Whether the year was more naughty than nice is debatable, but the naughty part surely got everyone's attention, with sex scandals rocking the worlds of journalism, sports, entertainment, and politics just to name a few. Several once-respected news media types fell from grace, from prominence, and from our TV screens and editorial pages. Bill O'Reilly, Charlie Rose, Matt Laurer, and Garrison Keillor were among those who disappeared from view in the wake of copious allegations, and please check out last week's column for a partial list of the politicians whose careers terminated abruptly. Although the O'Reilly episode may have predated it by a few months, the whole mess really took on a head of steam and roared down the track with the entertainment world, namely Harvey Weinstein, and the rotten apples are still falling off the trees from the production side and the performing side, and it seems that each day brings a new revelation of some sordid behavior from the past - and not always the distant past. Of course, few people are actually surprised at the disclosures for it has long been speculated that the casting couch and those broken hearts for each light on Broadway were not merely fodder for cliché. There have been admissions or accusations of many sorts of perverted behavior, and, at the risk of repeating ourselves, the biggest scandal is perhaps the multiple comments from Hollywood that "we all knew" the carrying on that was being carried on. Yep, we will believe that they all knew, and also that almost all of them that did know kept their mouths shut, likely out of fear for terminating their own careers or fear of some other form of retaliation.
2017 may not be remembered as the weirdest, most upside-down year on record but, as the man supposedly once said, it might be in the top ten. From the raging tempest over the size of the crowd on Inauguration Day to the House having to revote on its tax cut because it contained a couple of minor provisions that could not be passed by the Senate due to its rules, this year topped a lot of them.
Whether the year was more naughty than nice is debatable, but the naughty part surely got everyone's attention, with sex scandals rocking the worlds of journalism, sports, entertainment, and politics just to name a few. Several once-respected news media types fell from grace, from prominence, and from our TV screens and editorial pages. Bill O'Reilly, Charlie Rose, Matt Laurer, and Garrison Keillor were among those who disappeared from view in the wake of copious allegations, and please check out last week's column for a partial list of the politicians whose careers terminated abruptly. Although the O'Reilly episode may have predated it by a few months, the whole mess really took on a head of steam and roared down the track with the entertainment world, namely Harvey Weinstein, and the rotten apples are still falling off the trees from the production side and the performing side, and it seems that each day brings a new revelation of some sordid behavior from the past - and not always the distant past. Of course, few people are actually surprised at the disclosures for it has long been speculated that the casting couch and those broken hearts for each light on Broadway were not merely fodder for cliché. There have been admissions or accusations of many sorts of perverted behavior, and, at the risk of repeating ourselves, the biggest scandal is perhaps the multiple comments from Hollywood that "we all knew" the carrying on that was being carried on. Yep, we will believe that they all knew, and also that almost all of them that did know kept their mouths shut, likely out of fear for terminating their own careers or fear of some other form of retaliation. By John Shaffer After doing well in the special elections since President Trump’s inauguration, the Republicans lost a big one on Tuesday, dropping a Senate seat in Alabama, which is a state that Mr. Trump carried by about 28% last November, Two differences – Mr. Trump was not on the ballot, and neither was Hillary Clinton, so almost by definition the Republicans had a harder row to hoe and the Democrats an easier one. Republicans lost because of who was on the ballot, Roy Moore. This seat was won by Jeff Sessions in 2014 in an uncontested walkover – the Democrats didn’t even nominate anyone to run against him. Last year, Republican Senator Richard Shelby was re-elected with 1.3 million votes to 737,000 for his Democratic opponent. Last night, Democrat Doug Jones with 671,000 votes defeated Republican Roy Moore, who had 650,000. Yes, the losing Democrat last year received more votes than the winning Democrat this year, and the winning Republican last year received about as many votes as both candidates combined this year. In other words, Republicans normally would be expected to have won that seat, and the fact that they did not should provide a serious “wake-up call” to the party.
