Day Trip to the Zoo

 

"Get away from the keyboard, go travel, visit some friends, see a movie, or go to the Zoo and be enthralled by the wonderful creatures of our world…" This line began a short piece on Positive Writer, a blog I follow.

Ironically, when asked what she wanted to do this weekend, my daughter said, "Go to the zoo." Her cousin was visiting so it seemed like a good way to entertain an 8 and 11 year old. We planned on getting there right at 9am (Chaffee Zoo in Fresno opens at 9), but my wife, being my wife, delayed departure until 10.  Apparently her make-up was not quite right and according to the girl she was having a tough time picking out an outfit from a whole closet full of clothes.

What is it about kids and a zoo? And by kids I mean ages 5 to 12 and then leapfrogging to 40+. Those exotic animals seem so....well, exotic. For the kids they are new, fascinating, ugly, weird, and a myriad of other adjectives. For the older crowd, the zoo ignites past memories and sparks a new interest. For most of those in the middle, the zoo just doesn't have the same magic.  My 15 and 19 year old sons would be complaining the whole time.

While the girls were chatter boxes at each exhibit, I actually found myself reading the description on the nice little placards nearby. The girls were amazed how big, small, fearsome, or cute an animal was. I noticed little details I never noticed before, especially...ugh!....age. I felt a kinship with the slow, aging, but still kicking elephant and Galapagos turtle. The girls were drawn in by appearances, but I noticed behavior--the restlessness of the Red Wolf, the towering presence of the giraffe, the gall of the Desert Addax lounging in the hot sun (while the rest of us were seeking shelter).

And then we saw something amazing. The Chaffee Zoo has undergone a lot of renovation (federal grant money being used in a good way). They added Sea Lion Cove. Unfortunately it was kind of a bummer. But we stopped at the Manta Ray petting pool. It was full of grey and black rays, many swimming right up to the edge for a human hand to caress its wing. Once the girls finally got the courage to do it, they couldn't stop.

 

I noticed a barrier at one end of the pool. Secluded there were the less friendly rays or pregnant rays (hmmm...those two characteristics might be related). That's when I saw it. It was hard to make out because of its pale color, but as it swam closer it became obvious. It was a baby ray. About the size of a Frisbee, the ray was eight weeks old. I watched for a few minutes. It swam around slowly and then would stop, settling to the bottom, becoming nearly invisible.

 

The little ray was something new. And maybe that's part of the magic that is the zoo. You never know what you might see.  Even with the one hundred degree heat, it was worth it.  So if you're feeling like you are stuck in a rut, go to the zoo.

Posted with Blogsy

Policy versus Philosophy

 

For the past year and a half I have been engaged in verbal combat with a high school buddy on Facebook. 90% of the time we disagree on politics and how to handle issues. This individual has a distinct dislike for the "thinkers" in the political and media world. He discounts ideology or any firm political philosophy and stays focused on policy, which makes sense since he is a take-action kind of guy (a former NFL defensive lineman with a couple Pro Bowl selections). His had a job that required active involvement, a game plan, producing tangible results on a regular basis. And I understand that much of America operates that way; however, to discount philosophy or ideas, a code to base one's political decisions on, opens up the door for pundits, polls, and disinformation to influence you and your power of the vote.

Even though political philosophy is really the issue here, the term code might be a better fit. Philosophy does not necessarily mean the basic criteria by which someone basis a decision, since philosophy is a general term that might focuses on the broad spectrum of possibilities. Every voter needs to decide what their code is. Far too many voters do so from an uninformed position. Some may have a simplistic code of always voting either Republican or Democrat. Others get more sophisticated, usually depending upon their knowledge of politics and current events. Having a political code to base your decisions, your vote on, is important for a number of reasons.

One, like religion or other belief systems, a political code becomes a compass to guide a citizen through their political life. In California (and most states), on Election Day there may be a dozen different offices you are voting for with sixty or more total names on the ballot along with a half dozen to a dozen propositions. Too much for the average voter to research and learn about, especially when bombarded by simplistic radio, television, and mail ads. With a little research and a code, that person can make an informed choice, bypassing all the campaigning stuff. For example, a proposition on the ballot calls for a an increase in sales tax. Your code guides you: if you are opposed to taxes (especially regressive ones) then you vote no, if government services funded by sales taxes is important to you then it's a yes. So a political code helps guide you through the most basic civil responsibility--voting. And you don't have to say you voted a certain way because your best friend said to.

Two, a political code can be an embarrassment saving tool. Granted, discussing politics has become less and less prevalent but if asked why you voted a certain way on an issue or for an office, a code gives you some basic rationale for that decision. Of course, based on the person and to what extent they dug deep and really have solidified a code, the justification may be simplistic. "I voted for her because she is in favor of measures to protect the environment like promoting public transportation and renewable energy." That sounds a whole lot better than, "Well, my neighbor said she's a good person," or "She seems smart." How many people voted for Barack Obama because he was a new face, but could offer no compelling reason why he would be a good President?

Three, every good political code should have an element of prudence to it. Until about three years ago, I believed one's political code was the word of God, and being conservative, to stray from the code was blasphemy. That's exactly what the pundits on both sides of the aisle want you to believe, but prudent policy is key to good government. I read about Edmund Burke and his influence on conservatism. Burke argued that prudence was a conservative ideal (thus part of the code) because it emphasized policy that best served the interests of the majority. For progressives this should be part of their code too. Prudence requires what is most often needed in our government and that is compromise. Compromising on policy is not always compromising on principles. For example, everyone agrees today that immigration reform is needed but a majority of conservatives will vote for no bill that does not secure the border effectively and securely in the near future, because that is part of their code. It would be prudent for progressives to compromise on that issue, so the other items in the proposed law they like they will get. In turn, it would be prudent for conservatives to embrace some type of path to citizenship plan for the 12 million here illegally.

Finally, good policy is based on a good code. Policy based simply upon the whim of public opinion or the pipe dreams of whoever holds office is rarely good policy. Good policy stems from bills that are critically read by our representatives and filtered through the sieve of the code. Once that is done then the two sides hammer out the differences. While there are times that demand immediate, sometimes less thought out action--World War Two, 9/11, etc.--such policy in the long run may be detrimental to our democracy. Few would argue the Patriot Act was not needed after the terrorist attacks in 2001 but that law may not be good policy in the long run. President Roosevelt's decision to intern 110,000 Japanese Americans is now recognized as bad policy.

Politics is a beast. Policy is the leash that controls the beast but philosophy or the political code is the hand that holds the leash. There's rarely ever a perfect answer but having a code to ground yourself in is comforting.

 

Posted with Blogsy

The Poor Man's Newspapers

The printing press may be one of the most neglected but vital inventions in history. Although first developed in China, the perfection of the printing press by Gutenberg in 1450 transformed western civilization. From the bible, to books, and newspapers, the printing press was in many was the Renaissance Age's version of the Internet. While newspapers tended to appeal to those with money and good reading skills, another common publication that was free and available to the poor was the broadside.

The best equivalent to the broadside can be found on college campuses. Walk the "quad" area of any public university and there's stuff posted everywhere. Most of them are advertisements for meetings, roommates wanted, used book sales, and upcoming courses, but a few are informative manifestos, political platforms, or backgrounders on various current issues. These college postings are much like colonial era broadsides. Some were advertisements but many were newsworthy pieces covering events of the day. Physically, the broadside was an oversized sheet of newsprint that focused on a single topic or was a reproduction of a government proclamation. The most famous broadsides were those that informed America about the Declaration of Independence.

