katrina
recovery combined.”
The editorial board of the Herald Leader took offense, and rather than cooly explain their position, here's. Here’s how they handled it:
U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers' nose must be about nine feet long after a television interview this week.
Rogers played Sen. Mitch McConnell's wooden puppet on WYMT's Issues & Answers when he parroted a whopper originated by the Senate Republican leader in February.
I count three personal insults in that short snip:
1. Rogers is a liar
2. Senator McConnell is a liar
3. Rogers is a puppet of McConnell’s. (A strange accusation from folks expected to know KY politics.)
Apparently there’s a double standard in American politics. The left decries- in some instances rightfully- uncivil responses to Obama’s policy, but the Herald Leader can, as the state’s #2 newspaper, in committee in a deliberate manner call a man who’s served in Congress 29 years a liar.
And what of Rogers’ claim? The Herald said Rogers lied because:
Using the lowest estimate of war spending that's "even remotelyBut here’s what the Washington Times said recently on this administration’s spending:
defensible," fact-checkers said, President Barack Obama's early appropriations
for economic stimulus and children's health care ($687 billion) are $253 billion
less than spending on the wars and Katrina ($940 billion).
At some point last week, the sheer velocity of Obama’s spending proposals began
to overwhelm even experienced Washington hands. In the span of four days, we saw
the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill, the rollout of a $275 billion
housing proposal, discussion of Congress’s remaining appropriations bills (about
$400 billion) and word of a vaguely-defined financial stabilization plan that
could ultimately cost $2 trillion.
I went to law school because of my poor math skills, so I may be off base here, but by my calculations that’s more than a trillion dollars on the stimulus and housing… before you get into the health care proposal.
Was Rogers’ spinning and putting things in a certain context favorable to his argument? Duh! That’s what politicians do. But lying? Of course not!
Civil discourse should return to American politics. But the liberal media has a role to play too, especially when they disspassionately write editorials. Calling a Congressman who’s gotten more votes in EKY than the Herald Leader has ever sold papers isn’t very civil.
Friday, September 11, 2009
New Media, Main Stream Media, Spin and the Everyday Voter
A thought occurred to me: the real divide in America isn't left and right, or red and blue, it's in how you get your news, mainstream media or new media. Much of the divide we see in American can be laid at the feet of the fact that American voters have two distinct political cultures, one for the "informed" voter and one for the voter who's too busy to get their news from anything but the occasional article or news story.
To understand what I'm talking about, let's review some American history. Spin, that is the deliberate twisting or simplifying of a political message to make it understandable to the average voter, has long occupied a special place in democracy. Spin has been the way of politics for centuries. Since America was founded we've relied heavily on myth making.
Our founding fathers had to make the King out to be a monster despite the fact that Ben Franklin had been busy only a few short years before trying to work things out with the crown and bypass the Provincal Governors. The cry "Remember the Alamo" and the efforts to lionize Crockett, Travis and Bowie masked the fact that all three had been failures back east. While we remember the Maine we tend to forget that it probably blew up naturally. In World War I Wilson fought the Huns less over the Lusitania than America's national interest. And in World War II FDR had been maneuvering us to join that conflict for years.
Of course this mythologizing has an admirable purpose: it allows everyday, uninformed citizens a way to readily understand the debate. It may be misleading, but don't we all mislead our children rather than try to explain to them the complex truth?
The problem with myth making today is that it doesn't work for an ever growing number of people. Plugged into the web and listening to talk radio, a large percentage of Americans know their pols are spinning. Meanwhile, an ever larger number of Americans is simply unaware of the debate except to the extent that it occasionally makes it way across their TV screens. These people live in a world of Democracy 1.0 while activists live in Democracy 2.0.
1.0 residents get their news from the mainstream media, and 2.0 dwellers go to sites like Drudge Report and Huffington Post. Those from 1.0 tend to be older and more trusting of authority; the 2.0 folks don't trust anyone, particularly on the other side, and they're typically younger. 1.0 dwellers express revulsion when they hear the shouts from the activists at 2.0. Adding to the challenge is the fact that mainstream media plays up the foibles of those 2.0 dwellers every chance they get (particularly if the activists are conservatives) while those from Democracy 2.0 are so jaded that they reject much of the MSM coverage of politics as an outright conspiracy to rob Americans of the real truths.