The nominated candidate, Roy Moore, was a “movement” conservative, and his opponent a left-leaning liberal, and normally that spells a win for the Republican in Alabama, but this time it did not. Mr. Moore was dogged by accusations that 38 years ago as a rising young attorney in his early 30s, he asked several girls in the 16-18 year old range out on dates; and perhaps took some liberties (or tried to) with one who was perhaps as young as 14. The national party first was against Mr. Moore, who unseated the establishment candidate in the primary, and then was lukewarm toward him. It turned against him when the accusations began to grow in number and intensity, and the party slid back into supporting him near the end, but it was not enough. The Democrats could smell victory, and they poured heavy resources into the race, and helped by the circumstances of Moore’s primary victory (which split the party), and the distressing accusations made about him, and the heavy play those accusations received in the national and statewide press, Mr. Moore had an uphill fight in a race in which a Republican normally would coast to victory. But after taking everything into account, a majority of the Alabama voters could not bring themselves to vote for Moore. Many voters didn’t vote for the liberal Jones, either, and there were appreciable write-in votes for other Republicans – which siphoned votes from Moore, but a great many voters, normally expected to vote for the Republican, stayed home. Their disgust over the nominated candidate outweighed their dislike of the political views of the Democrat candidate, but they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for either of them. President Trump, although he had endorsed Mr. Moore’s primary opponent, went heavy for Moore, but even his appeal was not enough to sway the election. BY JOHN SHAFFER The “Olympic ideals” of sportsmanship are admired by everyone but there are certain times that the rules don’t apply to everyone. At least that’s what we thought, because Russia/the former Soviet Union, Cuba, and most of the former East Block satellite countries got away with things that the countries of the free world could not. We particularly objected to the sham of “amateurism” that permitted the athletes of Communist countries to complete as amateurs, even though they were for all practical purposes employees of the state and professionals in all but name. We also objected to the rigged rules that always seemed to provide medals to East Bloc athletes at the expense of deserving Americans. We specifically recall the infamous 1972 Olympics, where the Russian basketball team won the gold medal, thanks to blatant cheating; or pole vaulter Bob Seagren’s treatment, also in 1972, that conspired to prevent a fair shot at a medal. We could go on, but the East German swim team in 1976 had to be the most outrageous example. Pumped full of performance-enhancing drugs, those swimmers shattered records and won a ton of medals.
BY JOHN SHAFFER There is a tug-of-war going on over the Chairmanship of the Consumer Financial Protection Board. The director, Richard Corday, resigned and passed the agency onto his assistant, Leandra English. The law that created the CFPB allows that sort of thing, but it has never been tested in the courts; and it is very likely that the Constitution does not allow a federal agency to establish an inherited leadership (similar to say, North Korea). President Trump appointed an Acting Director shortly after Mr. Corday appointed Ms. English as Acting Director, and therein lies the tug-of-war: two directors aiming to grasp the same reins. So far, the courts have decided in the President’s favor, as has the General Counsel for the agency itself. It may be noteworthy to point out that Mr. Corday had never been confirmed by the Senate as Director; he was a recess appointment by President Obama. The idea of an unconfirmed director passing the agency over to the control of someone of his choosing sure sounds unconstitutional to us; we wonder how many times a transfer like that could take place – merely passing it on without Presidential appointment nor Senate confirmation. Of course, we know why Ms. English wants the job so badly, the agency has massive power to dragoon settlements out of financial institutions and compel them to pay the fines to various progressive groups.
