Memorial Day: the Big Picture

I noticed this piece on the CATO institute website by David Boaz. I think the author is sincere in his sentiments toward the fallen on Memorial Day but clearly thinks certain conflicts don't count. He wonders if "...all wars are necessary to American freedom?" He uses World War I to highlight poor decisions (I suspect because it is less controversial than Iraq or Afghanistan).

       World War I was the worst mistake of the 20th century, the mistake that set in motion all the tragedies of the century.           The deaths of those who fell at the Marne are all the more tragic when we reflect that they did not in fact serve to                   protect our lives and all that we value.

I won't argue the merits of Word War I  but the reason we acknowledge those who have fallen is because of what the military represents to a free society, and by extension their sacrifice. It doesn’t matter that in certain cases (World War I for instance) we can't draw a straight line between a particular battle and our freedoms. We recognize that having a military or defense or national guard is essential to our way of life. It is a huge mistake to examine specific conflicts as not necessary or not critical to American peace and security.

Try using this logic on tax policy. It would be easy to point to wasteful programs and declare that taxes were theft in a particular case and therefore immoral. Not only wasteful spending but spending one just didn’t like. I could certainly come up with a quick list. Collected taxes go to a variety of necessary and unnecessary civil projects and we collectively change it on the margins. Poor policy means big changes are in store, possible radical ones. The voting public understands the connection between taxes and roads, bridges, unemployment…etc. No serious person rejects taxes as a practical matter.

We have a tax policy. It is messy and frequently wasteful. Cities, states and the federal government still need a plan for collecting and redistributing. 

Wars that aren’t popular with the public because they stray too far from our principles or suggest imperial overreach are just part of a larger philosophical debate. The larger debate we can have since our military makes it possible.  We debate the merits but never question the foundational importance of a having a military (some do). Those with freedoms like speech and voting rights only have it in areas where national defense is formidable. Countries in Europe without standing armies benefit from an umbrella policy like NATO (Lichtenstein, Monaco)  that obligate members to support one another.

Mr. Boaz doesn't say the military isn't important, but by connecting specific conflicts to our way of life he asks the wrong question about the nature of defense. Instead of 'Was this necessary for our way of life?' he should say 'Is our national defense any less important because of this?'

Don’t get sidetracked on what is and isn’t a necessary battle or war. Free people show thanks for those lives given in support of the larger cause of liberty and not the specific conflict.

Chris Cornell: The Days He Tried to Live

The easiest way to cover artists/writers/musicians who die too soon is autobiographically-or ‘how I remember it’ style. I could rehash current arguments about drug abuse and depression or whether or not artistic types are more prone than others but I won’t.

Anytime someone commits suicide we feel a little sick that they didn’t confide in anyone close to them, if they even have anyone close. His death wasn't a total surprise to a long -time fans of Cornell and his music (I even liked his first solo album despite the lack of even one catchy tune). Chris didn’t do catchy tunes, the exception might be “Spoonman” the tone and lyrics were mostly ominous. For me it was the voice, that amazing voice. I never saw him live so my opinion is based mostly on videos and CDs I grew up with. Most reviews of Soundgarden acknowledge his superb range even when criticizing the overall albums. His music was dark and internal where others like Pearl Jam are dark and external. Cornell’s idea for lyrics came from an internal struggle of depression either created by substance abuse or pushed along by it. Pearl Jam from a sense of injustice in the world.

Most believe the biggest turn in his life was the death of his friend Andrew Wood of Mother Love Bone (early grunge pioneers) It set the direction in his melancholic singing/writing career but it is tough for me to believe it caused his later problems with alcohol and drugs. I didn’t discover the essential Seattle band until after Superunknown hit the stores. Back then you could get a cassette but if you were a tech head only the CD would do, all the rage you see. My knowledge of that piece is pretty good despite not having listened to it in years. I don’t remember even one sort of fun jam piece on the whole record. Much of it seemed dark to an outsized degree. Here are just a couple of the popular tracks: “Fell On Black Days” “Black Hole Sun” “The Day I Tried to Live”. To be fair they had a few songs that sounded fluffier, “Fresh Tendrills” and “4^th of July” I assure you they aren’t.