Perhaps someday those who reside in 1.0 will upgrade and the MSM will start reporting facts rather than pushing spin. In that kind of word, pols won't need to spin or shout "liar" in a crowded room. Debate will be conducted in a genteel fashion and may the best argument win. That day will come eventually... won't it?
(Don't hold your breath.)
To understand what I'm talking about, let's review some American history. Spin, that is the deliberate twisting or simplifying of a political message to make it understandable to the average voter, has long occupied a special place in democracy. Spin has been the way of politics for centuries. Since America was founded we've relied heavily on myth making.
Our founding fathers had to make the King out to be a monster despite the fact that Ben Franklin had been busy only a few short years before trying to work things out with the crown and bypass the Provincal Governors. The cry "Remember the Alamo" and the efforts to lionize Crockett, Travis and Bowie masked the fact that all three had been failures back east. While we remember the Maine we tend to forget that it probably blew up naturally. In World War I Wilson fought the Huns less over the Lusitania than America's national interest. And in World War II FDR had been maneuvering us to join that conflict for years.
Of course this mythologizing has an admirable purpose: it allows everyday, uninformed citizens a way to readily understand the debate. It may be misleading, but don't we all mislead our children rather than try to explain to them the complex truth?
The problem with myth making today is that it doesn't work for an ever growing number of people. Plugged into the web and listening to talk radio, a large percentage of Americans know their pols are spinning. Meanwhile, an ever larger number of Americans is simply unaware of the debate except to the extent that it occasionally makes it way across their TV screens. These people live in a world of Democracy 1.0 while activists live in Democracy 2.0.
1.0 residents get their news from the mainstream media, and 2.0 dwellers go to sites like Drudge Report and Huffington Post. Those from 1.0 tend to be older and more trusting of authority; the 2.0 folks don't trust anyone, particularly on the other side, and they're typically younger. 1.0 dwellers express revulsion when they hear the shouts from the activists at 2.0. Adding to the challenge is the fact that mainstream media plays up the foibles of those 2.0 dwellers every chance they get (particularly if the activists are conservatives) while those from Democracy 2.0 are so jaded that they reject much of the MSM coverage of politics as an outright conspiracy to rob Americans of the real truths.
Perhaps someday those who reside in 1.0 will upgrade and the MSM will start reporting facts rather than pushing spin. In that kind of word, pols won't need to spin or shout "liar" in a crowded room. Debate will be conducted in a genteel fashion and may the best argument win. That day will come eventually... won't it?
(Don't hold your breath.)
Pat: Culture War Splits Nation
Pat Buchanan pens an interesting column about the cultural fracturing of America:
Pat doesn't offer any solutions, but if you read his work regularly you'll know he wants a strong national response to protect conservative culture and maintain an Ameircan way of life. If someone could fuse his nationalist instincts with support for the new economy, it could go some way to bridging the gap. But the split goes deeper than any real policy response. It's emotional and will probably have to exhaust itself before it will end.
Read More Pat @: www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109478
We seem not only to disagree with each other more than ever, but to have
come almost to detest one another. Politically, culturally, racially, we seem
ever ready to go for each others' throats.
One half of America sees abortion as the annual slaughter of a million
unborn. The other half regards the right-to-life movement as tyrannical and
sexist.
Proponents of gay marriage see its adversaries as homophobic bigots.
Opponents see its champions as seeking to elevate unnatural and immoral
relationships to the sacred state of traditional marriage.
The question invites itself. In what sense are we one nation and one
people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry,
faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes,
cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays and share the same music,
poetry, art and literature?
Yet, today, Mexican-Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo, a skirmish in a
French-Mexican war about which most Americans know nothing, which took place the
same year as two of the bloodiest battles of our own Civil War: Antietam and
Fredericksburg.
