Who Lost Europe?
Wes Riddle
Geert Wilders, Chairman of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, recently addressed immigration and the cultural crisis in Europe at a symposium sponsored by the Hudson Institute in New York. His thesis was that Muslims were taking over Europe and were on their way to Pretoria, USA. Obviously the Dutchman had his hand out for some American moral support and private donations. As if we would, or should feel sadly responsible somehow, he said “In a generation or two, the U.S. will ask itself: who lost Europe?” To my way of thinking the answer to the question, if we even ask it, is easy: Europe will have been lost by the Europeans if it is lost. Jimmy crack corn and I don’t care.
On balance it is probably encouraging as Wilders tells us that an Alliance of European patriots has formed to resist so-called Islamization of Europe. That said one might wish it to resist socialism, or secular humanism, or laziness, and all sorts of other cultural ills that afflict Europe. His remarks at length shed more light on Europe than on Islam. Even if immigrants are acting like settlers and don’t care much to assimilate, his remarks still shed more light on Europe than on Islam. If Muslim immigrants have more kids than Europeans, one could as easily say Europeans have few kids and millions more abortions than do Muslims living in their parallel communities. The fact does not mean there is a conspiracy, even if European elites have weak knees facing the cultural implications as a threat. The reality that demographic weight of Muslims will result increasingly in a feeling of political intimidation on the part of the majority doesn’t mean that headscarves were designed to make real Europeans feel uncomfortable.
There are a total of 54 million Muslims now living in Europe, and 25 percent of the population in Europe is projected to be Muslim by the year 2020. In England, sharia courts are now officially recognized as part of the British legal system. One may wonder who would let millions of Muslims settle in European countries and then become citizens, and what idiot would let them set up a dual legal system? Answer: Europe will be lost by Europeans and also by Brits (the latter hate to be called Europeans) if it is lost. The saddest part about Wilders’ bemoaning the obvious is that he seems oblivious to the fact that forces killing Europe are similar if not identical to those destroying the United States. The Hispanicization of the American southwest is a case in point, and even if that is not as sinister (real or perceived) as the Islamization of major U.S. cities, the phenomenon represents the same ineffectual, impotent, and unwilling nature of modern democratic societies to defend their preexisting cultural identities or to separate their polities from mere residents coming in to work. It tells us more about the condition and moral fiber of Americans than it does about Islam or Hispanics avenging for the Mexican-American War.
The same social democrats in Europe, who steal from Peter to pay Paul with high taxes in order to fund their nanny states, concede freedom everyday to ensure “domestic security” to behave irresponsibly. Then they blame Islam, rather than their own foolish immigration policies, failure to enforce the law, or the gross debasement of their moral character. They love democracy if it doesn't mean holding their lawmakers accountable, or altering the sanguine consensus they have about human nature and the unreality of sin. That kind of self-governance would be a lot of work, and anyway they aren't sure what they're supposed to believe beyond the nothing they’ve proved so far. All things being equal, nothing is worth to die for, or live for either. Europeans these days don’t have the slightest idea what their high culture is, or what it takes to maintain Western freedom.
Meanwhile, the United States (if we weren’t talking about it already) frightfully acknowledges words like “eternal vigilance” while cheating the very concept—having ceased to govern itself according to the strictures of its Constitution. The Supreme Court even quotes international law to explain what the Founders must have meant. Yes we no longer think clearly, or even chronologically. All things being equal, truth and error are more or less the same. Pontius Pilot asked, what is truth? We may as well add, “and who is to say it’s better?”
Truth is that migrations and technology are tearing up social and cultural fabrics globally, though not necessarily equally. With somewhat less sympathy, I would argue that a similar process is changing the face of Islam both where it enters and where it currently resides. The liberalizing influences changing the Arab world for good and for ill are hard to miss if you travel there. It is hard therefore to say just who shall be the proverbial last man standing—or indeed, whom he shall resemble most. Perhaps it is one of many false dichotomies. It will probably be some unfortunate hybrid and evolutionary result of inevitable Darwinian natural selection. Mention Intelligent Design and you begin to discover how little intellectual freedom there is anymore, and how the West possesses its own intellectual nightmare to rival that of the imams. In a generation or two the world may not even bother to ask itself, who lost America? The answer will be self-evident, even if our rights and sovereignty no longer are.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Obama – the Anti-Reagan
Obama – the Anti-Reagan
By Lynn Woolley
January 10, 2009
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” --Ronald Reagan, first inaugural address, January 20, 1981
“But at this particular moment, only government can provide the short term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe.” --Barack Obama, George Mason University, January 8, 2009
On November 4th of last year, the American people embarked on a great experiment. They made a decision to embrace “change” embodied in the person of a young, charismatic, but ultimately inexperienced leader who intends to take the country down an opposite path from where Reagan took us.
Barack Obama, placing his full faith in the power of government intervention and deficit spending, is thus the Anti-Reagan, casting off the policies that directly led to the economic boom of the 1990’s that lasted up until the sub-prime crisis hit late last year.
Obama likes to talk about “the fierce urgency of now” – but few remember that Reagan used a similar quote: “the temporary convenience of the present.” Again, Obama and Reagan are polar opposites. Obama says “now” is what matters; Reagan says future generations matter as well.
We’re now living in one of those future generations that Mr. Reagan talked about 28 years ago. And things have rocked along pretty well – until government in its zeal to provide home ownership to those who couldn’t afford to buy houses stepped in and forced the issue. In the current crisis, there is little doubt that government IS the problem.
Reagan knew that. When he took office, the American people were sick and tired of the “national malaise,” the “misery index,” and the “stagflation” of the Jimmy Carter years. The inflation rate was 11.83 percent. Unemployment was 7.5 percent. Like Obama, Reagan proposed change. His idea was to stimulate the economy with large, across-the-board tax cuts. The new president identified the problem and laid out his plans in his inaugural address:
“For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow.”
Simply put, Reagan’s solution was to spend less; Obama’s is to spend more.