 That voice though. He could bounce on a single note like a trampoline. He also did his share of obsessing about the end of the world. I’m sure other rock stars have gone down that ‘how-does-it-end’ road but to me it was new. Eighties metal was mostly a gratuitous sex and booze fest in both the song writing and lifestyle until this ‘grunge’ thing. Grunge was ONLY different in that its bands took themselves seriously, hence the weightier topics, suicide, depression, apostasy.  Cornell had a power ballad voice and rode his high “Aaaaahhhhh”s like a wave, a remnant of sunnier vocalists Steven Tyler and Steve Perry. His talent was obvious, but when did this ‘inner-pain’ and focus on ecological catastrophe get going? What did twenty eight year olds have to be so sad about?

Could I still like the music and think the writing is overwrought?

I didn’t listen to much Audioslave (Cornell’s other group) or even catch his second solo album. Truthfully I didn’t pay much attention to music in any genre much after the early 2000’s. For some, scavenging old CD stores and anticipating new releases stops being a thing. Can’t explain why but like collecting baseball cards it just doesn’t hold interest after a while. It wasn’t the music, as much I complained about the overtly political direction of countless bands, especially Pearl Jam. But “The music is inseparable from the politics” supporters say. Fair enough, but so is self-importance and I don’t have to like it when I hear it.

 Chris Cornell remains the saddest, loneliest and most likely to have never climbed out of his ‘hole’. Maybe he tried but never found success. From his track “When I’m down” on the Euphoria Morning album:

I know you hold precious little hope for me
And in your happiness
I'm always drowning in my grief
And I only love you when I'm down
And I'm only near you when I'm gone
But one thing for you to keep in mind, you know
I'm down all the time

 I think this is the picture of Chris most of us who liked the music have of him, super talented but down all the time.

 I am sad for his fans but mostly for his family.

Manchester United?

Enough with the silly arm in arm marches against ‘terrorism’. Enough with the hashtag grief signaling and kitschy Facebook memes that cover profile pics. If the West loves liberal democracy it needs to figure out how to defend it without apologizing. 

We don’t need grief and woe we need a serious campaign of intimidation and coercion. No more ‘no-go zones’ in large cities for Muslim populations. It should never be said of terror suspects that they were “known to police”. Taking these bombings in stride is NOT a good thing. It leads to a sense that this is normal, that these attacks happen seasonally like bad weather. “Sure it’s there but what can you do?” The worst part is by not going after kicking in doors and threatening violence against the neighborhoods and mosques protecting these animals, we favor the extremists. They thrive in interconnected communities because they offer protection like Chicago gangsters in the twenties.

 This is not the time for stiff upper lips and shrugs about the nature of living in an international city. The notion that citizens of a nation have to put up with regular terror is “Stuff and nonsense” as the Brits say. None of this acquiesce to fear need happen whether Paris or London or New York. It does take leadership though and clear thinking about the nature of the enemy. Sadly I haven’t seen or heard much of it from our cosmopolitan mayors. I understand a mayor’s role is commerce and attracting new business in the city but at some point law enforcement needs a freer hand.

 I am assuming a lot about what the police know and what they don’t but a couple of things are clear about the Manchester bombing. He is a Libyan (Muslim?) who grew up in Britain. He was likely known to law enforcement at some point. He was likely protected by a network of people who have families and bank accounts. More to come, no doubt. 

The lack of anger and outrage has been washed out of us.

 We are now a society afraid to accuse the wrong man or use the wrong pronoun when talking about the barbaric killer. You can hear it in the interviews with those who witnessed the explosion and ran with the stampeding mob toward safety. Even people who weren’t there, when asked about the incident, focus on crowd danger and avoiding large events. My local radio station had a former police officer on who gave tips on how to avoid the danger spots at large events, “Wait for the main crowd to pass and then head for the exists.” He added unhelpfully. 

Well thanks officer but what if the bastards try to blast their way into a movie theater and shoot up the place like in Aurora. Or unless they drive by that hip café and spray 9 millimeter rounds into the patrons drinking espressos like in Paris. Or the not so crowded airport in Belgium that only took a suitcase packed with metal bits to wreck everyone’s day, ditto for the airport in Istanbul. What advice do we get when just minding our own business. The anger from citizens against the perpetrator is cloudy and rushed like a blurry photo that didn’t develop. Almost as if the attacked don't know how to be upset.