Christmas and Easter, the great holidays of Christendom, once united
Americans in joy. Now we fight over whether they should even be mentioned, let
alone celebrated, in our public schools.
Pat doesn't offer any solutions, but if you read his work regularly you'll know he wants a strong national response to protect conservative culture and maintain an Ameircan way of life. If someone could fuse his nationalist instincts with support for the new economy, it could go some way to bridging the gap. But the split goes deeper than any real policy response. It's emotional and will probably have to exhaust itself before it will end.
Read More Pat @: www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109478
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Romney on Spurring Innovation
Back the first time he was a candidate for Prez:
[Interviewer]: One more question and then I actually have a fun question.
On renewable energy, strictly speaking we’re talking about science now and not
just the internet and the areas I cover, it is a big area, an important area. My
question is, what would you do to encourage U.S. innovation into renewable and
sustainable energy sources?
MR: Well, first of all, as I mentioned a moment ago, the way a nation
like ours stays ahead permanently from other nations is having superior
technology and innovation and one of those areas that is certainly going to be
true in relates to energy and I would like to see the federal government
substantially increase its investment in basic science and basic research
related to energy efficiency, energy production, energy distribution, and I will
substantially increase funding in those areas . I will also work on public
product partnerships to put in place coal to liquid capacity, potentially even
nuclear power plants, and if you will, prime the pump again to get nuclear power
plants online and under construction again in this country.
Bobby Jindal Looks to Spur Innovation in LA
Great idea:
Read More @: http://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&articleID=1093
Today, Governor Bobby Jindal issued an executive order creating the
Louisiana Innovation Council, whose mission is to establish a comprehensive
economic strategy and innovation agenda that will grow the state’s economy as
well as enhance competitiveness.
Louisiana Economic Development Secretary Stephen Moret said, “The
Louisiana Innovation Council will help the state develop and implement targeted
policies, programs and investments designed to maximize the potential of our
increasingly knowledge-based economy. We will bring together academia, the
business community, economic development and workforce leaders, as well as some of Louisiana’s leading entrepreneurs to cultivate and foster Louisiana’s
innovation ecosystem. This is a significant step toward identifying and
cultivating new growth industries, strengthening our traditional industries,
diversifying our economy and enhancing Louisiana’s economic
competitiveness.”
Barry Erwin, President of Council for A Better Louisiana said, “We
are excited about the governor’s executive order to create an Innovation Council
for Louisiana. Louisiana must continue to move forward to modernize its economy
and create more knowledge-based jobs for our state. We believe this council will
give us the mechanism to develop a forward-looking innovation strategy for
Louisiana and grow the types of jobs that will enhance our economic
competitiveness, diversify our economy and better position us for the
future.”
Read More @: http://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&articleID=1093
Army Looks to Algae Fuels
A snip from the Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog:
Solazyme Inc. said today it had a contract from the Defense Department for 20,000 gallons of algae-derived diesel fuel for testing.
What is the Pentagon doing? Dreaming some more about cutting its own supply lines, perhaps. Imagine a mobile army that can take an algae farm that can produce diesel fuel along with it, reducing the need for fuel convoys.
But that’s for the future. For now, the $8.5 million contract with privately held algae pioneer Solazyme is to provide fuel for the military to test in all sorts of conditions. The military is focused of finding ways to move towards energy independence, in part because reliance on foreign sources of fuel leads to all sorts of entanglements.
For now, the dream of a military free of foreign oil is a pipedream. But the military is serious. Take a look at what DARPA is up to for jet fuel. DARPA is the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency.
And when DARPA and the military gets interested in a new technology, interesting things can happen. Like the Internet, for example, that thing you are using right now to read this.