Reagan cut spending on non-military programs, lowered income tax rates, and brought the country out of the Carter recession. He created 16 million jobs, brought inflation under control and fashioned a sustained period of economic prosperity.
Reaganomics has stood the test of time with Nobel laureates like Milton Friedman and Robert A. Mundell recognizing what a boon it was to all Americans – and to the world. Obamanomics on the other hand is rooted in collectivism, which, so far in history, has never worked.
Both methods cannot be right. Either Reagan’s policies based on the theories of Arthur Laffer – or Obama’s which are based on the ideas of John Maynard Keynes – will prove to be the correct course. What has got us into the current mess is that we have spent too much – both as a nation and as individuals. Obama will now attempt to solve the problem by spending more. That’s just the opposite of what Reagan would do.
Lynn Woolley is a talk show host heard on KVCE 1160 in Dallas-Fort Worth from 8 a.m. – 10 a.m. His email address is lynn@belogical.com.
By Lynn Woolley
January 10, 2009
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” --Ronald Reagan, first inaugural address, January 20, 1981
“But at this particular moment, only government can provide the short term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe.” --Barack Obama, George Mason University, January 8, 2009
On November 4th of last year, the American people embarked on a great experiment. They made a decision to embrace “change” embodied in the person of a young, charismatic, but ultimately inexperienced leader who intends to take the country down an opposite path from where Reagan took us.
Barack Obama, placing his full faith in the power of government intervention and deficit spending, is thus the Anti-Reagan, casting off the policies that directly led to the economic boom of the 1990’s that lasted up until the sub-prime crisis hit late last year.
Obama likes to talk about “the fierce urgency of now” – but few remember that Reagan used a similar quote: “the temporary convenience of the present.” Again, Obama and Reagan are polar opposites. Obama says “now” is what matters; Reagan says future generations matter as well.
We’re now living in one of those future generations that Mr. Reagan talked about 28 years ago. And things have rocked along pretty well – until government in its zeal to provide home ownership to those who couldn’t afford to buy houses stepped in and forced the issue. In the current crisis, there is little doubt that government IS the problem.
Reagan knew that. When he took office, the American people were sick and tired of the “national malaise,” the “misery index,” and the “stagflation” of the Jimmy Carter years. The inflation rate was 11.83 percent. Unemployment was 7.5 percent. Like Obama, Reagan proposed change. His idea was to stimulate the economy with large, across-the-board tax cuts. The new president identified the problem and laid out his plans in his inaugural address:
“For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow.”
Simply put, Reagan’s solution was to spend less; Obama’s is to spend more.
Reagan cut spending on non-military programs, lowered income tax rates, and brought the country out of the Carter recession. He created 16 million jobs, brought inflation under control and fashioned a sustained period of economic prosperity.
Reaganomics has stood the test of time with Nobel laureates like Milton Friedman and Robert A. Mundell recognizing what a boon it was to all Americans – and to the world. Obamanomics on the other hand is rooted in collectivism, which, so far in history, has never worked.
Both methods cannot be right. Either Reagan’s policies based on the theories of Arthur Laffer – or Obama’s which are based on the ideas of John Maynard Keynes – will prove to be the correct course. What has got us into the current mess is that we have spent too much – both as a nation and as individuals. Obama will now attempt to solve the problem by spending more. That’s just the opposite of what Reagan would do.
Lynn Woolley is a talk show host heard on KVCE 1160 in Dallas-Fort Worth from 8 a.m. – 10 a.m. His email address is lynn@belogical.com.
Wes Riddle’s Horse Sense #380
MLK: What’s in the Day?
Wes Riddle
The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. was born January 15, 1929. He was assassinated in 1968. “MLK Day” as it were, is celebrated the third Monday in January close to the time of his birthday. One may ask how such a short life should warrant a federal holiday. Martin Luther King, Jr. never was elected to public office. His life was controversial while he lived it. Moreover, his memory is skewed given that FBI files were sealed under court order until 2027. These records were not accessible to lawmakers, who voted for his holiday in 1983. The measure nevertheless passed with bipartisan support and by large margin before Ronald Reagan signed it into law.
Martin Luther King, Jr. still evokes an ecstatic memory from his admirers, and the man has become something of an icon too. That is to say, the representation of high ideals and idealism is separate and distinct from his actual biography. Of course the same can be said of many others, including Lincoln and Jefferson. Great men are often given a public pass on their blemishes and shortcomings. Historians are or ought to be a bit more circumspect.
The reason for the Day, and celebrating the life of MLK involves the issue of race. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s work was important in achieving a Second Reconstruction so-called, i.e., the end of segregation and the application of rights past state laws based upon the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
Martin Luther King, Jr. attended segregated public schools in Georgia. After that he went to Morehouse College in Atlanta and then to Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania. At Crozer he was elected president of a predominantly white senior class. He then proceeded to Boston University where he earned his Ph. D. in 1955 and met his wife Coretta Scott. They would have two sons and two daughters together.
After educational and professional preparations, King launched himself into the pastorate first in Montgomery, Alabama and then in his native Atlanta, Georgia. At the same time he dedicated himself to political activism throughout the South, in order to end “Jim Crow” discriminatory statutes. As a member of the executive committee of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) he led the Montgomery bus boycott lasting 382 days. This led to a Supreme Court decision ending bus segregation. During the days of the boycott, King was arrested and subjected to personal abuse, and his home was bombed.
In 1957 he was elected to head the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, from which he provided new leadership for the burgeoning civil rights movement. King employed the teachings and techniques of Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi. His enduring success is largely attributable, however, to skilful adaptation of widely accepted American values, including the rule of law—albeit, through aggressive non-violence; as well as strong appeal to common spiritual beliefs, especially in the South, about God and the moral worth and dignity of man, and to Christian values of forbearance and brotherly love. His historicism was Lincolnesque and so helpful, in that he emphasized the text of the Declaration of Independence, characterizing that document as a promissory note as yet unfulfilled. Thus he appealed to American patriotism, while strongly criticizing social norms regarding race.