“Where are those SOB’s that did this?!” said with intent becomes “We will not let these criminals tear us apart” spoken softly and carefully. The first response is urgent and active. The second is safe and useless.

Those who are quick to anger over being attacked will make some mistakes in the cause of justice. Call him Elliot (as in Ness). He may break a few eggs but will get justice and settle scores in the cause of law and order. He understand the importance of protecting freedom, the value of secular laws and the true nastiness of an attack against those principles. Elliot understand that an attack on a concert is pure hatred against liberal values and demands a full-throated response. Elliot is often reckless but always sure. Most importantly, He will put measures in place to prevent future atrocities while understanding that every city faces different challenges. He understands that the battle is long and arduous but necessary for survival. 

  

Those quick to passive words and useless phrases about ‘support’ or ‘unity’ can’t be trusted to defend true values. Call him Cosmo (Cosmopolitan). He understands trendy philosophies on the’ roots of terror’; he sees innocents everywhere but won’t name criminals. Cosmo loves slogans and marches. He gets inspired by vague anti-campaigns that encourage togetherness like ‘racism’ ‘violence against women’ ‘poverty’. He thinks the largest problem with Islamic terrorism is the Islamophobia that follows it after a devastating suicide bomb. Cosmo man can’t be trusted to take the fight to enemy or protect the innocent. He understands grief but doesn’t know how to fight against a world where everyone is a victim. He enjoys freedom but doesn’t know what it costs.

With every terrorist bombing, shooting, knifing or threatening act the West slides a little closer on the scale to Cosmo and away from Elliot. These terrorists are not part of a civilized society and should be treated like cancer, an unwelcome invader that demands surgery. Until Western cities get serious about who they let in this will continue to metastasize until the threat owns entire sections of your city.

We need more Elliots; we have enough Cosmos. 

  

  

"Greatest Show on Earth"

Institutions that surrender control over part of their industry give up direction for all of it.

 The University of Illinois in Champagne underwent a sustained attack against their Native American mascot more than a decade ago. The result was total capitulation from the school. The mascot was retired and the school’s branding no longer includes Indian images, just a big goofy capital “I”. A supposedly socially conscious minority of students assumed (or imagined) the school’s chief mascot was offensive to Indian tribes and must be stopped. As a public university their ability to fight the charge was limited, their funds rely heavily on state and federal grants. Students who sympathized with the mascot, seeing no problem with the Native American mascot and taking no offence were poorly organized.

This situation plays out too often in life and reasonable people don’t take simple stands against it. In most cases a vigorous push back is the last thing needed. A straightforward easily articulated message is the most effective response to campaign of attack. The Chick-fil-A model is textbook for opposing an assault from organized protesters. A few years ago the CEO of the restaurant gave an interview to a magazine where he stated his support for marriage between one man and one woman. The Cathy family support pro-family groups that belief in the biblical definition of marriage. Large cities like Boston and Chicago (in 2012) refused to give the chain approval for zoning because of pressure from outside groups. The outrage against Chick-fil-A was not proportional to the statements made by Cathy and Christians seemed to understand what was happening in the culture. Mike Huckabee started Chick-fil-A appreciation day on August 1 2012 allowing supporters to line up for sandwiches all over the country. The response worked because of the simplicity of the message: a Christian group is under attack for supporting a biblical version of marriage, now go support them with your dollars.

Cities backed down and the restaurant received zoning approval.

Enter Ringling bros. and the attempt by animal groups (not public attitudes) to shut down the elephant portion of the circus, a key draw. The circus without elephants is like a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert without “Freebird”; people still go but the event is a lot less fun. More than a year ago Ringling Bros did away with the elephants. Constant attacks from activists disguised as animal welfare groups started to pay dividends. Excuses like ‘shifting public opinion’ are cited in news stories about Ringling’s decision to eliminate the elephant shows. What determines public opinion better than ticket sales? Polls are rarely cited as evidence of the so-called public disinterest.

