hartland

Resolutions 2012

2011-12-31T05:55:00.000-08:00

As we enter 2012, let us as a nation commit ourselves to two resolutions. First, we will bring our troops home from Europe. And second, we will not support any more undeclared wars.

I've written extensively before about removing our military out of Europe. Our troops no longer serve a clearly defined purpose by standing guard in Germany, Spain and Italy. World War II ended in 1945 and the Cold War ended in the late 1980s. European countries - if they will just make the commitment - are capable of funding and manning their own armies. Why should we allow them to freeload on our dollar by depending on American soldiers stationed on European soil?

We are currently pumping billions of dollars annually into the European economy. First we pay the host countries for the privilege of protecting them. And then, US troops help those host countries by spending their paychecks in local European stores, restaurants and bars.

If we would bring these men and women home, we could first of all stop paying rent. And secondly, we could help our own economy with our own money. US bases would need to be built and/or expanded, creating construction jobs in our own country. And then, US businesses around those bases would prosper as service personnel spend their paychecks in US bars, cafes and movie houses.

Surely, in these desperate economic times, finally bringing our troops home from Europe makes sense. Let us use a larger portion of our taxpayer funded defense budget to help US businesses and to create US jobs.

The second resolution is, in many ways, related to the first. Many do not realize that World War II was our last declared war. Those wars we fought since - in Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East, to name just a few locations - were undeclared wars. As a result, we often had a lack of support, both in government and on the home front, and our troops and veterans often suffered as a consequence.

Surely, if we ask a young military man or women to die for us on the battlefield, it is not too much to ask that they do so in a declared war. The next time our president - whether it be Obama or his successor - finds himself in an armed confrontation overseas, let us demand that he go before congress and request a formal declaration of war. It will help keep our future military conflicts to a more manageable number and it will help to cement our commitment, both to the war and to our troops.

Primary Season - 2012

2011-12-02T05:59:00.000-08:00

We are about to enter the 2012 primary season. The action will, of course, center on the Republicans who must decide which of the numerous competitors will go against President Barack Obama. The Democrats obviously have their candidate. I am not one of those who believe that Hillary Clinton will challenge Obama this time around. She has her eye on 2016.

About a month from now, Iowa will hold its primary, followed shortly by New Hampshire and then by South Carolina. By the end of January, when Florida holds its primary, I believe we will have chosen the Republican nominee. The later primaries will mainly be campaign opportunities for the lead Republican to make his talking points, issue his sound bites and strengthen his attacks on Obama.

Like most, I believe the nominee will be Mitt Romney. The process has already culled the pack down to two candidates, even before the first primary vote has been cast, with Newt Gingrich being the last viable challenge to Romney. The anti-Romney Republicans have already run through the other challengers and found them all deficient, or at least not electable. Michele Bachman had her moment, and then faded into the background. Rick Perry became fodder for late night talk show hosts with his mangled memory and dissipated message. And Herman Cain's sexual past caught up with him and pushed his 9-9-9 mantra into obscurity.

As for the others: Ron Paul has some excellent libertarian ideas, but has never been able to expand his followers much beyond a few hundred thousand, hard core Paulites. Jon Huntsman, who has a reputation for being personable and intelligent, was unfairly held back by his religion. Huntsman, like Romney, is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and let us be perfectly frank for a moment. Much of the anti-Romney crowd near sightedly objects to having a Mormon in the White House. So, the likelihood that select group would turn to Huntsman is non-existent.

The only other candidate with his head (barely) above water is Rick Santorum. His campaign simply never caught fire, or the attention of Republican voters.

Gingrich, like Cain, has his own problems when it comes to women and reputation, and they are serious enough to keep him from being the Republican nominee. However, I don't believe they will keep him from being second on the ticket. If I had to make a prediction now, I would say that we will see a Romney-Gingrich Republican ticket in the national election.

This will actually be a strong ticket. Once he is officially the nominee, Romney will be seen as being pragmatic, which most independent voters will like, rather than being moderate, which conservatives disliked. Gingrich, on the other hand, has many good ideas, such as utilizing Lean Sigma Six principles to make the federal government more efficient and less costly. He is capable of articulating his ideas well and is known as a solid debater.

Time of War

2011-07-18T06:29:00.000-07:00

Two recent incidents have caused me to fear that our commander in chief has forgotten our current international situation. Under President Obama's watch, two successful and effective officers have been removed from their assignments under interesting, if not downright stupid, conditions.