Origins of American Capitalism
Thought provoking snip from National Affairs:
And for the future of American capitalism:
Read More @: http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/capitalism-after-the-crisis
In America, unlike much of the rest of the West, democracy predates
industrialization. By the time of the Second Industrial Revolution in the latter
part of the 19th century, the United States had already enjoyed several decades
of universal (male) suffrage, and several decades of widespread education. This
created a public with high expectations, unlikely to tolerate evident unfairness
in economic policy. It is no coincidence that the very concept of anti-trust law
— a pro-market but sometimes anti-business idea — was developed in the United
States at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. It is also
no coincidence that in the early part of the 20th century, fueled by an
inquisitive press and a populist (but not anti-market) political movement, the
United States experienced a rise in regulation aimed at reducing the power of
big business. Unlike in Europe — where the most vibrant opposition to the
excesses of business came from socialist anti-market movements — in the United
States this opposition was squarely pro-market. When Louis Brandeis attacked the
money trust, he was not fundamentally trying to interfere with markets — only
trying to make them work better. As a result, Americans have long understood
that the interests of the market and the interests of business may not always be
aligned.
And for the future of American capitalism:
We... stand at a crossroads for American capitalism. One path would
channel popular rage into political support for some genuinely pro-market
reforms, even if they do not serve the interests of large financial firms. By
appealing to the best of the populist tradition, we can introduce limits to the
power of the financial industry — or any business, for that matter — and restore
those fundamental principles that give an ethical dimension to capitalism:
freedom, meritocracy, a direct link between reward and effort, and a sense of
responsibility that ensures that those who reap the gains also bear the losses.
This would mean abandoning the notion that any firm is too big to fail, and
putting rules in place that keep large financial firms from manipulating
government connections to the detriment of markets. It would mean adopting a
pro-market, rather than pro-business, approach to the economy.
The alternative path is to soothe the popular rage with measures like
limits on executive bonuses while shoring up the position of the largest
financial players, making them dependent on government and making the larger
economy dependent on them. Such measures play to the crowd in the moment, but
threaten the financial system and the public standing of American capitalism in
the long run. They also reinforce the very practices that caused the crisis.
This is the path to big-business capitalism: a path that blurs the distinction
between pro-market and pro-business policies, and so imperils the unique faith
the American people have long displayed in the legitimacy of democratic
capitalism.
Unfortunately, it looks for now like the Obama administration has
chosen this latter path. It is a choice that threatens to launch us on that
vicious spiral of more public resentment and more corporatist crony capitalism
so common abroad — trampling in the process the economic exceptionalism that has
been so crucial for American prosperity. When the dust has cleared and the panic
has abated, this may well turn out to be the most serious and damaging
consequence of the financial crisis for American capitalism.
Read More @: http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/capitalism-after-the-crisis
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Time for Jefferson Davis to Leave KY's Capitol Rotunda (Part II)
Last week I posted a column saying it’s time we removed Jefferson Davis’ statue from Kentucky’s Capitol Rotunda. Instead of occupying such a prominent place in the center of our civic and political life, we should, I suggested, move it to a new, less auspicious place, such as the Commonwealth’s Military History Museum. Finally, I suggested that it would be difficult to remove Davis without a suitable replacement and I made a few suggestions for great historical figures that could justifiable be said to be more prominent and important than Jefferson Davis. Daniel Boone and John Marshall Harlan topped my list of suitable replacements.
My opinion, naturally, invoked some quick disagreement from a couple of my faithful fans. They responded with condemnations of me and defenses of Jefferson Davis.
Thankfully, neither commenter questioned the notion that, if in their minds Jefferson Davis had represented, as the President of the Confederacy, an effort which had as its primary goal the defense of slavery, he would indeed be a poor candidate for the rotunda. Instead, they decried my premise and suggested that I was ignorant of history and had failed to understand that what Jefferson Davis was doing was fighting tyranny, not fighting for slavery.
Claims such as this pop up frequently in discussions about the Civil War. There’s a certain romantic attachment that many Americans have to the lost cause that makes them hanker for many of its supposed lost qualities, such as gentility, nobility, resistance to the elite establishment, etc. This identification requires reconciling these otherwise good folks’ minds with the fact that conventional history tells us that this terrible conflict was primarily fought over slavery. How to reconcile it? If you’re a conservative, it’s fairly easy: the damned, yellow rags, representing as they do the liberal establishment, simply lie. They lie about the true nature of the south, they lie about the Confederacy’s heroes, and they lie when they write that Abe Lincoln was some sort of benign saint.