When the elephants went away so did the spectators. Ringling Bros and Barnum and Bailey made a rational decision  based on cities like Oakland passing ordinances that restricted live animal shows, a measure meant specifically for circus acts. Once a few cities essentially outlaw your business the only option is to get out of the business. The main attraction was the elephant show.

“The Greatest Show on Earth” didn’t realize it until it was too late.

Would it have mattered anyway? The sharp instruments used to control the animals (called bullhooks) became the symbol of everything wrong with elephant training methods. Never mind that Asian elephants can weigh as much as 6 tons and stand 8 feet at the shoulders. How do critics propose to handle the great behemoths, with conflict resolution? How about positive reinforcement? Opposition to a part becomes hatred of the whole. So it is with groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) that occasionally stumble into a legitimate animal cruelty story.  The entire circus became an object of scorn and ridicule, the training methods supposedly barbaric. But acquiescing to the mob only pushed away the customers, those who came for elephants. The message from the offended parties is clear, change your ways or expect a PR assault.

Cities got pressured into passing laws against using bullhooks. Governor Brown signed SB 1062 restricting traveling shows from using those instruments and effectively putting the elephant performances out of business. The iconic circus owners issued a statement citing ‘changing public opinion’ in the decision to get rid of elephants but no popular vote was taken on the issue. The Rhode Island ban against bullhooks only applied to the traveling shows and circuses. If the device was cruel and unnecessary why only restrict the circuses? Shouldn’t the local zoos also find another way? Ringling Bros, Shriners and others stopped using elephants because of the impossibility of controlling the animals with kind words only. Even for the iconic circuses the future of live animal shows looked murky despite all the ‘shifting public opinion’ nonsense they churned out for press releases.

When institutions and businesses give up control of their livelihood everyone loses. The circuses didn’t stand much chance in the long run; their industry was increasingly controlled by petty outside interests and malcontents. I am no great lover of the circus but I hate the idea that historic and cultural treasures are subjected to a public inquisition by activists claiming to speak for them. The circus may have disappeared as a milestone for kids growing up in America anyway. Going out like this, neutered and shamed, is an unfitting end for the “Greatest Show on Earth”.  Like the University of Illinois it let a small group determine its culture and drive its future. A shorter future than anyone realized.

Tough Times in OK

When the usual means of funding run short local churches become the lifeline with food, medicine and shelter. Oklahoma is in such a state now with its schools. Funding is dangerously short for repairs and maintenance that are normally covered under the yearly budget.

I remember an anecdote from author Mark Steyn about a woman at a political rally who asked the president if he was going to fix their school. It was an old school after all and hadn’t had repairs in years. The windows rattled when the train went by, the paint was peeling off the walls and the computers were out of date. The student desks broke down practically every day and the plumbing needed attention.  The woman demonstrated perfect exasperation and hopelessness at the situation. The president promised to do what he could and used the occasion to bloviate about ‘kids’ and ‘destiny’, the usual boilerplate politician stuff. The whole notion that the president should concern himself with one schoolhouse in one rural district of one state is truly a measure of how far from citizen/state relations we are. When did residents of a town, a district, a parish forget how to paint walls and fix plumbing on their own?

 States and districts and counties and townships should see to their own welfare and not expect taxpayers to repair schoolhouses across the country. It doesn’t matter how genuine the question was. It reflects ignorance about the relationship of citizens and state. This ignorance is tough to undue. The woman at the rally could have been a plant designed to make the president seem caring, good hearted. It may have likely been someone who thought by getting the ear of the 'organizer in chief', by calling attention to the plight of this school it might force the community to pay attention. Who knows, maybe the president arranged for some contractors to clean up the place but I doubt it.
  

That Americans thought the question to the President was acceptable tells me we aren’t helping our communities in need. These are opportunities for churches to raise money and volunteers to begin rebuilding and renewing schools. I wonder how much of these state budget problems can be fixed by taking some of the burden of retrofits and upkeep off the sagging shoulders of local governments. Americans are used to civil society being run like a business with invoices and payrolls, credits and debits. Money from sales and property taxes funds schools and libraries; when revenues are low for long stretches we scarcely know what to do short of blaming the Republicans (or is it the Democrats). Both parties end up managing a sinking ship but using different bailing techniques. The problem is simple. When revenues are down projects get cut, so do employees like teachers. That kind of math is something both parties hate and voters have to deal with.