BY JOHN SHAFFER The list of prominent men accused of some type of sexual harassment lengthens daily, and involves politicians of both parties, celebrities in the movie and music business, TV journalists, at least two former Presidents, and who knows who will be next. The charges range from unwanted attention to aggressive behavior to assault.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the current spate of accusations is the treatment of former President Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton has been stoutly defended by almost every member of the mainstream media against all the charges for over twenty years – but the shock of the Harvey Weinstein case and the accusations against Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore have made it extremely tricky for Mr. Clinton’s defenders to keep defending him, lest they sound too selective and hypocritical. After all, when the man you have championed has done worse things and more of them over a longer period of time than the person you want to attack, something has to give. Even Hillary Clinton has acknowledged (perhaps unwittingly) that had Fox News been around when his scandals broke, her husband probably would not have been elected. As to Roy Moore – it certainly appears that he dated, or tried to date, girls 18 years of age or less when he was past 30 – not in and of itself illegal, but creepy nonetheless. Of course, such instances took place 40 years ago, and we are free to speculate that his accusers must have known that he held the position of state judge in Alabama as well as other lesser offices, and yet never brought such charges to light. Again, we easily can question the truth of a charge so old; that does not mean it is untrue, but it is curious why it would never be brought forth during the first 40 years of a man’s public career, and Mr. Moore’s candidacy in a US Senate race makes the scandal not only more juicy, but also raises the stakes for both Mr. Moore and his accusers. BY JOHN SHAFFER Off-year elections have generally been unfavorable to the party holding the White House, and this year underlined that point in blue ink – as in blue for the Democrat “blue states.” Republicans lost the governorship of New Jersey and failed to win that of Virginia, and took a thumping in the Virginia state house elections, losing at least 15 seats and putting control of the state house of Delegates in jeopardy. Republicans also lost seats in the Georgia legislature and lost a seat in Washington, flipping control of that body to the Democrats. The one bright spot was a victory in a special election for a US House seat in Utah that had been held by Republican Jason Chaffetz, who resigned earlier this year. As one might suspect, if the best thing one can say about his party’s performance is that it managed to hold one safe seat, it wasn’t a very good night for your party.
On the other hand, the Democrats had a great night, and hope to build on that momentum in next year’s Congressional elections. As noted, the party holding the White House has not fared well in recent mid-term elections, and typically loses Congressional and Senate seats, some times in substantial numbers. The Republicans got wiped out in the Senate races in 1958, which set the stage for a long period of Democratic control; and we all know about how bad the “Watergate” election of 1974 was for the Republicans. The Democrats lost control of the US House in the 1994 elections for the first time since Eisenhower was elected in 1952. (The Republicans lost control of the house in Ike’s first mid-term election and didn’t regain it until Bill Clinton’s first midterm in 1994. The Republicans lost that majority in George W. Bush’s second midterm in 2006; President Obama had a majority until he lost it in the midterm election of 2010, and the Democrats are hoping to continue that pattern by retaking the House in the 2018 midterm. The Republicans didn’t win control of the House in the 1966 midterm when Lyndon Johnson was President, but they did gain 47 seats. So history is not on the side of the Republicans in 2018, and there are many reasons beyond the typical “election cycle” stories. BY JOHN SHAFFER A few weeks ago Bowe Bergdahl entered a guilty plea to charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. You remember Bergdahl – the US soldier who sent his valuables away and took an unauthorized walk away from his base in Afghanistan back in June 2009, and within a few hours was captured by the Taliban. Over the next few months, at least five videos of Bergdahl were released by the Taliban, and the Obama administration began negotiations to secure his release. By May of 2014, the Administration was successful – it pried Bergdahl out of the clutches of the Taliban, and all it cost was the release of five Taliban “generals” who had been in US custody at Guantanamo Bay. Oh – we forgot to mention that within hours of Bergdahl’s initial disappearance, perceptive critics smelled a rat, and, what do you know, those suspicions were well-founded. A lot of evidence points to the likelihood that Bergdahl attempted to defect to the enemy, and that he may even have provided them information that placed other US soldiers at risk. At the very least, some were placed at risk searching for him or trying to rescue him, and the other soldiers in his unit universally thought that he was a defector. President Obama, in a Rose Garden ceremony, didn’t bring any of those unpleasant facts to light, and apparently thought that he would be lionized for repatriating Bergdahl. Actually, public opinion, though initially sympathetic to Bergdahl, soon came to pretty negative toward him, believing he was, at least originally, attempting to aid the enemy in some fashion.
BY JOHN SHAFFER A 3-judge panel from the US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland,dedicated to 49 US soldiers from Prince George’s County Maryland who lost their lives in the First World War (you may remember, that’s the one we fought to “make the world safe for democracy”) should be removed because it violates the “establishment” clause of the US Constitution. That’s in the First Amendment, and states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. What the Founders meant was that America should not have a State Religion. In the past 70 years or so, that clause has been interpreted as forbidding governments from essentially any mention or invocation of religion. Well, reasonable people can disagree over the correct interpretation of the law and the Constitution, but you may wonder what is so offensive about said World War I monument? The monument, it happens, is in the shape of a cross, and not just any cross, but a "Latin Cross," which the Judges’ opinion states “is the core symbol of Christianity.”