To a degree, they have a point. It’s easy to punch holes in 6th grade histories because they are, after all, written for 6th grade minds. Lincoln wasn’t really an abolitionist and made statements suggesting that he would accept slavery in order to maintain the union. Jefferson Davis said nice things about blacks and we can find instances where Lincoln did not. Many of the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy were not slave owners. As Shelby Foote reminisces in Ken Burn’s magisterial documentary on the Civil War, a Confederate Infantryman on being asked why he fought for those slave owners replied simply, “we fight because you’re down here.”
Wars, as political outgrowths of large societies, are not simple. There are, necessarily, many contradictions. Propaganda requires spin, and sometimes outright lies; elites may themselves be more moderate than their voters but can find themselves dragged along by their constituencies; thus if you look at their private statements, you’ll see one thing, but look at their public statements and you’ll see another. In a related vein, politicians frequently say one thing to justify themselves today, and another tomorrow. Then there is always the inherent need to compromise in order to avoid embarrassing losses. This was what made the British offer nearly all of the American pre-war aims during the Revolutionary War, for example.
Another challenge with looking into the history of a particular conflict is that there’s usually more than one contributing factor for a given war. Society has several spheres of action including economics, culture, and the political realm. These often act like tectonic plates and are continually moving; during a war their movement accelerates and rapid changes can occur. For these and other reasons it’s impossible to form one monolithic explanation for any war or its conduct.
Nonetheless, if you’re willing to look for it, you can find a continuous thread in the history of most conflicts. In the Civil War, it’s clear that slavery was that continuous thread. Though there were other differences between North and South, nothing separated the American people quite so much as that terrible issue.
Slavery was not merely an academic issue, especially in the south. First, like the Spartans with their Helots, the Southern people had accumulated a group of uneducated men and women within their communities and homes who they had reason to fear. John Brown’s actions made clear to southerners the dangers that abolitionism could hold for them. What could these rallying, obnoxious “Black Republicans” do now that they were in the White House, went the line of questioning from the Confederacy.
Slavery was also an economic issue. It was the linchpin of the Southern, agrarian economy. Removing slavery would have destroyed the southern economy for generations, as it eventually did.
Then there was the political calculus. Until 1860 a carefully fought out balance had existed between Northerners and Southerners. Of course this balance had at its core the issue of Slavery, as the Compromise of 1850 had made so clear. So long as the South had parity in the Senate with Unionist Northerners, they felt Union was tolerable. Once that changed, beginning after the admission of California into the U.S. as a state, the south began to slip away from the North.
There were also cultural issues. The North and South, by virtue of their differing economies, had grown quite distinct from one another in cultural terms, especially in southern eyes.
Several books help illuminate these issues for me over the past few days. First, on the cultural front: Cavalier and Yankee by William R. Taylor. Taylor's classic is described as an intellectual history of the South. Taylor wrote “the problem for the South was not that it lived by an entirely different set of values and civic ideas, but rather that it was forced either to live with the values of the nation at large or- as a desperate solution- to invent others, others which had even less relevance to the Southern situation.” This sort of cultural strain created strained arguments for the South on subjects like the "Southern way of life" that Taylor rejects. Why go through these intellectual hurdles to proclaim your own uniqueness? For Taylor the answer was slavery: “Most important of all, close to a third of its population lived in conditions of chattel slavery, a fact that exposed it to a wave of criticism not only from the North but from the whole Western world.”
On the economic front I recommend Clash of Extremes: the Economic Origins of the Civil War A book that’s been hailed as a new interpretation of the war’s causes, and a work that describes itself as critical of the “idealistic” explanation that Lincoln was a crusading avenger set on freeing the slaves, it nonetheless ends up as only a slightly more nuanced reinterpretation of the war. Instead of our nation being divided over the horrors of slavery, the South merely attempted to protect their economy, the basis of which was slavery, while the North tried to further their economic agenda of industrialization, which didn’t require slavery. Consider this “The South Was Greedy, Not Evil” thesis.