(The famous Dunlap broadside of the DOI.)

These broadsides were posted in public places, and many towns and cities had special areas for that purpose. They were early versions of a university's "free speech area." Even small villages had an inn or tavern where the public congregated to read the latest broadsides posted outside the establishment. Even those who could not read demanded others read it to them. The civic dialogue did not stop there. People would discuss the latest news and events over a pint or two. Unlike today, a majority of the population saw it as a responsibility and duty to be informed and engaged in the democratic process.

Broadsides had a long lifespan. Appearing in the early 1600s, these posted announcements were the source of news for many until they began to fade away in the late 1800s. By then the affordability of newspapers, increase in literacy rates, and rise in worker wages ended the need for the broadside. They did not fade away though. The rise of the modern advertising industry resurrected the broadside as a means of communication, often promoting questionable products. But the glamour years of the broadside were over.

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

Do We Give A Shit Anymore?

The lack of civic awareness in the United States is pathetic.  More young voters know that the Kardashian/West baby is named North than know what the IRS/NSA/Benghazi events/scandals are about.  Most high school graduates have little knowledge of the Constitution or the founding principles of the country.  They have no idea how local and state governments work or the relationship between those levels of government and the feds.  Too many Americans vote with their heart (or ass) and not their brain.

Now good reader, you may be prompted to think this is another conservative rant, but is it.  Doesn't what was just said hold true for both sides?  If not, it should.  An active and involved, need I say vibrant, "civic body politik" (that's from the Mayflower Compact) must exist in a democratic republic like ours.  Today it does not.

But did it ever?  I say yes.  Granted, not every citizen or voter has been engaged in politics, but from the settling of Jamestown and Plymouth it was believed to be a responsibility to be engaged in the political process--to make one's views known and if you had the vote to use it wisely from an informed position.  Americans knew what life under tyranny was like, that's one of the reasons many fled to the east coast of North America.  People read newspapers, and if they could not afford them, they read the numerous "broadsides" posted on public buildings to be informed and aware (more on the history of the broadside tomorrow).  This trend held true through the 1700s and 1800s.

The Twentieth Century saw the decline in civic awareness.  I'm not even talking about civic participation, just the mere awareness of what was going on in their community, state, nation, and world.  It was a gradual death, aided by the marginalizing of basic factual recall in education.  The "student-centered curriculum" (more on that this week too) replaced the traditional, classical method.  No longer was there a compelling need to know the basic concepts in the founding documents--you could just look it up.  Not many teens will just look it up if they haven't been taught it.  Civic education may have suffered the most from the reforms begun by John Dewey.  School was about knowledge construction and learning a good trade, not about natural rights or the theory of radical republicanism.

So today we are paying for it.  A generation of people, most of whom are under forty, who don't have the background knowledge to understand what's going on in politics and current events, tune out because they feel no responsibility to be informed or to use their vote wisely, and are influenced by ideas of relativism and apathy never before seen in our history.  Change can occur but it has to be a rebirth of an educational system that teaches what being an American, regardless of your ethnicity, is all about.

Religion and Reform

During the 1830s and 1840s America went through an age of reform. Politically and economically the young United States was stable and growing. The War of 1812 finally settled the political issues between Great Britain and the US, and the government was balancing their budget more often than not. People began to look to carrying out the ideals found in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. This history of reform is largely inherited today by the progressive/liberal segment of the political spectrum who tend to be atheist or agnostic. They would be surprised and some might be disturbed by the fact that they have taken over what was a predominantly religious tradition.

Some of the social issues that were addressed by various reform groups in antebellum America include: alcoholism/temperance, education, prisons, treatment of the mentally ill, women's rights, and abolitionism (the ending of slavery). The only one of the six that is, in some respects, an exception is education. Although Horace Mann, the most significant educator of the age, was Unitarian and believed basic Christian values should be taught, he also stressed that education should be nonsectarian. Curriculum materials from the early 1800s to the early 1900s also had a strong Christian influence. The infamous McGuffey Readers are excellent examples. William McGuffey had a minister father and was an active member of his congregation and this is reflected in his works.

Alcoholism was a significant social and economic problem in the 1800s. Few laws existed protecting women and children from violent alcoholics. The number of lost work hours was staggering and proportionally higher than today. The American Temperance Society was the largest of many groups and its leadership and membership used Christian principles as their justification for regulating alcohol. The Women's Christian Temperance Union obviously did not hide its religiosity. Granted, religion played a large role in society and most Americans were Christian but modern progressives would be shocked at this violation of secularism.

The treatment of prisoners and the mentally ill was also addressed in religious terms. Reformers used the words of Jesus to justify more humane treatment of both groups. In prisons, they demanded better housing, food, and opportunities for exercise. Segregating non-violent, white-collar criminals from the armed robbers and murderers was also one of the movement's goals. Dorothea Dix was the most famous of these reformers. Dix's Christian values fueled her passion. She testified before various legislatures on behalf of the mentally ill, calling for better treatment and special facilities deigned to study their issues and provide remedies.

Finally, women's rights and abolitionism are intertwined movements. Early on leaders saw he plight of women synonymous to the struggles of slaves. Frederick Douglass spoke at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 on the issue of freedom and equality. Leaders of both movements shared names--Beecher, Garrison, Stanton, and Mott. Names with their roots in America's religious tradition. Like the other reform movements, religious arguments were put forth to justify women voting, owning property, and starting businesses. Of course, the plight of African slaves is directly connected to the enslavement of Jews by the Pharaoh and their eventual liberation led by Moses (what was Harriet Tubman's nickname).

This brief look at the role of religion in American and especially progressive reform movements is not meant to demean the more secular-minded liberals today and their attempts at social engineering and government supported reform. It is offered as a reminder that: one, religion is part of our historical fabric; two, Christianity offers very positive ethical values and has been at the forefront of social reform (YMCA-Young Men's Christian Association); and three, secularists are doing themselves and history to discount these contributions.

Posted with Blogsy

The Man Who May Have Tamed The West

Bat Masterson, Wyatt Earp, Pat Garrett, and even Judge Roy Bean all had roles to play in America's expansion West. These famous lawmen brought a sense of justice to territories that were in states of chaos. But did they really "tame" the West? These lawmen provided the material for exciting stories, factual and otherwise, but in terms of taking control of their environment, for the average settler a man named Joseph Glidden may be the one that most deserves the title "The Man That Tamed The West."

Joseph Glidden looks like a Gilded Age millionaire in the image above, but he did not start out that way. A former teacher, widower, and recent migrant to Illinois, Glidden tried to rebuild his life by remarrying, farming and starting a family. He always dreamed, like so many Americans, of making it "big." Farming was not his pot of gold but something he invented for farmers was--barbed wire.

It's not clear exactly when Glidden figured out that a sort piece of sharp pointed wire could be wrapped around a longer piece at intervals along its length and then held in place by another long wire twisted around the whole strain. But his "barbed wire fencing" was officially patented in 1874. Although Glidden's invention was used everywhere, it had a profound effect upon settlement west of the Mississippi River.