Churches help by feeding the poor and arranging for counseling and drug rehab programs for the destitute. Some of the larger churches have ‘in-house’ programs for single mothers, ex-cons and scholarship funding for talented kids. Here in Oklahoma the problem of funding for schools is acute. Districts have cut funding for teacher pay and custodial work and even sports programs and office supplies. A lot of Tulsa area schools need more than just regular levels of spending; they need to rebuild large chunks of the infrastructure. We have trouble just keeping the lights on right now.  Oklahoma needs a drive for school renewal projects. Americans have a long history of pitching in and helping with building projects through churches and community led volunteer efforts.

I don’t mean to pick on the woman who asked the President for help. Too many crumbling buildings get ignored budget after budget since the money isn’t available; how frustrating it must be. Churches have the people and can raise the resources to cover the gaps for schools when funds are short. Local church volunteer projects are the collective response by citizens to tough times. Taking care of school buildings doesn’t have to mean a federal role for a federal purse, it just takes local citizens and local volunteers.

Maybe than we can get back to a reasonable understanding of federal roles and local responsibility.  

Crime and Punishment: Death Penalty

Opposition to the death penalty comes in two forms. The first is the what-if-they-are-actually-innocent argument that Northwestern University in Chicago has based much of their research. The second is a philosophical and ‘principled’ stand holding that states shouldn’t have the power to take life even for horrific crimes.

The debate over capital punishment today is mostly a debate over the legality of the procedure or procedures.  Some high profile cases always pop up showing how ineffective (and occasionally biased) the system can be. How many prisoners have been wrongly convicted by a bent jury and weak defense? Famously Northwestern University reviewed a handful of cases and managed to get many guilty verdicts overturned on an appeal. Many contained forced confessions, some hinged on inconsistent eye witness testimony or had false forensic evidence. Every time a case gets overturned and a convicted man or woman released I feel a pang of sadness that such an injustice occurred. I also get a sense that something fundamental needs to change in the court system.

 First Principles doesn’t pretend to know how to fix every situation but understand the tendency to get offenders off the street and put future victims at risk.

 If your argument is we can’t execute because they might be innocent, you aren’t arguing against having a death penalty just applying it in questionable cases. I believe in capital punishment because life is sacred. That might sound odd so let me phrase it like this: Protecting the innocent trumps saving the guilty. Societies that value life have a moral obligation to uphold justice for innocents killed. An element of “Let the punishment fit the crime” exists in some form; this tit for tat motto is about proportionality. Its purpose is justice and doesn’t consider reform or deterrence. Punishment is rooted in paying back what was taken, squaring the debt to society in accordance with principles of proportionality (retributive justice). Men who refuse to pay child support often have wages garnished. Thieves spend time in prison and speeders pay fines, both punishments are proportional to the crime. We wouldn’t put someone with outstanding parking fees in jail for 20 years.

Many Christians like to quote the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill” as a biblical rebuke to capital punishment. But the text isn’t referring to judicial or governing bodies, only individuals. The word “kill” isn’t about a punishment only a crime. No one complains when a deadbeat dad is sued and the court orders he pay money owed from future wages. In other words no one says when the court takes the man’s money “Though shalt not steal” although ‘stealing’ is exactly what taking earned wages means.  Most people understand the courts exist to seek justice and taking wages fits the crime. Some courts even award punitive damages on top of the amount being requested. Talk about stealing huh? The state (expressed through the courts) exists as a mechanism for applying law, punishing the guilty and seeking justice for victims.

Capital punishment as a tool of the state is under assault from drug makers.

 Manufacturers have started refusing to sell the 3 execution drugs involved in lethal injections on principle. Just this last week Arkansas tried to move up the execution schedule since the drugs used to execute will expire at the end of the month. The pharmaceutical company responsible (Pfizer) for the selling the drugs to Arkansas managed to get a federal judge to suspend the executions on the basis they were purchased under false pretenses. The company is probably responding to public pressure more than anything. This is still worrying because of the shift in attitudes among the public on lethal injection, if there really is a shift.