Then we come to the political causes of the war. Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secessionist Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War by Charles Dew should be read by all Civil War buffs. It’s a frank and frightening look into the rhetoric employed by Southern Secessionist Commissioners in their efforts to get other states to withdraw from the Union. The arguments are appalling. Here’s William L. Harris, Mississippi’s Commissioner to Georgia speaking to the state legislature about why they should leave the Union:
Mississippi’s Ambassador of Ill Will continued lecturing to the esteemed Georgian legislators that the choice was simple:
Page after revolting page of this sort of hate filled rhetoric fills Dew’s pages. Dew was, by the way, a Southerner previously sympathetic with their cause until he began research of this work.
For me, however, the most damning brief against Jefferson Davis came from his most comprehensive biography: Jefferson Davis, American by William Cooper. A generally sympathetic work on its subject, the book received an average 4.5 stars from personal reviews at Amazon.com. The book is full of descriptions of Davis’ efforts to protect and expand slavery. From the beginning Cooper describes Davis’ views as follows:
As for Davis’ long term view on slavery, Cooper tackles that subject almost half way through his seminal work:
Page after page details Davis’ comfort with the sins of slavery. For example, the average life expectancy of a slave on Davis’ plantation was around 40 years old. Cooper also gives the lie to some of Davis’ and his acolytes’ post war efforts at myth making, including ones that suggested Davis was some sort of ultra-caring, benign slave owner.
These and other works put slavery front and center in the Confederacy’s and Davis’ efforts to split our nation. There can be no escaping that central fact. By keeping his statue in our Capitol rotunda, Kentucky is honoring a man spent the most important years of his public life working to keep millions in chains. Removing Jefferon Davis' statue to a less prominent place would be both small comfort to the millions of slave ancestors who live today and, more importantly, would set the right tone about what epitomizes KY and what does not.
Cross Posted @ Osi Speaks!
My opinion, naturally, invoked some quick disagreement from a couple of my faithful fans. They responded with condemnations of me and defenses of Jefferson Davis.
Thankfully, neither commenter questioned the notion that, if in their minds Jefferson Davis had represented, as the President of the Confederacy, an effort which had as its primary goal the defense of slavery, he would indeed be a poor candidate for the rotunda. Instead, they decried my premise and suggested that I was ignorant of history and had failed to understand that what Jefferson Davis was doing was fighting tyranny, not fighting for slavery.
Claims such as this pop up frequently in discussions about the Civil War. There’s a certain romantic attachment that many Americans have to the lost cause that makes them hanker for many of its supposed lost qualities, such as gentility, nobility, resistance to the elite establishment, etc. This identification requires reconciling these otherwise good folks’ minds with the fact that conventional history tells us that this terrible conflict was primarily fought over slavery. How to reconcile it? If you’re a conservative, it’s fairly easy: the damned, yellow rags, representing as they do the liberal establishment, simply lie. They lie about the true nature of the south, they lie about the Confederacy’s heroes, and they lie when they write that Abe Lincoln was some sort of benign saint.
To a degree, they have a point. It’s easy to punch holes in 6th grade histories because they are, after all, written for 6th grade minds. Lincoln wasn’t really an abolitionist and made statements suggesting that he would accept slavery in order to maintain the union. Jefferson Davis said nice things about blacks and we can find instances where Lincoln did not. Many of the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy were not slave owners. As Shelby Foote reminisces in Ken Burn’s magisterial documentary on the Civil War, a Confederate Infantryman on being asked why he fought for those slave owners replied simply, “we fight because you’re down here.”
Wars, as political outgrowths of large societies, are not simple. There are, necessarily, many contradictions. Propaganda requires spin, and sometimes outright lies; elites may themselves be more moderate than their voters but can find themselves dragged along by their constituencies; thus if you look at their private statements, you’ll see one thing, but look at their public statements and you’ll see another. In a related vein, politicians frequently say one thing to justify themselves today, and another tomorrow. Then there is always the inherent need to compromise in order to avoid embarrassing losses. This was what made the British offer nearly all of the American pre-war aims during the Revolutionary War, for example.