While settlers faced numerous challenges in civilizing the Great Plains, one of the key ones was a lack of wood for fencing. Farmers needed to keep grazing livestock out of their fields to maximize crop yields, and this was tough to do without a supply of lumber. Barbed wire allowed livestock proof fences to be built with lumber only being needed as fence posts. While it's no fun getting caught up and pricked by modern barbed wire (I have snagged and destroyed a few pair of pants and have the leg abrasions to prove it) the original Glidden wire had long barbs that could penetrate deeply into the body of an unfortunate cow. Cattlemen started losing significant numbers from their herd. So barbed wire was an unintended but contributing factor to the famous "range wars."

Regardless of its role in these conflicts between farmers and grazers, Glidden's invention became an important and affordable tool for farmers. Glidden started a company after the patent was issued and in a few years he was a rich man. He became richer when he sold his patent for $60,000 and royalties. He invested his profits wisely and by the time of his death in 1906 owned 250,000 acres in Texas, a hotel, a bank, and a newspaper. So in the long run he became a rich Gilded Age entrepreneur. Like Andrew Carnegie, Glidden was a philanthropist donating money to various causes including donating 63 acres to build a school in Illinois which is today Northern Illinois University.

The story does not end. Eight years after his death World War One began. Soon the war bogged down into a four year stalemate and became a war of trench systems. Barbed wire proved to be an excellent weapon in slowing attacks on both sides, allowing the killing power of the machine gun and artillery to be brought to bear. Barbed wire was resilient against pre-attack bombardments and was highly desired. Like so many inventions during peacetime, Glidden's barbed wire was adapted to a war situation with very deadly results.

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

The Bear Flag Revolt

Scene: Normal day in Mr. Duvall's US History class.

Mr. D: (above image is displayed for all students to see). What is this?

Jimmy: That's the flag Mr. D!

Mr. D: Whose flag, Jimmy?

Jimmy: The great State of Cali, of course.

Mr. D: Good. But what's kinda weird about this flag?

(Class grows silent. Some just tuned out; some thinking about it; some knowing the answer but afraid of risk an answer.)

Monica: (Raises her hand tentatively.). There's a bear on it.

Mr. D: Yes! There's a bear on it!

Anthony: Cuz, there's some big ass bears here. Ya! (Knuckle bumps one of his friends.). Mr. D, would you say that image is a boy bear or girl bear? And when them bears want to get busy, what do they do?

Mr. D: Anthony, once again, thanks for the inappropriate questions. I will defer to Mr. James, your biology teacher, on matters of the sexual behavior of bear-kind. For us, the question is why is there a bear on the state flag?

Tia: My dad drags us all over on big summer vacations....ah....every summer....last year we went to Hawaii. It was sooooo much fun. I met this Hawaiian guy. He had a chiseled six pack that made me...

Mr. D: Umm, Tia, could you save that for later and get to the question at hand.

Tia: Oh yeah. Sorry Mr. D, but he had beautiful blue eyes like you. Anyway, when I was twelve we spent a couple days in wine country, because my mom is a friggin lush, and went to an old Spanish mission and some other historical stuff. I have a pic at home--I'm wearing a cute sundress in it--but it was taken at the spot where the bear flag thingy was first raised.

Mr. D: Ok, good. Do you know why there's a bear on it.

Tia: The tour guide said that some Americans decided to take over Northern California and claim it for the United States. By the way that tour guide's shorts were way too short and he needed a membership to the tanning salon. Anyway, he said they chose the California Grizzly as their symbol.

Mr. D: Excellent Tia. It was called the Bear Flag Revolt and happened in 1846.

Monica: But wasn't there a big war. The Mexican American War?

Mr. D: Yes there was but the Revolt kind of kick started the whole thing.

Pablo: Yo, Mr. D, why didn't the homies pop a cap in that ass and stop that shit?

Maria: (president of the school's chapter of MECHA). The whole thing was an illegal seizure of power. That's why all the southwest US actually belongs to Mexico. The gringos came in and stole our land. La Raza's land.

Mr. D: Ok, one question at a time. Pablo, many Californios...

Anthony: Calihornios!? Hell most of us are horny. (Laughter from class)

Maria: Cali-for-nios, you dumbass.

Mr. D: Ok....raise your hands from now on. The Mexicans that settled in California called themselves Californios. And many of them were not sure what to think about the United States setting there. Some actually hoped the US would take the region because Mexico City was doing a poor job administering such a big country.

Maria: Wait Mr. D. You saying Mexicans wanted the Americans here?

Mr. D: Some did. The most influential Californio was probably General Mariano Vallejo and it was his chateau that was the site of the Bear Flag Revolt. Although he was technically under arrest by the Americans, he was also working with them behind the scenes.

Pablo: Man, the Latinos still comin' because you can make bank here. Mexico still a shithole...

Maria: Shut up, Pablo. This land is ours. It belongs to Mexico. Your people.

Pablo: Girl don't trip on me. I ain't Mexican. I'm Guatemalan.

Mr. D: Ok, do you two see that you both make legitimate arguments. In terms of legal ownership, that can be debated all day with no resolution.

Tia: To the winner goes the spoils, right Mr. D. By the way, did you get a haircut? It looks good.

Mr. D: Good point Tia. The victorious side, which is obviously the United States in this case, gets to make the rules and generally write the history.

Monica: So what happened Mr. D? I mean, if the Californios supported the revolt, then why weren't they a bigger part of the new state?

Mr. D: Good question. That might be the saddest part of the story. Those Californios that supported independence initially were included. For example, Vallejo was a member of the new state government and even has a city named after him, but most Californios lost everything. Few had written legal deeds to their land holdings, the property was just passed down from one generation to the next. When the railroads came in and Americans wanted more land the Californios lost out and had their land confiscated.

Maria: See, the whites are criminals.

Monica: Well on behalf of us whites, you're welcome for the opportunity to get an education and a decent paying job.

Mr. D: Timeout! Let's save this debate for another time. I'll end class with some trivia. One of the islands in the Bay Area is called Mare Island. It got its name when a ferry loaded with livestock for General Vallejo overturned crossing te bay. A prize white mare, which is a female horse, was feared lost. It was found a few days later, having swum to safety on a small unnamed island. It then became known as Mare Island.

Tia: Great discussion today Mr. D. Like me you got brains and good looks. Ciao.

Posted with Blogsy

Education Today

Teacher Unions

Every rookie teacher enters the classroom naive. Whether you are a 22 year old just out of college or a 49 year old starting a second career, little if anything you learned in Teacher Credentialing Programs prepares you for managing an elementary classroom of 25 third graders all day long or six classes of 30-plus juniors in high school. But if you make it through a couple of years then you have developed some competency. Unfortunately, the classroom is not the only part of the educational game teachers show naivety.

First year teachers show up inspired. After all, they are part of a noble profession, looked upon fondly by the community, in possession of the moral high ground. Again, naive. Most quickly develop a healthy suspicion of administrators (see my blog post here) because their job depends on that evaluation done by the principals and vice-principals. In addition, they have been turned against administrators by veteran teachers in the dreaded teacher lounge where bitching about anything and everything is fair. Once tenured, teachers figure out that many administrators are just following orders, clueless, or flat out incompetent. The new teachers soon realize that school is not a place of professional bliss and is permeated by political maneuvering, parents and the community have more complaints than compliments, and that colleagues are not the epitome of moral professionalism.