  

The point here is that anti-capital punishment advocates are finding clever ways to stop executions going forward. Pressuring pharmaceutical companies to stop selling the deadly mixes and using courts to issue injunctions are some of the latest tactics. Their adherence to principle is admirable but consider the philosophical ramifications of not putting murderous criminals to death when most every part of the law hinges on the ‘eye for an eye’ principle. Life gets devalued.

The rights of the guilty overtake justice for the innocent.

Life in prison is not an acceptable alternative to death. It doesn’t matter if the life in prison comes with hard labor and difficult circumstances. The toughness or ease of the sentence is beside the point. Societies should value life and the inherent blessing it represents. Taking one means losing another.

Whatever problems exist in the courts the death penalty needs to remain a viable method of punishment for murderers. Justice is often slow and fraught with error and imperfection but if we throw out capital punishment we lose the ability to correctly apply the law as it was established for the worst offenders.

  

ESPN and Sportishness

The stakes aren’t very high in sports so give my little rant here the attention it deserves by not taking it too serious.

 I miss the days when ESPN used to record the hour long Sportscenter coverage of the previous day’s scores and highlights. If you caught the first half and missed the second it would repeat every hour from 6 a.m. till noon. It gave viewers memorable sound bites and clipped highlights in a tidy package. It told America what happened in a clever and fun way; they introduced witty anchors and memorable lines, like the late Stewart Scott’s “Cooler than the other side of the Pillow.” Now we have what? I don’t even know what to call it, sportishness?

The network’s main course is still sports but now includes a mixed helping of politics, star power and talk show antics.

I should probably explain that I am not talking about the live sports they cover, the Monday Night Football segment and all the basketball games are great. Kirk Herbstreit on college football is superb, as are Dick Vitale and Jay Bilas for basketball.  Daily ESPN is like network soaps and talk shows, colorful characters and opinionated talking heads. One of their morning shows, First Take, encourages 3 guys to argue over a given topic. Each gets a short segment of time and occasionally uses it to blast another’s point of view. It’s more ‘talk friendly’ and works with the overall transition to hot take scripts that nearly every program before the 6 o’clock news follows. SportsNation, another hot take show, uses mic’d up audience feedback heavy on the “WOOAHs!” and “OOOOHs!” that Talk Soup made popular decades ago. These aren’t terrible shows and when you realize sports is entertainment the move toward personalities and gimmicks makes sense.

They just resemble the rest of the daytime television landscape instead of rising above it.

I don’t fault the executives at ESPN for wanting to change direction. Few companies have the boldness and intuition to cast aside a winning formula and head into the digital unknown. ESPN is avant garde in this way. Sportscenter went from a recorded morning news roundup to a live one in 2008. That was huge because it meant they needed to create new content for 6 hours every day. That was the beginning of this shift away from sensible today-in-sports broadcasting to a hodgepodge of Twitter posts, gossipy did-you-see-what-So and So (insert star name) wore trolling. Again, this is sports so the level of outrage is tempered by its entertainment nature.

Today’s version is heavy on opinion and light on reporting.

They have to fill up time somehow though. A cable channel that needs to get new material out for 12 hours a day every day should get a break on a few of the shows. They can’t all be Emmy winners right? Whatever the quality, a certain progressive political fiber runs like a thread through nearly every studio show. Not that every personality or journalist thinks like an editor of Mother Jones but the presentation of events suggests the network has Leftist sympathies. During the Missouri football team so-called strike last year the journalists’ covered the team like they were civil rights pioneers. Some of the players didn’t like the way the university president was handling complaints of racist incidents. The tone was very what-does-this-mean-for-athletes-in-America and unfairly portrayed a tolerant school into a place where bigots find refuge. ESPN didn’t say this of course but the reporting on it as a serious issue of our time was too much for me.

I don’t like the athlete profiles they do either. The productions are better than magazine covers for promoting star image. Uglier parts of their life get airbrushed or ignored. Not that stars should be criticized or dragged through the mud but neither should they be presented in an unflinchingly positive light. Journalists should always worry about their closeness with people, places and things they are covering.

For all my criticism of the new daily format ESPN trains their on air talent well. They had a formula for news and reporting that everyone seemed to like though. Go back to the recorded morning schedule and get back to sports news. 

Get rid of the sportishness.