Another challenge with looking into the history of a particular conflict is that there’s usually more than one contributing factor for a given war. Society has several spheres of action including economics, culture, and the political realm. These often act like tectonic plates and are continually moving; during a war their movement accelerates and rapid changes can occur. For these and other reasons it’s impossible to form one monolithic explanation for any war or its conduct.
Nonetheless, if you’re willing to look for it, you can find a continuous thread in the history of most conflicts. In the Civil War, it’s clear that slavery was that continuous thread. Though there were other differences between North and South, nothing separated the American people quite so much as that terrible issue.
Slavery was not merely an academic issue, especially in the south. First, like the Spartans with their Helots, the Southern people had accumulated a group of uneducated men and women within their communities and homes who they had reason to fear. John Brown’s actions made clear to southerners the dangers that abolitionism could hold for them. What could these rallying, obnoxious “Black Republicans” do now that they were in the White House, went the line of questioning from the Confederacy.
Slavery was also an economic issue. It was the linchpin of the Southern, agrarian economy. Removing slavery would have destroyed the southern economy for generations, as it eventually did.
Then there was the political calculus. Until 1860 a carefully fought out balance had existed between Northerners and Southerners. Of course this balance had at its core the issue of Slavery, as the Compromise of 1850 had made so clear. So long as the South had parity in the Senate with Unionist Northerners, they felt Union was tolerable. Once that changed, beginning after the admission of California into the U.S. as a state, the south began to slip away from the North.
There were also cultural issues. The North and South, by virtue of their differing economies, had grown quite distinct from one another in cultural terms, especially in southern eyes.
Several books help illuminate these issues for me over the past few days. First, on the cultural front: Cavalier and Yankee by William R. Taylor. Taylor's classic is described as an intellectual history of the South. Taylor wrote “the problem for the South was not that it lived by an entirely different set of values and civic ideas, but rather that it was forced either to live with the values of the nation at large or- as a desperate solution- to invent others, others which had even less relevance to the Southern situation.” This sort of cultural strain created strained arguments for the South on subjects like the "Southern way of life" that Taylor rejects. Why go through these intellectual hurdles to proclaim your own uniqueness? For Taylor the answer was slavery: “Most important of all, close to a third of its population lived in conditions of chattel slavery, a fact that exposed it to a wave of criticism not only from the North but from the whole Western world.”
On the economic front I recommend Clash of Extremes: the Economic Origins of the Civil War A book that’s been hailed as a new interpretation of the war’s causes, and a work that describes itself as critical of the “idealistic” explanation that Lincoln was a crusading avenger set on freeing the slaves, it nonetheless ends up as only a slightly more nuanced reinterpretation of the war. Instead of our nation being divided over the horrors of slavery, the South merely attempted to protect their economy, the basis of which was slavery, while the North tried to further their economic agenda of industrialization, which didn’t require slavery. Consider this “The South Was Greedy, Not Evil” thesis.
Then we come to the political causes of the war. Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secessionist Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War by Charles Dew should be read by all Civil War buffs. It’s a frank and frightening look into the rhetoric employed by Southern Secessionist Commissioners in their efforts to get other states to withdraw from the Union. The arguments are appalling. Here’s William L. Harris, Mississippi’s Commissioner to Georgia speaking to the state legislature about why they should leave the Union:
“Our government made this government for the white man, rejecting the Negro,
as an ignorant, inferior barbarian race, incapable of self government… [Whereas
Lincoln sought to] overturn this great feature of our Union… and to substitute
in its stead their new theory of the universal equality of the black and white
races.”
Mississippi’s Ambassador of Ill Will continued lecturing to the esteemed Georgian legislators that the choice was simple:
“The New Union with Lincoln’s Black Republicans and free Negroes without
slavery, or slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln
Black Republicans or free Negroes either, to molest us.”
Page after revolting page of this sort of hate filled rhetoric fills Dew’s pages. Dew was, by the way, a Southerner previously sympathetic with their cause until he began research of this work.