The biggest shock to the new teacher is that their "teacher association" is not a club of professionals. The second or third week of school you get an ID card from your state organization (I live in California so will use CTA as an example). You feel kind of special standing there with your CTA card and membership number. As you nibble on that tuna fish sandwich in the lounge, you think about belonging to a "teachers' association." It sounds so formal. An organization for education professionals where important issues are debated in a civil manner in order to improve the public education system. Nope!

Soon you receive the association's publication monthly publication. You toss it on an end table to flip through as you watch television. Some typical first issue topics: "How To Manage Your Classroom Like A Pro"; "Beginning of the Year School-wide Team-building Tactics;" and, "Balancing Content and Skills in the Classroom". Your excitement builds as all three look promising to read. Continuing down the table of contents you see: "How to Reach an LGBT Student"; "Know Your Weingarten Rights Inside and Out"; and, "Why Card Check Is a Good Idea." This set of articles, while dealing with education, makes you a little uncomfortable, but every teacher should treat students fairly, know their workplace rights, and...ummm...what the heck is card check? That seems to be about it, but you notice in the back, where a lot of the advertising is, a section focused on pending state legislation with CTAs position on each. While it seems to make sense that CTA supports bills providing funding for public schools, they are vehemently against expanding charter schools or any school of choice program. CTA strongly endorses and co-sponsors a bill calling for a state-level single payer insurance program and is promoting a whole new series of gun control laws.

For the newbie teachers that last set of articles are ignored. They tell themselves it's just politics at work. What nags at you though is the fact that no real justification is given for CTA's positions, especially on issues having little if anything to do with education. Over time that newbie realizes that the top governing body of their state organization is not composed of "normal" teachers representative of the union population but of progressive ideologues. There's shock number one. It also becomes obvious over time that the association or union is concerned only with its own survival. CTA is not opposed to charter programs because they are bad for kids but because the "charter" written to govern the school does not allow for unions. Shocker number two--it's not about the kids, it's about members and membership dues. All of a sudden that professional association holding the moral high ground is now a labor union rolling down the hill, bumping its head along the way.

Once that rookie teacher has put in fifteen plus years they know what CTA is. A third of those teachers hop aboard because of ideology or the desire to be important. A third don't care. As long as they get raises every couple of years all is cool. And then there's about a third that hate it due to political differences or the fact that the association is just another big bureaucracy. Less than 40% of a members dues makes it back to their Uniserve area (mine serves all schools in Kings and Tulare counties) and probably three-quarters of that (30% of your total dues) makes it back to your local chapter. There are multiple layers of leadership that filter out common sense-thinking educators that do their job for the kids and not for the union. What filters to the top ranks of CTA are progressive activists, union strong arms, and big wigs in the Democratic Party. President Eisenhower warned the nation about the military-industrial complex. Today, especially in California, the danger is the Democratic-union complex.

Been there, done that. I was naive once, but no more. Unfortunately what should be a professional organization is merely a labor union. A group that should put kids first only puts themselves first. An organization that should value and embrace differences in opinion and honest debate instead tells members how to vote. A CTA rep spoke in front of my staff last year about an upcoming proposition and said, "it's a no brainer," like she was addressing a bunch of idiots. I raised my hand and said, "Anytime someone tells me 'it's a no brainer' I'm thinking they are trying to sell me something I don't want." She didn't appreciate that. Teacher unions are a necessary evil but they are also one of the factors hurting education. Some advice to prospective teachers question everything a union does or stands for, because they are only out for themselves in the end.

Posted with Blogsy

Fathers Day

When you fancy yourself as a writer you feel pressure to produce something great on special days like today. The passing of my own father nine months ago doesn't help, but it is too early for me to do him justice on Fathers Day. It is like history. What happened a week ago is technically in the past but has enough time lapsed to put it in proper perspective? Probably not. This is one of the key thing that separates history and journalism or current events.

So with that subject off the list, what's left? A great bitch piece or more creatively a comic pice could be done on Bill "Where's a cigar when you need one" Clinton. But there's no way I would want to dishonor great fathers by doing that. So I did what so many do today--I turned to Google. Looking for great essays on fatherhood was not easy. Lots of quotes out here but not so much on the web in terms of a thoughtful essay. I will make a plug for William Bennet's The Book of Man. Bennett has a large section dedicated to fatherhood. Then about ten-thirty last night as I was watching (sort of) one of my daughter's Disney Channel shows, I found it.

Like many fantasy readers around the world I love J. R. R. Tolkien. I first read The Hobbit during the summer of 1978. The world of Middle Earth amazed me. Over the years--aside from reading some of Tolkien's short stories and The Lord of the Rings trilogy--I have read various pieces on Tolkien's inspiration, his linguistic skills, the Christian thread in the stories, and more. Last night I came across an article on Tolkien as father. It' a short, simple piece but interesting.

If you too are a fan of the fantasy genre, tune into my writing blog "With Pen In Hand" because I will be flirting with some fiction writing, especially fantasy.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Enabling Terrorists, Part Two (link)

I found this article in American Thinker reiterating the theme of my last post.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Enabling the Terrorists

A couple days ago I watched some of General Alexander's testimony before Congress about the National Security Agency phone and Internet data collection programs. As the Director he ought to know what's going on...right? Of course the questions we want to know the answers to are going to be asked in a secret, behind closed doors session that we will not know anything about for awhile. Basically, the Director spent his time justifying the NSA's data collection program.

Gen. Alexander's primary argument was that the program is important in stopping terrorist attacks. He cited a couple of examples and insinuated there were more. This, of course, is good news. As pushed by both the Bush and Obama administrations, this program is key in targeting potential threats to national security and in following up leads to stop such attacks. Terrorists have become more sophisticated in their use of modern communication to organize and coordinate their activities and the data mining and Internet watching programs are necessary to counter that ability.

The second popular argument is that if a normal American has nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear. This argument has come from various groups--the intelligence community, Democrats, Republicans, and the President. The flaw in this logic is if that is acceptable, then law enforcement should be able to search your home or business any time they want, no warrant needed--if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Prior to the 4th Amendmant practically every nation on earth could violate privacy at will. England used such tactics in colonial times, so the Founders countered that by requiring specific warrants from a third party, a judge.

Since 9/11 all Americans want to feel that their government is doing everything necessary to protect them. But does that include unrestricted snooping into your email or Facebook accounts? Does that include financial transactions you make online? Should the government collect basic information (caller #, called #, length of conversation, locations of cell devices, etc.) with no restrictions? What many Americans and counter-terrorism experts are forgetting is that restricting freedoms actually empowers the enemy. Terrorism has as its goal the overthrowing, changing, or influencing of political entities. Some terror movements like radical Islam also add a cultural component, but in either case terrorist groups want to undermine the government of the target to promote terror. Restricting our Constitutional liberties plays into the desires of the terrorists. If the enemy can show the government can not protect its people then more security will be demanded. The NSA program oversteps common sense and liberty which only aids the philosophical desires of the enemy.

This brings us back to the debate over security versus liberty. One of the few things Obama has said that is actually true was a statement he made about not being able to have 100% security and 100% liberty. Broadly cast security nets do little to promote security. Just having the capability to catalog everyone's private matters is too much. Where are the protections for citizens? Requesting a warrant when probable cause exists is prudent security work. Mining metadata that could be used in many ways (as shown by other recent scandals) is an infringement on freedom. Fear never leads to a safer society.