The most recent incident concerned Capt. Robert Gamberg, executive officer of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69). For those of you who don't know, "executive officer" is the number two position on a ship, the second in command. It is an extremely important assignment aboard ship.

And what was the reason for Gamberg's dismissal? Cowardice in the face of the enemy? Mistreatment of his subordinates? No. He was removed from his post for an "inappropriate relationship with a woman soldier when both were married." Not a woman sailor under his command, mind you, but a woman in an entirely different branch of the service.

And what evidence was presented for this relationship? Emails. Not even steamy, passionate emails that used colorful euphemisms for certain body parts either, but ones that spoke of Gamberg's love for the soldier who, he stated, was an "amazing woman."

This comes on the heels of Capt. Owen Honors being removed as commanding officer of the USS Enterprise (CV-65). By all accounts, Honors was an extremely effective and well liked officer. But, while he was serving as the Enterprise's executive officer, he "co-produced and starred in shipboard video skits that used sometimes racy content to make messages - such as the importance of conserving water - resonate with the crew." In other words, he attempted to use occasionally spicy humor to help the people under his care learn some very important lessons.

Now, I'm not saying that either Gamberg or Honors used the best of judgment. Neither demonstrated good common sense and that is a commodity certainly called for in an effective executive or commanding officer. But folks, we are at war! To be more exact, we are involved in three deadly conflicts in the Middle East. The admiralty and their boss, the president, need to make their decisions based on military need, not on the whims of political correctness.

Obama already bears the burden of a president who has never spent a single day in the military. The public recognizes that he never faced the rigors of boot camp or the horrors of combat. He needs to recognize that deficiency himself and be especially certain that military decisions are made for military reasons and not for political ones.

Is The Stimulus Working?

2011-07-11T05:36:00.000-07:00

Back when I was a reporter for a Kansas daily newspaper, I heard a word of advise that goes something like this: If you have both the liberals and conservatives mad at you, you're probably doing something right. So, maybe I'm about to do something right.

Figures have been released by the White House's Council of Economic Advisers concerning the Economic Impact of the American Recovery Act of 2009. It seems that, to date, the stimulus package has cost us $666.3 billion and has added or saved 2.4 million jobs. As Jeffery H. Anderson of The Weekly Standard has pointed out in a recent editorial, that means that each job cost taxpayers $278,000.

His primary inference is, of course, that liberals are incorrect in their belief that public money pumped into the economy will result in economic recovery and more jobs, or that, in the least, they are incorrect in the belief that these desired results can be accomplish in an economically feasible way. And, in these conclusions, Anderson is standing on pretty stable ground. Money poured into inefficient bank and factory bailouts, and into pork barrel public work projects is generally not money well spent.

However, his secondary inference, that the stimulus money should instead have gone into tax relief, is extremely shaky when one looks at the Seventh Quarterly Report itself. A quick study of the document reveals that a figure approaching half ($288.8 billion) of the stimulus did go to tax relief for individuals and businesses.

Of the remaining money, $126.1 billion went to individual states, $89.5 billion went to unemployed individuals and $161.9 billion went to public works.

If I may comment briefly on these last expenditures: the majority of the money going to the states was most likely spent on public education since this expense constitutes the majority of state budgets. In my own state of Kansas, public education, including public colleges and universities, consumes about 2/3 of the state budget. This was likely money well spent. No matter how you feel about public education, certainly you can agree that further cuts into already diminishing school budgets can do nothing but harm our children's education.

Likewise, the money going to unemployed individuals was needed. I do, however, strongly believe that any long term unemployment relief needs to be linked to training and, possibly at times, to relocation of individuals. A person laid off from an outdated profession and living in an economically depressed area needs to train for a new profession and move to a better area and, if necessary, public investment in these endeavors is, at times, certainly needed.

The $161.9 billion going to public works is a bit more controversial. I fear that way too much of it went to "bridge to nowhere" projects that did little more than soak up public funds and create temporary employment for a few lucky individuals. I understand that an obscenely small amount actually went to highway and bridge construction and repair, which was the great example put forth by politicians trying to sell the stimulus package to the taxpayers. I have long supported public works as long as they are for truly needed projects (such as highways) and go to areas of the country where they are actually needed. In other words, not just to areas represented by powerful senators and congressmen. I have also long supported one massive, and much needed, public work project: the construction of a coast-to-coast smart grid for our electrical needs. This project would save energy, create jobs and, if built correctly, create free or inexpensive internet access for nearly all Americans.