In the eleven year period from 1957 to 1968 Martin Luther King, Jr. traveled more than six million miles, gave over twenty-five hundred speeches, wrote five books and numerous articles, consistently preaching against racial hatred and injustice. His activity is largely credited with changing the conscience of America on the subject of race. In 1963 he directed a peaceful march on Washington, D.C. of 250,000 people and delivered perhaps his finest address, “I Have a Dream” from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. In 1965 he led 30,000 people on a march from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery, where he demanded that black people be allowed to vote without unfair restrictions. The speech televised to a national audience, as well as the Selma march and various protests he orchestrated, stirred general unrest in the South and American cities, leading to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In 1964 he became the youngest man to have received the Nobel Peace Prize, turning over that considerable cash prize to the furtherance of civil rights. The iconic ideal he articulated at the Lincoln Memorial is still one of the highest domestic hopes in the land. It has come to define what we mean by a just equality. Speaking of his four little children, he said “I have a dream that … one day” they “will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Wes Riddle
The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. was born January 15, 1929. He was assassinated in 1968. “MLK Day” as it were, is celebrated the third Monday in January close to the time of his birthday. One may ask how such a short life should warrant a federal holiday. Martin Luther King, Jr. never was elected to public office. His life was controversial while he lived it. Moreover, his memory is skewed given that FBI files were sealed under court order until 2027. These records were not accessible to lawmakers, who voted for his holiday in 1983. The measure nevertheless passed with bipartisan support and by large margin before Ronald Reagan signed it into law.
Martin Luther King, Jr. still evokes an ecstatic memory from his admirers, and the man has become something of an icon too. That is to say, the representation of high ideals and idealism is separate and distinct from his actual biography. Of course the same can be said of many others, including Lincoln and Jefferson. Great men are often given a public pass on their blemishes and shortcomings. Historians are or ought to be a bit more circumspect.
The reason for the Day, and celebrating the life of MLK involves the issue of race. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s work was important in achieving a Second Reconstruction so-called, i.e., the end of segregation and the application of rights past state laws based upon the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
Martin Luther King, Jr. attended segregated public schools in Georgia. After that he went to Morehouse College in Atlanta and then to Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania. At Crozer he was elected president of a predominantly white senior class. He then proceeded to Boston University where he earned his Ph. D. in 1955 and met his wife Coretta Scott. They would have two sons and two daughters together.
After educational and professional preparations, King launched himself into the pastorate first in Montgomery, Alabama and then in his native Atlanta, Georgia. At the same time he dedicated himself to political activism throughout the South, in order to end “Jim Crow” discriminatory statutes. As a member of the executive committee of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) he led the Montgomery bus boycott lasting 382 days. This led to a Supreme Court decision ending bus segregation. During the days of the boycott, King was arrested and subjected to personal abuse, and his home was bombed.
In 1957 he was elected to head the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, from which he provided new leadership for the burgeoning civil rights movement. King employed the teachings and techniques of Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi. His enduring success is largely attributable, however, to skilful adaptation of widely accepted American values, including the rule of law—albeit, through aggressive non-violence; as well as strong appeal to common spiritual beliefs, especially in the South, about God and the moral worth and dignity of man, and to Christian values of forbearance and brotherly love. His historicism was Lincolnesque and so helpful, in that he emphasized the text of the Declaration of Independence, characterizing that document as a promissory note as yet unfulfilled. Thus he appealed to American patriotism, while strongly criticizing social norms regarding race.
In the eleven year period from 1957 to 1968 Martin Luther King, Jr. traveled more than six million miles, gave over twenty-five hundred speeches, wrote five books and numerous articles, consistently preaching against racial hatred and injustice. His activity is largely credited with changing the conscience of America on the subject of race. In 1963 he directed a peaceful march on Washington, D.C. of 250,000 people and delivered perhaps his finest address, “I Have a Dream” from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. In 1965 he led 30,000 people on a march from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery, where he demanded that black people be allowed to vote without unfair restrictions. The speech televised to a national audience, as well as the Selma march and various protests he orchestrated, stirred general unrest in the South and American cities, leading to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In 1964 he became the youngest man to have received the Nobel Peace Prize, turning over that considerable cash prize to the furtherance of civil rights. The iconic ideal he articulated at the Lincoln Memorial is still one of the highest domestic hopes in the land. It has come to define what we mean by a just equality. Speaking of his four little children, he said “I have a dream that … one day” they “will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Monday, December 29, 2008
Wes Riddle's Horse Sense #378
New Year’s Old
Wes Riddle
I’m generally glad that time moves, seasons change and years go by. Tearing off a sheet from the desk calendar is like turning over a proverbial new leaf each month. It is nowhere near as fun by the way, using an electronic means to plan or keep schedules. And throwing the whole paper thing away at the end of the year, well that’s truly exhilarating. Talk about new beginnings, where to continue and where to begin anew. Horizons stretch before uncharted.
But then there’s this strange feeling perceived, like an odd stasis in and of all the observable change. The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same—or at least the more familiar they become. There is certainly a time to every purpose under heaven (Ecclesiastes 3:1), but there is also nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1:9). “That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past” (Eccl 3:15). Usually we had to go through the rough and rugged road just to get to where we are, and hopefully year after year it’s to a comparatively better place. Hopefully seeing as how there (not a better place) but for the grace of God, go I.
The fact is that history is replete with ups and downs, betters and also worse. Civilizations are founded; they grow, flourish and then decay. Everything passes away, but then everyday something new is also born. About the time you figure your own situation out, it’s pretty much time to go. The next generation starts its experience, while the old generation (if you’re lucky to find one concerned enough) tries to teach a few lessons learned. You can only do so much though. They can’t teach you everything, because it isn’t even possible to articulate everything—and life never stops long enough for a proper reflection. Struggle gives way to struggle.