BY JOHN SHAFFER President Trump has released some details of his tax reform plan, and there is something in it for everyone to like – and to dislike. But let's not bog down in the minutiae of the plan, or issue hysterical warnings about how it will destroy someone’s fortune or business or pet project. Instead let’s start at what a tax system should be. Obviously, the purpose of a tax should be to raise revenue so the government can do the tasks set before it. Well, there’s our first problem – because there is a huge disagreement over what the government’s business properly should be; and beyond that, there is disagreement over how much money government should spend on any of that proper business. To the "big government" people any reduction in spending is seen as “cutting to the bone.” Furthermore, any tax cut is perceived as a “tax cut for the wealthy.” The small government people may favor cuts for the sake of cuts rather than for efficiency or fairness. The progressive left will never get behind a movement to reduce the cost of government (except for military spending), nor will they support tax cuts. But think of this: Our government has racked up over $20 trillion of debts. If the need for revenue is reduced, the amount of taxes paid also could be reduced. Therefore, does it not make sense to spend wisely and prudently? To discourage cheating or fraud? To use the tax code as a means for collecting revenue rather than as a tool for directing behavior, punishing something we don’t like or rewarding something we do? The key to fairness in the tax code is that it should be neutral, in the sense that it treats everyone and everything alike. Tax breaks or favors for this or that group or function may be good for those special interests, but may be harmful to the general interest. All this long introduction leads us to these basic points: The simpler a tax system is, the less costly it is to comply with it. The less money government spends, the less money it needs to collect. The more prudent and frugal government is, the less revenue it requires. The fewer favors, breaks and loopholes a tax system has, the fairer it is for everyone. The less favoritism government bestows on any given interest (through subsidies, tax breaks, favorable treatment or special considerations), the fairer the system will be. Rather than the mere dollars allegedly raised or saved through anyone’s tax plan, or the potential positive or negative effects a plan may have on this group or another one, let’s look instead at the plan from the perspective of the points listed above. That will tell us if it “promotes the general welfare,” as the Constitution ordains, or instead rewards someone’s friends or punishes his enemies. Let’s use the tax code for what the Constitution says it should do.
BY JOHN SHAFFER The “kneeling” movement continues, and each few days brings a different development. The National Football League traditions, conventions and guidelines state that players shall stand on the sidelines for the National Anthem, helmets at their sides. That worked only so long as everyone did it. As soon as a few players used the anthem as the focus of a social or political protest, the powers that be let convention and tradition slide, in favor of granting those players the freedom to make a statement. There actually is nothing ironic about league officials allowing people to use the symbol of freedom and liberty as a demonstration of their freedom and liberty. We do not have a police state and we do not compel patriotism, and another one of our traditions is to “live and let live.” We prize our freedom and don’t want to see it curtailed. And those who objected to the “kneelers” did not advocate they be arrested or imprisoned, only that they realize the full significance of their protests and reflect on the positive side of America rather than on the negative. The claim that America is oppressive is disproven every time someone protests the flag and experiences no legal penalties – or even fears none. Try to protest a national symbol in one of the many nations in the world that truly is oppressive and one will quickly learn how “un-oppressive” America is. Our objections to the objectors do not aim to coerce or demand, but to persuade or explain: we want the protestors fully to understand the freedom that they possess, and to show to our national symbols the proper respect – if not out of patriotism, then out of simple courtesy to the massive majority who devotes a scant minute or two of their time to honoring America. Remember, this is what the stadium announcers say: “And now, to honor America, please rise and join in the national anthem.” The announcers do not say, “and now, to honor our president,” or to support a policy, but to “honor America.” The protestors know this full well – that is why they are, if we may use the term, dis-honoring America by protesting during the anthem.