Catch Up Time

2011-03-25T07:17:00.000-07:00

I have woefully neglected my Hartland blog, in favor of my other blog, and so, in order to catch up, I'd like to offer a quick trio of observations and opinions. Three subjects have recently caught my attention. They are: (1) the recent legislative attacks on teacher's benefits, (2) the Japanese nuclear power plant crisis and (3) the NATO military attack on Muammar Gaddafi's forces in Libya.

There has long been an underlining jealousy on the public's part when it comes to teachers' working conditions. John and Suzy Q. Public have tended to believe that public school teachers have it too good with their summer vacations, regular pay raises and job security. Thus far, this jealousy has manifested itself as a demand for longer school days and extended school calendars. This "more work for the same pay" mentality has diminished somewhat recently as shrinking state budgets have necessitated smaller school budgets and, in many cases, shorter school years. However, the public (and by extension, their elected representatives on the various school boards and legislatures) have now instead focused their attention on eliminating teachers' tenured job security and regular pay increases. There has been floated around the widespread belief that somehow, if both tenure and regular pay increases are eliminated, the various boards and administrators will be free to fire whomever they wish, at any time they wish, and thus improve the quality of the instructors in the classroom.

There is, however, a big flaw in this thinking. In times of diminishing state education funds - such as we are experiencing now - administrators and boards will not necessarily "keep the best and fire the rest." The more experienced teachers are generally the more expensive teachers and those in power will tend to "fire the experienced and keep the inexperienced" (and cheaper) instructors.

One needs to keep in mind, also, that young people often enter the teaching profession recognizing that they will not make a great deal of money, but will instead have a degree of security when it comes to their jobs and their regular (albeit small) pay raises. If these benefits are eliminated, these same young people will choose other professions. After all, many if not most, will have student loans to pay off when they finish college and they will gravitate to other professions that offer more money and/or a regular and secure pay check.

It has been said that eliminating pay scales - such as those found at most public schools - that reward only education and experience keep the best instructors from receiving the wages they deserve. To those people, I have only one question: what do you believe the best teacher in your school should be paid? Ask that question to the next person you hear spouting platitudes about the need for elimination of tenure and current public school pay scales. I'm sure the answer will be interesting and illuminating.

As I've long said, you can offer 12 hour shifts at minimum wage to teachers and you will get someone to stand in front of your classroom and try to instruct. But, I'm not sure that will be the type and quality of person you want teaching your children.

On a different subject, the recent earthquake caused nuclear disaster in Japan cannot help but give one pause. As with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, it appears that nuclear power's cost can easily exceed its benefits. I believe that the world's current state of technology is simply not up to the task of guaranteeing safety when it comes to nuclear power plants. That time is coming, and probably coming fairly soon, but until then the U.S. is much better off drilling for oil - a procedure that needs to be greatly expanded - and utilizing our massive coal reserves.

As for the United States' part in NATO's attack on Gaddafi's forces: I believe we need a quick clarification of goals on the part of our president. If we are trying to eliminate Gaddafit's reign, then we are obviously doing too little. If we are trying to maintain something resembling neutrality in what is obviously a civil war, then we are doing far too much. Maintaining a "no fly zone" by military means is an act of war and, in my opinion, should require a declaration of war by congress. A little explanation by President Obama is called for. Just what are we trying to accomplish in Libya? From where I stand, it certainly appears that we are devoting our rapidly diminishing national treasure and risking American lives in order to involve ourselves in a third undeclared war in the Middle East.

Oil in the Gulf

2010-07-23T06:24:00.000-07:00

It has now been three months since the explosion at the British Petroleum oil rig that killed 11 men and sent millions of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. At the moment, the ruptured pipeline is capped, for a temporary solution, and relief wells are being drilled for a permanent end to the environmental and economic disaster. Hopefully, we will see no more clouds of methane and unrefined oil pouring into the water.

According to my personal observations, it appears that the efforts to cap the well and stop the flow of oil have thus far been a massive case of "making it up as you go along." There were obviously few, if any, concrete plan Bs to implement should - as happened - the blowout preventer fail to function properly on a ruptured deepwater oil pipe. The responsible parties are just now where they should have been before such an accident happened on a deepwater oil rig. Both BP and the US federal government should have had both technology and disaster plans "at the ready" prior to the April 20 explosion at the Deepwater Horizon offshore installation.