Even if you wrote it all down and made somebody read it, he or she would never believe you. It’s in the nature of the way things work. Speaking of which, the new guy at work hardly ever takes advice from an old timer, unless or until he proves through some very personal and hard knocks that the old fool was actually right. The new guy inevitably blames problems on the old guys who left or might still be there and tired, and especially on the poor fellow who used to hold his same position. The reasons become apparent only as you consider the world to be dynamic, even if it approximates dynamic equilibrium, i.e., the world is never good, bad, indifferent, failed or fixed once and for all time, at least not until the Second Coming. Even a status quo requires that there be deliberate and active maintenance.
Now all this might be discouraging if we lived forever. Fortunately we do not. Imagine if you got things to absolute perfection (as only we in the present can), only to see it fall apart again! Since we don’t live forever though, we usually count on making things just a little bit better than what we found it. There are fresh recruits on the way, relief pitchers and catchers waiting on the bench (even if they might be second string, as of course all new guys are). The nature of the way things work, as I’ve described, is why the price of freedom (which is an accomplishment of the Founders in their time) is eternal vigilance. Eternal vigilance.
Freedom can never be safe once and for all. Prosperity is never assured either. Fortunately the same guys don’t have to do it forever. They weather their storms and hopefully pass on the goodly inheritance. We weather ours too, different but oddly similar as if by Design. Which is harder I wonder? The Revolution; the War Between the States; World War II; the Cold War; or the Global War on Terror? Which economic bust would you prefer? I suppose it depends on who you were and who you are. There again but for the grace of God go I, indeed in every conceivable time. Time isn’t just money, by the way—Time is everything you have. The line of time we’re on conveys us, and there’s eternal vigilance of a different sort to think about; that is, the vigilance of the soul. King David marked it well when he said, “My times are in thy hand” (Psalms 120:15) O Lord.
So this “New Year’s Old,” think. It is good to make resolutions and to rededicate oneself to such and such, or head off in a new direction if necessary. Think, however. Take a considered approach to life, because it’s all been done before. From history learn to have a healthy respect for the past, even as you continue to hope in the future and dedicate this present day to glory. If you’ll do that, you begin to understand your parents and grandparents much better and quite possibly your children and grandchildren as well.
Wes Riddle
I’m generally glad that time moves, seasons change and years go by. Tearing off a sheet from the desk calendar is like turning over a proverbial new leaf each month. It is nowhere near as fun by the way, using an electronic means to plan or keep schedules. And throwing the whole paper thing away at the end of the year, well that’s truly exhilarating. Talk about new beginnings, where to continue and where to begin anew. Horizons stretch before uncharted.
But then there’s this strange feeling perceived, like an odd stasis in and of all the observable change. The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same—or at least the more familiar they become. There is certainly a time to every purpose under heaven (Ecclesiastes 3:1), but there is also nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1:9). “That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past” (Eccl 3:15). Usually we had to go through the rough and rugged road just to get to where we are, and hopefully year after year it’s to a comparatively better place. Hopefully seeing as how there (not a better place) but for the grace of God, go I.
The fact is that history is replete with ups and downs, betters and also worse. Civilizations are founded; they grow, flourish and then decay. Everything passes away, but then everyday something new is also born. About the time you figure your own situation out, it’s pretty much time to go. The next generation starts its experience, while the old generation (if you’re lucky to find one concerned enough) tries to teach a few lessons learned. You can only do so much though. They can’t teach you everything, because it isn’t even possible to articulate everything—and life never stops long enough for a proper reflection. Struggle gives way to struggle.
Even if you wrote it all down and made somebody read it, he or she would never believe you. It’s in the nature of the way things work. Speaking of which, the new guy at work hardly ever takes advice from an old timer, unless or until he proves through some very personal and hard knocks that the old fool was actually right. The new guy inevitably blames problems on the old guys who left or might still be there and tired, and especially on the poor fellow who used to hold his same position. The reasons become apparent only as you consider the world to be dynamic, even if it approximates dynamic equilibrium, i.e., the world is never good, bad, indifferent, failed or fixed once and for all time, at least not until the Second Coming. Even a status quo requires that there be deliberate and active maintenance.
Now all this might be discouraging if we lived forever. Fortunately we do not. Imagine if you got things to absolute perfection (as only we in the present can), only to see it fall apart again! Since we don’t live forever though, we usually count on making things just a little bit better than what we found it. There are fresh recruits on the way, relief pitchers and catchers waiting on the bench (even if they might be second string, as of course all new guys are). The nature of the way things work, as I’ve described, is why the price of freedom (which is an accomplishment of the Founders in their time) is eternal vigilance. Eternal vigilance.
Freedom can never be safe once and for all. Prosperity is never assured either. Fortunately the same guys don’t have to do it forever. They weather their storms and hopefully pass on the goodly inheritance. We weather ours too, different but oddly similar as if by Design. Which is harder I wonder? The Revolution; the War Between the States; World War II; the Cold War; or the Global War on Terror? Which economic bust would you prefer? I suppose it depends on who you were and who you are. There again but for the grace of God go I, indeed in every conceivable time. Time isn’t just money, by the way—Time is everything you have. The line of time we’re on conveys us, and there’s eternal vigilance of a different sort to think about; that is, the vigilance of the soul. King David marked it well when he said, “My times are in thy hand” (Psalms 120:15) O Lord.
So this “New Year’s Old,” think. It is good to make resolutions and to rededicate oneself to such and such, or head off in a new direction if necessary. Think, however. Take a considered approach to life, because it’s all been done before. From history learn to have a healthy respect for the past, even as you continue to hope in the future and dedicate this present day to glory. If you’ll do that, you begin to understand your parents and grandparents much better and quite possibly your children and grandchildren as well.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Wes Riddle's Horse Sense Column #372
Creeping Coup
Wes Riddle
Something happened along the way to the American mind, and quite frankly it isn’t working well the way it used to. Americans today aren’t half the speculative or political philosophers their grandparents once were. They don’t sit on the porch as much, and they certainly don’t share opinions with family and friends in a constructive way that invites feedback or a counter tirade. They don’t read newspapers much either, or pass them around with or without editorial comment. The pastimes and concerns such habits represent have all but been pushed aside by busy lives and quasi-meaningless competing priorities. Increasingly, the capability to do so has lapsed for the want of practice.