 

Posted with Blogsy

The Erie Canal: America's First Highway

After America's victory over Great Britain in the War of 1812, a wave of patriotism swept across the country during The Era of Good Feelings. During that period construction began on the Erie Canal, a project that would connect the Atlantic Ocean with Lake Erie. While the federal government approved funding for the Cumberland (National) Road, it took many years to finally complete and was more of a dirt path than an actual road. Congress was also petitioned to fund the Erie Canal but that fell through, so the state of New York took on the task, assessing tolls when it was finally completed to pay for its construction and upkeep. In many ways the Erie Canal was the nation's first highway because it was used year around, was ideal to haul cargo and people, and contributed greatly to the economic growth of the country.

Construction took eight years (1817 to 1825) to complete the entire 363 mile route. The primary complication was the 565 foot elevation difference between Albany and Buffalo. The complexity of the project prompted Thomas Jefferson to refer to it as "a little short of madness." A total of 36 locks were built along the route to gently raise and lower boats and barges to the appropriate water level.

Passenger travel along the canal took many forms. For a few pennies a person could travel in the open on deck with the other members of the laboring class. Accommodations could be extravagant on luxury barges. One passenger observed, "The table is supplied with every thing that is necessary and of the best quality with many of the luxuries of life." Many barges were freight only, taking trade goods and manufactures from the middle states to port facilities on Lake Erie and returning with a load of products originating in Europe or the Caribbean.

Travel was not speedy along the canal. As shown in the image above, barges were pulled by teams of mules or oxen along the banks of the canal. Regardless, the trip was much faster than by land and could be made just abut every day of the year. The canal provided the life blood for a number of towns and cities that grew along its route.

Soon the Erie Canal became part of American folklore. Painters and writers used the canal as the centerpiece for celebrating the growth of the country. The success of the project was so significant that other states and the federal government started investing in canal building throughout the northeastern states. Of course, as the nation moved west across the Mississippi River water routes became scarce, but by then a new means of transportation replaced the canal--the Iron Horse.

 

I've got a mule, and her name is Sal,

Fif-teen miles on the Er-ie canal,

She's a good ol' worker and a good ol' pal,

Fifteen miles on the Er-ie can-al,

We've hauled some barges in our day,

Filled with lum-ber coal and hay,

And ev'ry inch of the way we know

From Al-ba-ny to Buff-a-lo OH

-The Erie Canal Song by Thomas Allen

 

Posted with Blogsy

Passion

 

I watched a "cute" movie the other day called The Big Year. It's about bird watching. I know, not my normal western, action, or fantasy preference in movie selection, but it had Steve Martin (who I adore), Owen Wilson (who I like, nose and all), and Jack Black (who I normally loathe but with Martin he had to be good). All three decide to do a "Big Year." Every year there is an informal competition between bird lovers to find out who can spot the most species. Those watchers who truly dedicate themselves to the passion of "birding" do not hold anything back (money, job, family) to pursue a Big Year. While the movie got into the psychological and competitive side of the event, what caught my interest was the passion these guys had for birds. BIRDS!

Everyone has something they are passionate about, and if they don't then they should find something. Family, friends, and job do not count. Whatever it is should be separate from those important spheres of one's life. Other people do not have to like or respect it, but it has to be something you absolutely can not do without. I know fishing was my Dad's passion. I couldn't say 100% for sure but I think working in the yard and garden has become my Mom's passion. For a slightly off the wall uncle it is the stock market.

I think the purpose of passion, in the sense I have been talking about it, is just that...to provide one with purpose. The other so called passions will leave or may change--kids leave home, you retire, the relationship isn't what it once was--but the idea of a Big Year kind of passion is that it is something permanent. It provides a person with a sense of purpose beyond the socially accepted norms. Was Steve Martin a good father and husband in the movie...yes. Was Jack Black a loving son...yes. Was Owen Wilson still keeping a good paying job...yes. But these three characters had found something that gave them purpose above and beyond those things.

Most people are loving fathers and mothers, good workers, and caring neighbors. But a Big Year kind of passion is an individual thing and that can be scary. Maybe this is why so many people keep these passions to themselves, afraid the guys at the office will not understand their passion for painting or crocheting. These type of passions are expressions of individuality. However, within the circle of people with whom you share the passion you gain respect and are accepted. Other "birders" admired Martin's and Wilson's characters because they were good. Maybe they couldn't sink a three-pointer but they could spot the shit out of birds. Even Black's character, because he was a decent guy, finds acceptance and the attention of a pretty girl. My point is others who may be important to your life do not have to understand your passion but they should accept it as they accept you.

Ultimately it is all about happiness. While all three of the characters in the film may grow old and generally happy without "birding," they are so much more happy because of it. Passionate endeavors make one happy because they in many ways are searches for beauty and perfection--the colorful cardinal, the flawless knitted sweater, the perfect tomato. There is often a sense of competition or adventure--the Big Year, the county fair, the craft show. Engagement of the mind and body are often necessary (but not required...ask Stephen Hawking). All of these elements make the pursuit of the task worthwhile and make the person happy. It is easy to say we are happy, but how many of us truly are?

Finally, I believe to achieve the highest stage of this pursuit of passion the topic, hobby, endeavor must be shared with family and friends. Again, they might not get it, but if they truly care about you, they will support it because it makes you happy and is part of who you are. Fear should not be an impediment to happiness or passion.

For those who are passionless, like myself, maybe there is hope. Life changing events can affect people in strange ways. I don't want to get too personal but I do want to offer my insight (for what its worth). I have not been passionate about something in a long time. Things that at one time I was passionate about may be beyond my physical ability to enjoy anymore. So I believe a person can search out and find new passions. The key requirement is that you have to make the decision to look for it. Maybe it will fall in your lap, but more often than not you have to look for it. maybe it's resurrecting something from long ago. maybe it's something new. The thing to remember is that to live a passionless life is to live half a life. So join me in searching for a complete life.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Education Today

Parents

How many people trust themselves to diagnose their health problems or offer themselves sound legal advice. Few. We look toward experts, people who have dedicated their professional lives to being not just competent but qualified to do those jobs. Education does not follow that pattern. Parents generally think they are qualified to make education decisions because for at least twelve years of their life they were students. While some of the issues and problems I have discussed in this blog run counter to what I am about to say; Parents in many ways are proving to be a problem and not a solution to our educational woes.

Everyone has had a "bad" teacher, one who sat at their desk 90% of the time, gave out a worksheet (maybe a test every once in a while), and generally did the absolute minimum to get by. While many parents may say they have a high regard for teachers, those experiences sit in the back of their minds, fermenting, and eventually come out. For example, you have the "my child is an angel" group. When students like this get low grades or get into disciplinary trouble these parents go into denial mode. They make excuses instead of approach the issue head on. This group of parent comes from any and all financial levels and are believers in "entitlement." These parents like to place blame on the schools and the rules and not on their child.