For me, however, the most damning brief against Jefferson Davis came from his most comprehensive biography: Jefferson Davis, American by William Cooper. A generally sympathetic work on its subject, the book received an average 4.5 stars from personal reviews at Amazon.com. The book is full of descriptions of Davis’ efforts to protect and expand slavery. From the beginning Cooper describes Davis’ views as follows:
"At the outset I want to address one matter. Race and the place of
African-Americans in American society were central in Davis’s life. His
stance on an issue that still vexes the nation more than a century after his
death would win no kudos in our time. For this entire life he believed in
the superiority of the white race. He also owned slaves, defended slavery
as moral and as a social good, and fought a great war to maintain it.
After 1865 he opposed new rights for blacks. He rejoiced at the collapse
of Reconstruction and the reassertion of white authority with its accompanying
black subordination…”
As for Davis’ long term view on slavery, Cooper tackles that subject almost half way through his seminal work:
“Davis envisioned no early end to slavery. His long-term hope seems to
have been that somehow westward migration would take slaves out of the United
States by way of Mexico and Central America. Such a fanciful dream
certainly included an open-ended time frame for slavery, for in the unlikely
event such an exodus took place, it would happen in the unforeseeable future… He
believed blacks inferior to whites, and also that where blacks were present in
large numbers, social peace required the superior race to possess absolute legal
control and power over the inferior. Thus, slavery must remain in
place.”
Page after page details Davis’ comfort with the sins of slavery. For example, the average life expectancy of a slave on Davis’ plantation was around 40 years old. Cooper also gives the lie to some of Davis’ and his acolytes’ post war efforts at myth making, including ones that suggested Davis was some sort of ultra-caring, benign slave owner.
These and other works put slavery front and center in the Confederacy’s and Davis’ efforts to split our nation. There can be no escaping that central fact. By keeping his statue in our Capitol rotunda, Kentucky is honoring a man spent the most important years of his public life working to keep millions in chains. Removing Jefferon Davis' statue to a less prominent place would be both small comfort to the millions of slave ancestors who live today and, more importantly, would set the right tone about what epitomizes KY and what does not.
Cross Posted @ Osi Speaks!
Monday, September 07, 2009
Party, Masses, Elites: Three Legged Stool of American Politics
Admittedly, I'm not current on all the theories and constructs of American political science. So this may already have been minted. But considering how electoral politics works in America I've come to the conclusion (again, maybe not original, but new to me) that political careers rest on three legs.
- First, a candidate has to clear his or her political party. Without it, no matter how credible a candidate you may be, you're dead. That's why Arlen Specter is a Democrat today. Despite being reelected repeatedly in PA for decades, he moved too far to the left of his party and found it impossible for him to be nominated again as a Republican.
- Second, there's the electorate. They're always shifting and pols can sometime shift themselves. Move too far to the left or right, no matter how strong you may be in your own party, and you're a political goner. Examples of this abound but Tom Daschle is an apt one. He was powerful and brought home the bacon to his state, but the electorate moved away from him and he couldn't pull it out in 2004.
- Third, there are the elites. These are the folks who fund politics. They're not partisans in the sense of grassroots politics, they're powerbrokers. These are the folks who, usually because of leadership from high level pols, will dry up your fundraising, support your primary opponents, make life miserable for you, etc. if you get on the wrong side of them. KY's Jim Bunning and NH's Bob Smith are two examples of pols whose careers were ended when the elites abandoned them.
Is this a fairly common construct that I've just missed? Regardless, does it make sense?
Jackson's First Gun: My Boy and Me in New Orleans
A pic from summer vacation. This was taken at the historic battlefield known as Chalmette. This is where the Kentucky Longrifles made their name and Andrew Jackson won his fame. The view above is roughly center of the Americans' right flank. The British tried a flanking movement on the left side of the American line but it had little hope of succeeding. Jackson's superior firepower handily won the day and, eventually, the Tennessean the Presidency.In this shot Jackson is on the cannon and I'm playing Brit on the battlefield
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