Radio and TV shows talk a lot but without discussing anything, and politicians speechify to no end without real debate. Public education has all but ceased to teach the communicative and intellectual skills needed for critical analysis on which deliberative democracy is thought to rely.
Our opinions are no longer formed from the bottom up as it were, or even from side to side but from the top down. The Party, the Government, and the Media tell us what spin to believe in; and we no longer possess the filter of our own minds to commit to what we boldly call the truth, our truth even if it is a perception. The change is important, because it unhinges our past and supportive culture from the running of constitutional government. It is important to the whole country moreover, because it allows what professor of politics at Catholic University of America, Dr. Claes Ryn observes, is “a creeping coup d’état from within.”
The old American idea of government was likened closely to the Golden Rule “to love thy neighbor.” Its modus morality placed primary emphasis on individuals controlling their passions, fighting personal demons, leading considered and disciplined lives. Liberty depended on as much, since it made for strong communities and minimized the need for overarching government. In the early 19th Century, Alexis de Tocqueville recounted the tremendous reluctance on the part of Americans to give up any power over their lives to distant authorities, whether church or state.
The written Constitution has always rested on foundations unwritten, even upon the character of the American people, upon the quality of received inheritance: the religious, moral, intellectual, cultural and social habits and beliefs of the people. As these have changed, we should not be surprised that constitutional government no longer runs the way it once did, or that checks and balances no longer preclude accretions of power unheard of in the days of the Republic’s Founders. Ryn: “The moral momentum behind the old decentralized society weakened. Today strong, centralized Federal power seems to more and more Americans not merely acceptable but desirable… Americans say increasingly to government: ‘Act for us!’”
Americans no longer run their own government, the government runs them. We know longer tell the government how much tax we’re willing to give, but rather the government informs us how much of our earnings we’re allowed to keep. In the name of social good, in the name of fairness, in the name of crisis or necessity—anything but in the name of Freedom! Americans are detached from their historically unique, even exceptional tradition of constitutionalism with its deep cultural roots. Allegiance has shifted from something real and achievable to plastic abstractions and universal rationalist principles, more akin to the French Revolution than to the American. History and concrete experience once taught us the importance of self-restraint, as well as the importance of restraint on government power. Today we celebrate the unitary power of the modern president in spite of the checks and balances of the Constitution designed to restrain that power. Indeed, we search for an American Caesar to rid us of all our problems and to fix every hurt.
According to Ryn, “We are living through the progressive dismantling of America’s proudest political achievement” as we watch the Constitution die. Strict constructionists, even if the people should elect them to office, will find it nigh impossible to resurrect the constitutional edifice, much less perpetuate a system of government shorn from its moral-ethical and other culture that gave it birth. “Restoring American constitutionalism would presuppose some kind of resurgence of that old culture…[Americans] would have to rearrange their priorities and start acting differently, placing more emphasis on family, private groups and local communities. They would have to want to take back much of the power ceded to politicians.”
Wes Riddle
Something happened along the way to the American mind, and quite frankly it isn’t working well the way it used to. Americans today aren’t half the speculative or political philosophers their grandparents once were. They don’t sit on the porch as much, and they certainly don’t share opinions with family and friends in a constructive way that invites feedback or a counter tirade. They don’t read newspapers much either, or pass them around with or without editorial comment. The pastimes and concerns such habits represent have all but been pushed aside by busy lives and quasi-meaningless competing priorities. Increasingly, the capability to do so has lapsed for the want of practice.
Radio and TV shows talk a lot but without discussing anything, and politicians speechify to no end without real debate. Public education has all but ceased to teach the communicative and intellectual skills needed for critical analysis on which deliberative democracy is thought to rely.
Our opinions are no longer formed from the bottom up as it were, or even from side to side but from the top down. The Party, the Government, and the Media tell us what spin to believe in; and we no longer possess the filter of our own minds to commit to what we boldly call the truth, our truth even if it is a perception. The change is important, because it unhinges our past and supportive culture from the running of constitutional government. It is important to the whole country moreover, because it allows what professor of politics at Catholic University of America, Dr. Claes Ryn observes, is “a creeping coup d’état from within.”
The old American idea of government was likened closely to the Golden Rule “to love thy neighbor.” Its modus morality placed primary emphasis on individuals controlling their passions, fighting personal demons, leading considered and disciplined lives. Liberty depended on as much, since it made for strong communities and minimized the need for overarching government. In the early 19th Century, Alexis de Tocqueville recounted the tremendous reluctance on the part of Americans to give up any power over their lives to distant authorities, whether church or state.
The written Constitution has always rested on foundations unwritten, even upon the character of the American people, upon the quality of received inheritance: the religious, moral, intellectual, cultural and social habits and beliefs of the people. As these have changed, we should not be surprised that constitutional government no longer runs the way it once did, or that checks and balances no longer preclude accretions of power unheard of in the days of the Republic’s Founders. Ryn: “The moral momentum behind the old decentralized society weakened. Today strong, centralized Federal power seems to more and more Americans not merely acceptable but desirable… Americans say increasingly to government: ‘Act for us!’”
Americans no longer run their own government, the government runs them. We know longer tell the government how much tax we’re willing to give, but rather the government informs us how much of our earnings we’re allowed to keep. In the name of social good, in the name of fairness, in the name of crisis or necessity—anything but in the name of Freedom! Americans are detached from their historically unique, even exceptional tradition of constitutionalism with its deep cultural roots. Allegiance has shifted from something real and achievable to plastic abstractions and universal rationalist principles, more akin to the French Revolution than to the American. History and concrete experience once taught us the importance of self-restraint, as well as the importance of restraint on government power. Today we celebrate the unitary power of the modern president in spite of the checks and balances of the Constitution designed to restrain that power. Indeed, we search for an American Caesar to rid us of all our problems and to fix every hurt.