Among those developments: the National Basketball Association has declared that its players must stand for the anthem; the National Football League, finally, has decided to promote a policy of standing; and the Stanley Cup champion Pittsburgh Penguins of the National Hockey League enthusiastically visited the White House. It was scant weeks ago that the NBA champion Golden State Warriors debated whether or not they would and promptly were disinvited by President Trump. Another big development was that Vice President Mike Pence left the game in Indianapolis in reaction to several members of the San Francisco 49ers kneeling during the anthem. The progressive left went berserk over the Vice President’s actions, but, if the people who protest are allowed to make a point, so too are those who disagree with them; and that point is not limited to standing respectfully for the anthem. Oh sure, the Vice President might have stayed and said “I am not going to let six or seven players protesting against America spoil an event where about 70,000 are supporting it.” Or he might have said, “the protestors are doing this to make a point. The most effective response would be to ignore them – to deny them the attention they crave, and not to let them disrupt our enjoyment or to assail our patriotism.” Yes, he could have ignored them, but sometimes it is important to take a stand – a belief the kneelers apparently share – and the Vice President did indeed make his point, and it is this: in our free country, we do not arrest those who peacefully protest or who disagree with the majority or who express unpopular opinions, but just as they have the right to say we are wrong, so we have the right to say they are wrong; and sometimes that is the best course of action. The kneeling phenomenon has inspired a lot of comment and opinion and drawn up many historical comparisons. The one we think is among the most heart-warming took place in April of 1976, when two men tried to burn an American flag in left field at Dodger Stadium during a baseball game. Chicago Cubs outfielder Rick Monday ran from his position, snatched the flag before it could be burned, thus thwarting the protests. He truly stood up for America. Rick Monday realized that our flag is not “just a piece of cloth” but is a representation of America, and of all those who have contributed to its greatness. America, and what it stands for, deserves to be respected. Rick Monday did not stand idly by when our flag was being defaced. He did not slam into the protestors or pummel them with his fists – he simply whisked the flag to safety. Rick Monday says “what they were doing was wrong,” and he did something about it. Vice President Pence’s action can be seen as the appropriate equivalent – what the protestors are doing is wrong, and he did something about it. And, coincidentally or not, the NFL reformulated its “flag ceremony policy” only after the Vice President walked out of that stadium. BY JOHN SHAFFER Right at the start, let’s note that the number of kneelers in the National Football League this week was only about a third of what it was last week. There could well be many reasons for this. It could be that some of last week’s protestors believe they have made their point and did not have to make it a second time; it may be that the backlash from fans and TV viewers compelled some of the kneelers to have second thoughts. There were some who may not have understood that families of fallen military people and many others saw the protest as an insult to the America their loved ones died for, and thus an insult to their memories. Last week we touched on the viewpoint of some supporters of the “National Anthem kneelers", who believe that the protests are “true patriotism” and are not disrespectful. We disagreed, and would like to explain why. In the first place, the purpose of taking a knee is not to elevate America, but to protest it, to show its flaws. It is a demonstration of the kneelers believing that America is somehow unworthy of their respect.
And yet, almost universally, the "kneelers" are upset when they are accused of lacking patriotism. "How dare you question my patriotism?" they ask. Gee…that's not hard to figure out. No one "questioned their patriotism" until they refused to stand for the national anthem or took a knee in front of the flag. They want to be seen as patriots, even when they do disrespectful things; Our memory is long enough to remember many times that members of America’s intellectual establishment criticized those who say the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the National Anthem as "flag wavers," or "false patriots." BY JOHN SHAFFER A long, long time ago, during the third Presidential Debate last year, Donald Trump was asked if he would accept the results of the election. He responded by saying things such as “I’ll keep you in suspense,” or “I’ll accept it if I win.” His remarks were met with almost universal disapproval across the political spectrum. Of course, we never will know if he would have accepted the results if he had lost, because – he won. Hillary Clinton most emphatic critics of Mr. Trump’s comment, saying it was “horrifying.” Well, here we are, about ten months later, and Mrs. Clinton her self has told an interviewer that she might challenge the election, even though there is no Constitutional means to do so. And, although Mrs. Clinton did concede, she has hardly let a day go by without finding some platform for denouncing the President, calling the legitimacy of his win into question, or supporting “the resistance” to President Trump in some form. The people who screamed the loudest over Mr. Trump’s remarks have been silent over Mrs. Clinton’s. Heck, none of them have even given her a gentle tut-tut or a wrist slap. Mr. Trump justified his concerns by speculating that the system could be “rigged” or that there were millions of illegal votes cast for Mrs. Clinton; Mrs. Clinton justifies her concerns by claiming the the President conspired or colluded with Russia to thwart her candidacy.