At the political poles there are the "school is too liberal" crowd and the "school is right-wing" group. These parents like to project their own political agenda on schools, often times with little to no regard to what is best for their children. They attend school board meetings to either support or oppose political proposals impacting schools. This group tends to be fewer in number but are very outspoken and are often well educated and can pull in other experts or lawyers to push their agenda. It is worth mentioning here that schools and districts are afraid of legal action. First, it is expensive. It's to a school's advantage to negotiate a compromise than to stick to it's guns because of the legal costs. Second, it is time consuming. If the proposal is to install metal detectors using federal funds that are available for a limited time, drawing out the issue may defeat the proposal anyway. Third, and maybe more importantly, litigation brings bad press. Journalists went to school to and usually have some hidden axe to grind. Schools will do anything possible to avoid bad press.

Another small group that allows their beliefs get in the way of doing what is best for kids is the "public employees get too much" crowd. Some parents show up for a student/teacher conference or principal meeting already hating those in education because they are public employees that supposedly get these amazing "benefits", are paid for with tax money, and get three months off. The conversation with these parents quickly turns from their son or daughter and becomes the "easy" job educators have. Few people realize that teachers are still paid less than equivalent professions, those summer's are often dedicated to professional development seminars, learning more about your craft, planning for the next year, running summer programs if you are a coach or AP teacher, or teaching summer school for students that failed the year before. Teachers are paying monthly for their insurance like anyone else. The end result though is that the important person they should be discussing, the student, gets lost in this angst.

Finally, there is the "I do not care" group. In many schools this is the largest group. As teachers we are reprimanded if we miss an IEP (Sp. Ed.) meeting but parents cancel all the time. I'll say that again...ALL THE TIME! From their attitude when they do show up, it is obvious that their son's or daughter's education is not important to them. They are simply going through the motions because child protective services or the police have told them they have to. Unless these kids make a connection with a teacher at school, they are doomed. The homes of these parents are full of DVDs but no books.

So the next time you are pissed at schools, keep in mind that it is a complex organism. There is plenty of blame to go around and sometimes it begins with the parents.

Posted with Blogsy

What is the NSA?

One of the great, largely unknown stories of World War Two was the amazing work American and British personnel did in the field of cryptography.  These men and women were analysts working for the allied military and their job was to break enemy codes and intercept communications.  The two most famous examples were the deciphering of the German "Enigma" encoding/decoding machine, and breaking the Japanese code, which was key in America's turning point victory at the Battle of Midway.  Today those functions are handled by the National Security Agency (NSA).

America's national defense structure was reorganized in 1947 due to inadequacies identified during the Second World War.  The Department of War became the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was created, and the National Security Council (NSC) established to coordinate this network of stakeholders.  The CIA handled mostly "human intelligence" gathering and analysis but did not have the experience or equipment for electronic intelligence.  As a result in 1952, the National Security Agency was added to the national defense network.  The NSA is based at Fort Meade in Maryland and is primarily a military staffed organization with some civilians contractors.  It handles all cryptography/cryptanalysis and information security for the U.S. Government.   and its computer network

Originally the NSA intercepted and catalogued television, radio, internet, and telephone conversations of suspected enemy organizations and individuals overseas.  The NSA has the most advanced supercomputers in the world to accomplish this task.  While some analysis is done in house, much of the intelligence gathered that is deemed important is sent on to the CIA or individual branches of the military to be corroborated with other intelligence sources. 

After 9/11 the NSA was also given the task of watching and countering cyber-terror.  Their role expanded in 2008 when provisions under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) were used to justify expanding their intelligence gathering to domestic targets and the public at large.  The FISA court, an ultra-secret group of judges that can approve classified warrants, allowed for this controversial move that some have claimed is illegal and a violation of privacy rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 

Under President Obama these activities have been expanded to where all telephone and internet communications can be collected using metadata collection and data mining procedures, which may not provide detailed transcripts of conversations but track origin, length, time, and destination of communications.  Computer programs like PRISM allow for similar analysis of internet feeds.

Intelligence gathering before and after the creation of the NSA has been important in winning battles and in maintaining the security of the country.  With the amount of data out there in a computerized world the job of the NSA is even more important; however, with great power comes great responsibility.  Enemies, both conventional and terrorist, want to see a democratic republic like ours turn on itself, to violate the very liberties that define the country.  The NSA is a pawn in the battle between security and liberty.  A country can not have both, so that is the crux of the debate.

I always wanted to know more about...

Is there any historical event, person, or idea you wanted to know about?  Is there a current event that you would like some historical background on?  I'm looking for blog ideas.  Email them to me at luckyforward559@gmail.com

With Pen In Hand

If you like what I write here, then you might want to checkout another blog I just started that focuses on all types of writing and gets away from the politics and partisanship. My writing blog is here.

 

Posted with Blogsy

What do we want our graduates to be?

I have taught high school for almost twenty-five years and am well aware of the hijinks students can initiate. Graduation, being a celebratory but also reverent occasion, is a time of terror for administrators. Parents fill the principal's office wondering why their precious child is not "walking the line." Vice-principals are running around monitoring senior behavior looking for any signs of the infamous, end of the year prank. Teachers patrol the graduation grounds like prison guards on the yard. The whole graduation experience is a complex production and for far too many families the highlight of their child's academic career. For most administrators the valedictorian speech is a harmless part of the event. Speeches are pre-approved and generally harmless, unless you go to Joshua HS in Texas or Liberty HS in South Carolina.

According to classmates, Remington Reimer is a quiet, smart, and Annapolis bound senior at Joshua High School. He delivered the traditional valedictorian speech recently but strayed from the pre-approved script and began discussing the role of God in his life and the importance of our Constitutional freedoms. Half way through the speech his mic was cut by administrators. By the way, the ceremony opened and closed with a prayer. He had been warned that if he diverted from the approved version his speech would e cut short.

Roy Costner IV graduated from Liberty High School in South Carolina a week ago. He actually tore up his pre-approved speech on stage and delivered a different one. He, like Reimer, discussed the importance of Christianity in his life and finished by reciting the Lord's Prayer. To their credit, Liberty officials did not interrupt and allowed Costner to finish. One faculty member or guest on stage actually smiled as Costner delivered his words. I hope it was one of his teachers, smiling not so much at what he said but that he had the intellectual courage to say it.

By all accounts, both young men delivered thoughtful, coherent speeches. While some might cringe at the references to religion, and schools do have the right to reject speeches that might promote conflict, are these institutions of learning stifling the very thing they should be teaching? Anyone who watched the video of Costner's speech or read Reimer's words should congratulate those schools for producing articulate, insightful students who can deliver compelling and persuasive remarks. Neither embarked upon some unrestrained rant like a hippie railing against the Vietnam War in the "free speech" arena of their protective university.

Schools are afraid of any sort of conflict. This is understandable in terms of violent conflict due to racism, discrimination, or institutional inequity, but intellectual conflict should be embraced, welcomed, and defended. Schools have to quit avoiding their responsibility to promote honest debate, to emphasize that ideas are important and words have meaning. Cutting the mic on a speaker advocating discrimination, sexism, racism, or anarchy is one thing. Stifling freedom of speech because someone talks about what has impacted their success, whether it's religion or science or sports or great teachers, is just cowardice.

Posted with Blogsy

A Night in the NSA Super Secret Surveillance Cubicle

WARNING: This post is sexually suggestive and/or politically incorrect but all events are pure fiction and only the demented creation of my mind....maybe...muahahahaha!