According to Ryn, “We are living through the progressive dismantling of America’s proudest political achievement” as we watch the Constitution die. Strict constructionists, even if the people should elect them to office, will find it nigh impossible to resurrect the constitutional edifice, much less perpetuate a system of government shorn from its moral-ethical and other culture that gave it birth. “Restoring American constitutionalism would presuppose some kind of resurgence of that old culture…[Americans] would have to rearrange their priorities and start acting differently, placing more emphasis on family, private groups and local communities. They would have to want to take back much of the power ceded to politicians.”
Friday, December 19, 2008
Moses Will Not Deliver Us to Greener Pastures!
Choosing Dr. Mike Moses Demonstrates that Killeen ISD is not Interested in Real Change
Mike Pearce
It amazes me how the more things change in Killeen ISD, the more they stay the same. Most reasonable people who know any KISD teachers recognize that the district is in the midst of a crisis, facing record low morale and poor leadership, among other things. In order to quell this terrible predicament, the Killeen School Board unwisely chose to place its trust and confidence to find a new superintendent in the hands of one of the most incompetent and corrupt education consultants in Texas history, Dr. Mike Moses.
According to education activist Donna Garner, “It is common knowledge that it was also under Moses' DISD administration that charges, allegations, and convictions have occurred involving out-of-control spending with school credit cards, lost dollars for health plans, abuse of federal e-rate funds, irregular technology vendor contracts, misspent federal bilingual education funds, costly deals with Kinko's, apparent conflicts of interest involving Voyager Expanded Learning, contributions by computer vendors, questionable bond sales, multiple teacher grievances, eyebrow-raising private consultancies, lucrative Coca-Cola contracts, and special privileges for vendors participating in the Education Research and Development Institute (ERDI) conferences.”
Moses, the former superintendent of Dallas ISD, has been summarily criticized by many for his "top-down management” style. In fact, he negotiated his DISD contract to state that trustees "shall not" discuss DISD business with any employee without his expressed consent, nor can they “communicate with anyone" regarding DISD personnel assignment, reassignment, salary and benefits, evaluation or any other terms of employment unless he agrees in advance." I guess there’s nothing like a good ‘ole iron fist…
While Dr. Moses was the superintendent of Dallas ISD, he pushed that district into a deal with Mercer Human Resource Consulting which was cited for violating state insurance laws and cheating several ISD’s out of thousands of dollars. At the same time he was making decisions that resulted in the burning of DISD taxpayer dollars, he was earning the highest superintendent salary in the nation (over $400,000). Moses' retirement benefits amounted to approximately $224,400 per year for the rest of his life, and he walked away from DISD with $480,850 for his work from January 1 - August 31, 2004.
Additionally, Moses has a track record of very poor policy changes that generally sank DISD into even greater financial chaos. In 2003, his now-disgraced Director of Technology accepted a gift from FedEx/Kinko’s which included a $2,500 entry fee into the Pro-Am golf tournament, airfare from Dallas to Austin, a banquet, two nights at the golf resort hotel and a $500 gift package of equipment and clothes. (The director of technology was later indicted for running an “elaborate and very profitable bribery and money laundering scheme involving DISD technology contracts.”) This was at the same time that FedEx/Kinko’s signed a deal with Dr. Moses to outsource copying and printing for DISD. Moses assured teachers and administrators that the deal would reduce costs. Unfortunately, DISD’s copying and printing costs more than doubled. In 2003, the district spent $5.87 million; by 2005 it was spending $12.82 million
The most famous scandal of a Moses’ superintendency was the abuse of district credit cards for personal use which came to light after his departure. In the end, DISD investigators recommended that 93 employees suffer sanctions for their theft of tax dollars. Most famously, a secretary in Moses’ office, Marsha Olson, was found guilty of using a DISD credit card to run up $56,000 in personal purchases over the course of three years. Ms. Olsen’s defense attorney had the good sense to note that her superiors escaped punishment, despite the fact that they had the ultimate responsibility of monitoring their subordinates.
It is disconcerting that the KISD School Board would ask Dr. Moses to choose our next superintendent, knowing full well (providing they might glance at the news every now and then) that he is renowned for creating a culture of corruption in DISD that has left an indelible scar on the district. There is far more to the sorted legacy of Dr. Mike Moses. If the Killeen ISD School Board thinks Moses is the shining example of what we need, we are all in serious trouble.
As I have stated before, Dr. Ann Farris has the experience, temperament, and common sense to repair the damage done to Killeen ISD. But it is apparent that the members of the Board have just invested thousands of dollars on a ruse to ensure the Interim Superintendent Bob Muller gets the job. Why? Dr. Moses was Dr. Muller's most immediate past boss, prior to his years of sycophancy under Jim Hawkins. Dr. Muller reported to Dr. Moses at TEA before coming to KISD as Dr. Moses was leaving TEA. Who wants to wager that Muller gets a stellar report from Moses? The fix is in, my friends... and the stench is overwhelming.
Mike Pearce
It amazes me how the more things change in Killeen ISD, the more they stay the same. Most reasonable people who know any KISD teachers recognize that the district is in the midst of a crisis, facing record low morale and poor leadership, among other things. In order to quell this terrible predicament, the Killeen School Board unwisely chose to place its trust and confidence to find a new superintendent in the hands of one of the most incompetent and corrupt education consultants in Texas history, Dr. Mike Moses.
According to education activist Donna Garner, “It is common knowledge that it was also under Moses' DISD administration that charges, allegations, and convictions have occurred involving out-of-control spending with school credit cards, lost dollars for health plans, abuse of federal e-rate funds, irregular technology vendor contracts, misspent federal bilingual education funds, costly deals with Kinko's, apparent conflicts of interest involving Voyager Expanded Learning, contributions by computer vendors, questionable bond sales, multiple teacher grievances, eyebrow-raising private consultancies, lucrative Coca-Cola contracts, and special privileges for vendors participating in the Education Research and Development Institute (ERDI) conferences.”