By John Shaffer Last year NFL player Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the National Anthem, because, he said, of America’s racism and the deaths of blacks at the hands of police. We believed, then and now, that his protest was based on a false premise- that the number of such deaths was very small and, in fact, most of them were “line of duty” type incidents, in which the victim actually committed a crime, resisted police, attempted to seize an officer’s weapon, or approached a police officer in a threatening manner. In any case, policemen in America are almost exclusively local, and even assuming the worst, a handful of violent racist officers should not be used to taint the vast majority of good, honest policemen; and why Mr. Kaepernick decided that “America” should be represented by the negative rather than the positive is something he has yet to explain.
Yes, we disagreed with Mr. Kaepernick’s protest, although he surely has the right to protest. A handful of other football players joined in, a few singers, and others, but the number was still pretty small until this past week, after President Trump called out the protestors in impolite language. That statement was like the crack in a levee, because this past weekend nearly 200 NFL players “took a knee,” stayed in the locker room, or otherwise protested the Anthem. The Dallas Cowboys, united with their owner Jerry Jones, linked arms and “took a knee” prior to the National Anthem, although all of them did stand for the Anthem. The protests have inspired folks to come out in support of the kneelers, and also to oppose them, and that turmoil of conflicting view points has always been part of life in America. We do have the right to “take a knee,” but that also means that those who don’t like “taking a knee” can freely express that viewpoint as well. BY JOHN SHAFFER This Monday was the sixteenth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001. We all should know the story: Radical Islamic terrorists hijacked aircraft, which they used as weapons in an attempt to destroy America. Unfortunately, and though it defies belief, many people seem not to know the story. The radical left has long believed that America, and not the terrorists, were responsible for the attacks. For the record, most of the progressive left use the word “terrorist” to describe entities such as the US government, Congress, the Republican Party, the President (when he is a Republican), Big Business or the Military. They will almost never use it to refer to actual terrorists (except for one instance, which we will explain below). Similarly, they use the word “Nazi” to mean anybody who holds a political belief anywhere to the progressive’s own right. We think it is pretty accurate to make the supposition that if the progressive left calls someone a terrorist or a Nazi, that he actually is neither; this says more about the progressive left than about Nazis or terrorists.
But although it may be disappointing or even distressing that there are Americans who believe that America “had it coming” on 9-11, it is truly dangerous that there are Americans who refuse to treat radical Islamic terrorism as the threat it is. There are a great many people, including our previous President and most of the senior members of his administration, who, even as they fought them, refused to utter the term “radical Islamic terrorist” to describe the enemy. Why won’t they use the terminology? Because, they say, its use fortifies claims that America is hostile to Islam; and drives people to oppose us and even to become terrorists. We say, in response, that anyone who takes up the mantle of terrorism because someone calls an Islamic terrorist an Islamic terrorist was pretty far along the path to radicalism to begin with. And, despite the fact that the 9-11 hijackers were almost exclusively upper middle class, wealthy, well-educated, even professionals, from prominent families, there is a belief out there that it is poverty and Western prejudice that breed terrorists. (Please note that is the time we referred to above, one time the progressive left feels free to use the term “terrorist” to describe actual terrorists: when they can accuse a Western nation or society of doing something that causes people to become terrorists.) BY JOHN SHAFFER We got to thinking about some of the ways that things have changed in the last few years, at least in the eyes of the major news media outlets:
During the Obama years: athletes who said they would not visit the White House were attacked by the media as racists or reactionaries During the Trump presidency: athletes who said they would not visit the White House are held up as heroes During the Obama years: We are admonished to have understanding and empathy for violent criminals During the Trump presidency: We dare not forgive men who have been dead for over 100 years. During the Obama years: if a radical Jihadi committed a violent act, we were cautioned not to use it to judge all other members of that group. During the Trump presidency: If a neo-Nazi crashes a car and kills a woman, everyone with any non-Progressive opinions is considered to be guilty of the crime. During the Obama years: Nancy Pelosi never mentioned Confederate statuary in the Capitol During the Trump presidency: Nancy Pelosi demands that the Republicans remove the Confederate Statuary in the Capitol |
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|