(Bert and Bertha are NSA analysts)

Bert: Another boring night.

Bertha: No shit! Hey, let's have some fun.

Bert: (In a whispered voice) They might be watching.

Bertha: Who's they? We are they. (Snicker, snicker)

Bert: (Looks left and right conspiratorially). Ok.

Bertha: No friggin' way. Biden is online and his webcam is live. (The main flat screen comes to life. The VP is seated at his desk wearing a tank top and athletic shorts.)

**********

Biden: Baby you look so good caressing that double barreled shotgun.

Internet Babe: Oh yeah. The metal is so shiny, smooth, and........hard.

Biden: It won't fire right if the steel wasn't hard....hee hee hee.

Internet Babe: Ahhhhh...Joey, I love it when it fires its buck shot. The barrels might be short but the blast is huge!

(NSA analysts rolling on floor laughing.)

**********

Bert: Here's a good one. Lois Lerner (IRS supervisor who claimed the 5th) is on her cell with Werfel (interim chief of IRS).

Bertha: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I heard Werfel wants her to testify now.

**********

Lerner: Fu*% you Dan! Miller (recently resigned IRS commish) said if I pled the 5th and stayed quiet Obama would bring me into the West Wing!

Werfel: Things change Lois. We and the service are really under the gun...

Lerner: So I'm to take the fall! You're full of shit. I won't do it.

Werfel: You have to. This comes straight from the top. Refuse and your career is dead.

Lerner: If you throw me under the bus certain photos of you and that cute intern from the mail room might find there way to Mrs. Werfel.

Werfel: You're bluffing.

Lerner: I never bluff, you lil bitch.

**********

Bertha: I think she has bigger balls than he does.

Bert: No shit. Her husband must be a man of steel or wears an apron.

Bertha: Want to spy on POTUS?

Bert: Bertha no.

Bertha: Come on Bert. Michelle is home and the camera in the presidential suite is activated.

Bert: You think he suspects we're spying on him?

Bertha: No way! He's too drunk with power.

**********

Obama: How was your day dear.

Michelle: Don't you "dear" me! I wanted to cold cock this bitch who was heckling me. Can I order the Secret Service to rough her up?

Obama: No Michelle. The Secret Service isn't your own little Gestapo.

Michelle: Then I want you to call Waffle and have her audited.

Obama: You mean Werfel...

Michelle: Damn it Barack, I don't care what his fu#+ing name is. Just have that bitch audited and drain her dry.

Obama: (Caressing her shoulder) Michelle relax. Let me soothe that tension...

Michelle: Get off me! You're still in the dog house for flirting with that ThaiPrime Minister. Whore!.

Obama: But babe I wasn't flirting and that was last November.

Michelle: (Says nothing and points to the door.)

Obama: (Walks out of the bedroom. Secret Service agent hands him a blanket and pillow.). Oval Office, sir?

Obama: (dejected). Yeah.

**********

Bertha: I fu$@ing love his job.

Bert: Me too.

 

Posted with Blogsy

A Short History of the American Party System

Federalists and Jeffersonians

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

- George Washington, Farewell Address Sept. 17, 1796

“Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

- James Madison, Federalist No.10

Few, if any, of the Founding Fathers supported the notion of faction (what we call political parties) in America's experiment with republican government. Washington was vehemently opposed to factions and attempted throughout his two terms as President to stay above the growing political fray between Hamilton and Jefferson. James Madison, on the other hand, also disliked the disruptive nature of factions but had the wisdom to recognize that to stifle the growth of political organizations would be to snuff out liberty itself.

Few Americans really understand the history of the party system, and that unfortunately goes for politicians themselves. Factions or parties first appeared during the ratification of the Constitution. Nine states had to approve it in order for the document to supersede the Articles of Confederation and become the law of the land. Supporters of the Constitution--led by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, the authors of the Federalist Papers--became known as the Federalists because they supported the new federal form of government. While the opposition, who were disorganized and can not really be called a party, became known as the Antifederalists and a few of their key leaders were Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and George Mason. The Federalists supported a strong national government, a strong executive power, and a federal form of government dividing power not only between three branches but into three levels of government (federal, state, and local). The Antifederalists preferred a confederate structure in which the individual states had more power and independence and a severely limited executive power, fearing the rise of another king or tyrant. The adoption of the Constitution in 1789 led immediately to the demise of the Antifederalists but their ideas did not die.

By 1792 opposition to the Federalists began to coalesce under the leadership of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The catalyst for this was Alexander Hamilton and his economic plan to strengthen the country. The Hamilton Financial Plan called for the assumption by the federal government of all pre-revolution debt, imposition of excise taxes, creation of a national bank, a protective tariff and promotion of the manufacturing sector. This was a huge expansion of the government, which ran counter to the limited government philosophy of many Founders. In addition, Hamilton's personality did not endear him to many. What resulted was the development of the first two party system in U.S. history.

This new party was originally called the Democratic-Republicans (I know, confusing by today's standards) but as it evolved many labels were used. For simplicity sake the terms Jeffersonians and Jacksonians will be used here. The modern Democrat Party can tace its roots to this group, although to draw cmparisons over time is futile as the Jeffersonians in many ways were more like the modern Republican Party. Thomas Jefferson's name was placed into consideration for the 1796 Presidential election, but Washington's endorsement of John Adams was enough for the man from Braintree to win the contest. Jefferson ran again in 1800, and Adams' unpopularity from the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts was enough to open the door for a Jeffersonian win in Congress and the Presidency.

The Jeffersonians were the party of limited government, believeing Hamilton's economic policies were not only burdensome but unconstitutional. They also believed in a restrained executive power and more authority being given to the states. Their actions did not entirely follow their philosophy. While the size of government in terms of employees did drop, the Jeffersonians left in place all of Hamilton's economic ideas because they worked. In addition, Jefferson overstepped his authority as president by authorizing the Louisiana Purchase, promoting the repeal of numerous federal laws, and refusing to deliver official judicial appointments. Jefferson was concerned about creating a lasting democratic republic based on the "nobility" of the yeoman farmer (small family farm). He distrusted finance and manufacturing, like many agriculturalists and southerners, and pursued policies that would benefit the farmer. The presidents that followed him--especially Madison and Monroe--followed the Jeffersonian philosophy.

The rise of Andrew Jackson transformed the party (by this time the Federalists had faded away) by embracing popular politics. By the mid 1820s most property qualifications to vote had been repealed. John Quincy Adams was the last of the traditional, Founding Father type of politician. Jackson and the new, improved party, the Jacksonians, embraced these changes. Candidates for office began to make speeches, attend rallies, handout campaign buttons, and do things that we see even today during an election, because they had to appeal to a broader audience than ever before. Public opinion for the first time became very important. Adams beat Jackson in a hotly contested election in 1824 but Jackson won overwhelmingly in 1828. As party leader Jackson still embraced the agricultural and limited government ideas of Jefferson, but Jackson was much more involved in policy. He believed that the President had to be the policy leader. In some ways he followed party principles, as with the vetoing of the US Bank recharter, but he also went the other direction like on the tariff issue. His personality was largely the driving force behind the strength of the party, but that same personality led to the creation of an opposition party.