Moses, the former superintendent of Dallas ISD, has been summarily criticized by many for his "top-down management” style. In fact, he negotiated his DISD contract to state that trustees "shall not" discuss DISD business with any employee without his expressed consent, nor can they “communicate with anyone" regarding DISD personnel assignment, reassignment, salary and benefits, evaluation or any other terms of employment unless he agrees in advance." I guess there’s nothing like a good ‘ole iron fist…
While Dr. Moses was the superintendent of Dallas ISD, he pushed that district into a deal with Mercer Human Resource Consulting which was cited for violating state insurance laws and cheating several ISD’s out of thousands of dollars. At the same time he was making decisions that resulted in the burning of DISD taxpayer dollars, he was earning the highest superintendent salary in the nation (over $400,000). Moses' retirement benefits amounted to approximately $224,400 per year for the rest of his life, and he walked away from DISD with $480,850 for his work from January 1 - August 31, 2004.
Additionally, Moses has a track record of very poor policy changes that generally sank DISD into even greater financial chaos. In 2003, his now-disgraced Director of Technology accepted a gift from FedEx/Kinko’s which included a $2,500 entry fee into the Pro-Am golf tournament, airfare from Dallas to Austin, a banquet, two nights at the golf resort hotel and a $500 gift package of equipment and clothes. (The director of technology was later indicted for running an “elaborate and very profitable bribery and money laundering scheme involving DISD technology contracts.”) This was at the same time that FedEx/Kinko’s signed a deal with Dr. Moses to outsource copying and printing for DISD. Moses assured teachers and administrators that the deal would reduce costs. Unfortunately, DISD’s copying and printing costs more than doubled. In 2003, the district spent $5.87 million; by 2005 it was spending $12.82 million
The most famous scandal of a Moses’ superintendency was the abuse of district credit cards for personal use which came to light after his departure. In the end, DISD investigators recommended that 93 employees suffer sanctions for their theft of tax dollars. Most famously, a secretary in Moses’ office, Marsha Olson, was found guilty of using a DISD credit card to run up $56,000 in personal purchases over the course of three years. Ms. Olsen’s defense attorney had the good sense to note that her superiors escaped punishment, despite the fact that they had the ultimate responsibility of monitoring their subordinates.
It is disconcerting that the KISD School Board would ask Dr. Moses to choose our next superintendent, knowing full well (providing they might glance at the news every now and then) that he is renowned for creating a culture of corruption in DISD that has left an indelible scar on the district. There is far more to the sorted legacy of Dr. Mike Moses. If the Killeen ISD School Board thinks Moses is the shining example of what we need, we are all in serious trouble.
As I have stated before, Dr. Ann Farris has the experience, temperament, and common sense to repair the damage done to Killeen ISD. But it is apparent that the members of the Board have just invested thousands of dollars on a ruse to ensure the Interim Superintendent Bob Muller gets the job. Why? Dr. Moses was Dr. Muller's most immediate past boss, prior to his years of sycophancy under Jim Hawkins. Dr. Muller reported to Dr. Moses at TEA before coming to KISD as Dr. Moses was leaving TEA. Who wants to wager that Muller gets a stellar report from Moses? The fix is in, my friends... and the stench is overwhelming.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Wes Riddle's Horse Sense Column #371
McCain’s Loss Republicans’ Gain
Wes Riddle
Senator John McCain ran a good race in a year that, by all accounts and historic markers, was going to be for the Democrats. When the economy tanked, there was no hope left in numbers. Having said that, his accomplishment as a campaigner was quite remarkable for his having been an agent of Republican disunity through much of the race and for years before. Everyone knows McCain was the dead last choice for a nominee in Texas, and the base still rallied to him! His choice of Governor Palin helped, as did the emerging and stark contrast to the Democrat opponent. Today voters set aside their lingering questions of patriotism, about origins, Marxist ideology and plain bad associations, to give the president-elect our benefit of doubt, well earned and deserved. The electoral landslide and corresponding gains in Congress are such that they give him a political mandate if indeed any president should have one. Moreover, Obama said that he hears the voices of those who did not elect him, that he will be their president too. Expectations and hope are coming from all directions. Virtually everyone wishes him well and to tell the truth, it might just be the best thing for Republicans.
Obama is already being called the black Kennedy. That means a lot to liberals in this country: a personification of hope, a promise of equal justice, and the spreading of wealth around. His triumph is akin to Reagan in key respects. Only a few years after Watergate, President Carter had become so unpopular in office that it gave rise to the Reagan Revolution. President George W. Bush’s tenure, his second term in particular, were so unpopular it gave rise to an Obama Revolution. If Obama doesn’t overplay his mandate or try to enact extreme radical policies, he could very well consolidate the Democratic majority for twenty years to come—and diffuse potential political backlash. Meantime, Republicans will have time to think, as well as for inevitable political infighting. They are going to seek internal scapegoats and factions to blame for defeat. The ins will be outs, and the Republican Party that emerges four years from now is likely to be different in important respects from what went into the 2008 election cycle.
Not only will it not resemble the neoconservative faction leading Bush to ruin, it is doubtful it will resemble McCain very much either. Remember McCain came to national prominence as a “maverick” Republican, meaning he championed controversial causes and policies affronting many parts of the Republican coalition. Indeed, he was one of two GOP senators, who voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts and one of three who opposed reductions in 2003. Senator McCain co-authored legislation for extensive regulations related to the environment. In 2001 he and Senators Ted Kennedy and John Edwards introduced the Patient’s Bill of Rights that included expensive mandates for health coverage. Overall the Senator from Arizona has shown little respect for the free market and had little appeal to economic conservatives. Social and religious conservatives too, who remember the 2000 primaries warmed up to him even less, remembering that he called them “agents of intolerance” and suggested their religious leaders had no place in American politics. McCain also co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which passed over the opposition of 80 percent of congressional Republicans! The reason is that law was designed to restrict political speech of groups at the core of the Republican Party coalition: the National Rifle Association, as well as anti-abortion organizations and businesses. Few in the Republican Party on the right will mourn McCain’s loss this past November 4th.
A prominent McCain sympathizer, The New York Times’ David Brooks, had predicted a President McCain would change not only the nation but also the GOP. He felt people and groups who worked for the Reagan victories and also 1994 Republican return to power would find themselves exiled. McCain’s loss has given them a new lease as it were. McCain styled himself a maverick, whose appeal to independents and Democrats this season would make up lost GOP votes. Except for pressure from the base and strong advice to sidestep outright political suicide, his inclination had actually been to choose his close friend Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a former Democrat to be his running mate! Independents and Democrats this year wanted change, however, and sixty percent of independents voted for Obama.
McCain wasn’t about change, and the voters saw through the smoke and mirrors. Senator McCain was just as much a hawk on Iraq as President Bush. Of course the irony is that the military surge worked so well there were no U.S. casualties for the entire month before the election. The issue receded entirely from people’s minds. The economy took its place, and McCain had as much principled opposition to government spending as President Bush, which is to say none at all. McCain never did answer Obama’s query: “Name one economic policy of President Bush you weren’t for!” McCain differed from the status quo only in his willingness to tax more. Indeed, McCain was the standard bearer of big-government conservatism: taxing and spending us into the drink at home and crusading stupidly for democracy in foreign lands, while reinvigorating the imperial presidency that brought Republicans low once before during the Nixon Era. This kind of faux conservatism deserved electoral defeat to match its abject political failure. The situation is grim short-term for Republicans, but the election defeat also opens a sorely needed debate about the principles of the Republican Party.
Wes Riddle
Senator John McCain ran a good race in a year that, by all accounts and historic markers, was going to be for the Democrats. When the economy tanked, there was no hope left in numbers. Having said that, his accomplishment as a campaigner was quite remarkable for his having been an agent of Republican disunity through much of the race and for years before. Everyone knows McCain was the dead last choice for a nominee in Texas, and the base still rallied to him! His choice of Governor Palin helped, as did the emerging and stark contrast to the Democrat opponent. Today voters set aside their lingering questions of patriotism, about origins, Marxist ideology and plain bad associations, to give the president-elect our benefit of doubt, well earned and deserved. The electoral landslide and corresponding gains in Congress are such that they give him a political mandate if indeed any president should have one. Moreover, Obama said that he hears the voices of those who did not elect him, that he will be their president too. Expectations and hope are coming from all directions. Virtually everyone wishes him well and to tell the truth, it might just be the best thing for Republicans.
Obama is already being called the black Kennedy. That means a lot to liberals in this country: a personification of hope, a promise of equal justice, and the spreading of wealth around. His triumph is akin to Reagan in key respects. Only a few years after Watergate, President Carter had become so unpopular in office that it gave rise to the Reagan Revolution. President George W. Bush’s tenure, his second term in particular, were so unpopular it gave rise to an Obama Revolution. If Obama doesn’t overplay his mandate or try to enact extreme radical policies, he could very well consolidate the Democratic majority for twenty years to come—and diffuse potential political backlash. Meantime, Republicans will have time to think, as well as for inevitable political infighting. They are going to seek internal scapegoats and factions to blame for defeat. The ins will be outs, and the Republican Party that emerges four years from now is likely to be different in important respects from what went into the 2008 election cycle.
Not only will it not resemble the neoconservative faction leading Bush to ruin, it is doubtful it will resemble McCain very much either. Remember McCain came to national prominence as a “maverick” Republican, meaning he championed controversial causes and policies affronting many parts of the Republican coalition. Indeed, he was one of two GOP senators, who voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts and one of three who opposed reductions in 2003. Senator McCain co-authored legislation for extensive regulations related to the environment. In 2001 he and Senators Ted Kennedy and John Edwards introduced the Patient’s Bill of Rights that included expensive mandates for health coverage. Overall the Senator from Arizona has shown little respect for the free market and had little appeal to economic conservatives. Social and religious conservatives too, who remember the 2000 primaries warmed up to him even less, remembering that he called them “agents of intolerance” and suggested their religious leaders had no place in American politics. McCain also co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which passed over the opposition of 80 percent of congressional Republicans! The reason is that law was designed to restrict political speech of groups at the core of the Republican Party coalition: the National Rifle Association, as well as anti-abortion organizations and businesses. Few in the Republican Party on the right will mourn McCain’s loss this past November 4th.
A prominent McCain sympathizer, The New York Times’ David Brooks, had predicted a President McCain would change not only the nation but also the GOP. He felt people and groups who worked for the Reagan victories and also 1994 Republican return to power would find themselves exiled. McCain’s loss has given them a new lease as it were. McCain styled himself a maverick, whose appeal to independents and Democrats this season would make up lost GOP votes. Except for pressure from the base and strong advice to sidestep outright political suicide, his inclination had actually been to choose his close friend Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a former Democrat to be his running mate! Independents and Democrats this year wanted change, however, and sixty percent of independents voted for Obama.
McCain wasn’t about change, and the voters saw through the smoke and mirrors. Senator McCain was just as much a hawk on Iraq as President Bush. Of course the irony is that the military surge worked so well there were no U.S. casualties for the entire month before the election. The issue receded entirely from people’s minds. The economy took its place, and McCain had as much principled opposition to government spending as President Bush, which is to say none at all. McCain never did answer Obama’s query: “Name one economic policy of President Bush you weren’t for!” McCain differed from the status quo only in his willingness to tax more. Indeed, McCain was the standard bearer of big-government conservatism: taxing and spending us into the drink at home and crusading stupidly for democracy in foreign lands, while reinvigorating the imperial presidency that brought Republicans low once before during the Nixon Era. This kind of faux conservatism deserved electoral defeat to match its abject political failure. The situation is grim short-term for Republicans, but the election defeat also opens a sorely needed debate about the principles of the Republican Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