The second party system consisted of the Democrats (with Jackson gone use of the term is now appropriate) and the Whigs, which originated as strictly an anti-jackson party. Over time the Whigs began to embrace an agenda based loosely on the ideas of Hamilton. The key Whig leader was Senator Henry Clay. Clay advocated the American System which, like Hamilton, focused on manufacturing, a national bank, excise taxes, high tariff, support for manifest destiny and internal improvements like roads, canals, and the railroad. By 1840, the Whigs won the presidency under William Henry Harrison. The Whigs dominated the presidency from 1840 to 1853. But as the issue of slavery became increasingly important the Whigs opted for compromises and never took a stand against slavery, which is a key reason for their demise in the early 1850s.

A variety of minor parties hit the political scene in the 1850s. The American or Know-Nothing Party was primarily an anti-immigrant party. The Liberty Party embraced the abolitionist (end slavery) cause. The Free Soil Party did not call for the end to slavery but did not want it to spread to western states. By mid-decade the Republican Party emerged. In many ways it was like the old Whig Party but took a stand against slavery--short of calling for its demise. The man who popularized the Republicans was, of course, the great Abraham Lincoln. While the Democrats and Republicans were national parties, their centers of influence were pronounced. The north was the home of Republicans and the Democrats were the party of the south. The traditional Whig-Democrat differences existed, but the issue that primarily divided them in the 1850s through the 1860s was slavery.

As the two parties--Demcrat and Republican--evolved in post-Civil War America, their differences on policy became blurred. What really determined political differences were issues of region and race. Both embraced the Industrial Revolution, created political machines to run state and city governments, and became entwined in the corruption of the Gilded Age. Even during the Progressive Era, the differences were not pronounced. Theordore Roosevelt and William Taft were Republican and Wilson a Democrat during the twenty year period from 1900 to 1920 that we call the Progressive Era.

The modern Democrat and Republican Parties, in terms of political beliefs and policy, began in the 1920s and 1930s. The "imperial" presidency of Franklin Roosevelt profoundly impacted the political ideology of the Democrats. Whereas the two parties were already splitting on economic issues--the Republicans being the supporters of business, capitalism and economic freedom and the Democrats championing the cause of the working class and utilizing the power of government to provide services and support in that cause--under Roosevelt the Democrats embraced Keynesian economics, a water downed version of socialism and the welfare state.

The primary political parties today have significant differences on social, economic, and role of government issues. While there are subtler differences in foreign policy both parties took a stand against communism and terrorism, although the tactics they supported in those causes may have differed. What is interesting is that it is a falacy to compare parties over tme. The Republicans trace their ideological roots to Lincoln and even Hamilton but both of those leaders were for bigger not smaller government. Similarly, the Democrats will often claim to be the party of Jefferson even though he was a primary advocate of limited government and limits on executive power. The bottom line is that parties are fickle in the long run and only seek their self-preservation and power.

Posted with Blogsy

General Douhet was Wrong and Obama is Wrong

General Giulio Douhet was an Italian army officer from 1882 to 1922 and one of the first significant proponents of air power. A controversial figure because he challenged the traditionalist, ground war generals--he was even courtmartialed and imprisoned for two years--he called for the creation of a large bomber force to destroy the enemy, claiming that the plane rendered ground targets and forces unnecessary. He outlined his theory in The Command of the Air published in 1921. Douhet argued that massive aerial bombing of urban targets would produce a psychological effect on the populace in which their morale would be broken and they would demand an end to hostilities or revolt against their government. Others picked up on or added to his theory, most notably Generals "Billy" Mitchell and Curtis LeMay of the United States and Air Marshal Arthur Harris of Great Britain.

Douhet died in 1930 so did not live to see his theory fail. Germany attempted to subdue England through the air during the Battle of Britain. The Royal Air Force and US Army Air Corps dropped almost 1.5 million tons of explosives on Germany and another million on Japan hoping to force a surrender. Around 7 million tons were dropped on targets in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. In none of these cases did the enemy surrender or revolt and, in the case of Vietnam, communist North Vietnam emerged victorious. Why? Air attacks, even with modern weaponry, is never as accurate as the military thinks they are. While air power is a significant force multiplier, in war only "boots on the ground" win wars. And then there is the psychological factor. Douhet's theory was based on destroying morale. Various studies have shown that while demoralizing, massive bombing campaigns rarely break morale when such attacks are expected and national leadership prepares properly for such attacks. Populations, with strong leaders, pull together to face the challenge. A comparison can be made with the siege tactics of early history. They were rarely successful and tended to be long, drawn out affairs.

So how does Douhet's failed theory connect with President Obama's drone strategy? The obvious connection is that they both focus on air assets, but there's more to it. Both are based on the assumption that a conflict can be won through the air. This is a desirable but unattainable outcome. Desirable because it would not put many, if any, of our men and women in harms way; and to some extent the attacker is isolated and santized from the event. As show in the examples above, it is unlikely that the desired outcome will happen for practical, psychological, and other reasons.

For all of the rhetoric during the 2008 election, reality set in for President-to-be Obama after his first CIA/top secret briefing. The war on terror had become his reality. In that briefing he learned things most Americans did not know and it shook him, as shown in the photos taken after the meeting (deer in the headlights look). He realized that immediately closing Gitmo was not a good idea. He realized that following the withdrawl timelines negotiated under Bush was wise policy. He realized that the country could not isolate itself from the threat of Islamic terrorism. This did not stop him from developing a method that would make him and other progressives "feel good" about killing the enemy. The solution--ramp up in a big way the drone strikes begun under his predecessor.

Data on the total number of drone strikes is difficult to obtain, but in terms of Pakistan and the war on al-Qaeda, there have been an estimated 354 drone stikes from 2004-2013. President Obama's drone strike strategy accounts for 314 or 87% of the total. Estimates vary but for every confirmed terrorist killed in these strikes there are between 35 and 50 civilian casualities. While the drone is a useful weapon on the modern battlefield, it has limitations, just like Douhet's strategic bombing theory had limitations. Unfortunately, too often the limitations are ignored for expediency.

One falacious belief about drone strikes is they are accurate. Obviously the data shows otherwise. Even conservative estimates show the ratio of enemy targets hit versus non-targets to be one to twenty or worse. A second misperception is that drones strikes are effective. It is difficult to confirm a target was eliminated unless there are boots on the ground. Reagan tried to take out Qadaffi from the air in 1986 but the Libyan leader had just left his compound. How many times was Osama bin-Laden supposed to be buried under a ton of rubble? The eminent military historian, John Keegan, made the same argument regarding startegic bombing in his classic survey of World War Two. Finally, there are more and more questions being raised about the legality of drone strikes. Most challenges coming from the UN, the international community, and the far left in Obama's own party.

Like so many policy areas, a balanced strategy that utilizes numerous methods and tactics is often best. Both strategic bombing and drones have a role to play in modern war, but they will not win the war alone. There are some timeless truths to war. Whether a Greek hoplite or modern rifleman, the infantry soldier carries about sixty pounds of gear into combat. Do not attack Russia in the winter. And most importantly, wars are won--even shadow wars fought in secret like the war on terror--by putting soldiers on the ground and looking the enemy in the eye. Weapons like the stealth bomber or Predator drone might allow policy makers to "feel better" about taking life, it might sanitize the experience, but it will not lead to success let alone victory. Although separated by one hundred years, both Douhet and Obama are wrong.

 

Posted with Blogsy