Much has been made of President Obama attempts to temporarily suspend deepwater drilling. But, I don't see that he has much choice. Until both the federal government and petroleum companies can demonstrate that they can effectively handle future accidents, continuing such operations would be illogical.

Rocky Mountain Highs and Lows

2010-07-08T08:12:00.001-07:00

I just returned from a short vacation in the Colorado mountains with my family and it was great. But, as with most worthwhile experiences in life, it was bitter sweet. At this stage in our family life, there was always present the nagging thought that this could well be the last vacation all three of our children spend together with us. We have one child in college, one married and living back East, and one a senior in high school. Consequently, at least my wife and I were aware that this journey to the mountains could be the final link in a long chain of family outings that have included trips to Las Vegas, Disney World, Carlsbad Caverns and the Texas Coast.

If the movie "National Lampoon's Vacation" is any indication - and I believe that it is - there is a commonality to such family trips. There is always the unrealistic and unfulfilled expectations, the inevitable arguments, the little (and sometimes not so little) disasters and, let's face it, the sometimes inhumane experience of sharing mile after mile of open highway in a small car filled with your family. Still, I am reminded of a 1967 song by the Tremeloes entitled, "Even the Bad Times are Good." I always end the vacation experience feeling blessed and thankful for every moment.

This trip was especially interesting for me. I grew up in the Southwest and spent a goodly amount of my youth in the Rocky Mountains. However, I have lived on the Kansas prairies for 24 years now and I have changed because of the time spent on level ground. Still, it was not until I made this trip to Colorado that I realized just what a flat lander I had become. I had heard fellow Kansans speak of a claustrophobic feeling associated with being in the mountains, surrounded by trees so thick that you couldn't fully see the sky, but I had never given it much credence until this trip.

The woods can be especially unsettling at night, when the evening chill and near total darkness surround you. As you sit there in the dark, you can easily realize the thoughts of your prehistoric forefathers, as they gathered around their campfire, surrounded by their dogs and kinsmen, and wondered what sort of creatures were wandering out there in the shadows, just beyond the firelight.

Needless to say, as we drove back and hit the prairies of eastern Colorado and western Kansas, I was happy to once again see grasslands and wheat fields stretching to the horizon. I was glad to fully feel the sun on my face and to fully see the sky. It was good to be home.

Google vs. China.

2010-04-02T06:29:00.000-07:00

We salute Google's principled stance against the People's Republic of China. The world largest search engine, Google had long struggled with China's communist government over issues of censorship and the free flow of information, as well as possible attempts on the government's part to breach security on the Gmail accounts of some suspected dissidents. Finally having enough of the government's heavy handed policies, Google, on March 22, 2010, began diverting its Google China searches to Google Hong Kong. By international treaty, Hong Kong enjoys a much higher degree of freedom - including on the Internet - than does Mainland China.

The response of the Chinese government was almost immediate. By March 30, all Mainland Chinese searches on Google had been banned.

There have those who have commented that Google has overestimated its importance. And, while that is certainly possible in regards to the individual company, Google has not overestimated the importance of the Internet. For all its problems and potentially dangerous possibilities, the Internet is proving to be a vehicle for free expression and a conduit for information. The power of all governments - including that of China - is going to be diminished somewhat by the Internet, but individual freedom and rights will ultimately be strengthened.

National Educational Standards (Guess what? They're already here)

2010-03-17T07:37:00.000-07:00

I am no great fan of national educational standards, whereby a combination of Washington bureaucrats and elected officials dictate what public schools in Elko, Nevada or Jackson Hole, Wyoming teach their students. I shutter when I imagine the sort of politically correct, clap trap social studies that would be sold as "truth" to our local schools and forced into our youngsters' minds. Such matters should, as directed by the 10th amendment to the US constitution, be left up to the individual states. However, if our national government does ever venture upon that dark mine field of national standards, I hope those in charge have the common sense to realize they need not spend billions of tax payers' dollars trying create new standards out of whole cloth. Such standards not only already exist but are actually in place and working well.

President Obama has announced his desire to see Congress change the much criticized, Bush-era national education program known as No Child Left Behind. And goodness knows, it needs changing if not thrown out altogether. NCLB dictates standardized testing and state-created standards, primarily for reading and mathematics. A standardized, and annually increasing, level of student proficiency must be demonstrated by a state's students in order to receive federal funds. In this era of bankrupt state budgets, requiring action in order to receive federal money is almost the equivalent of a government mandate. Most cash-starved states would require their students to dress as circus clowns and learn Irish step dancing if it meant more federal money.

The most obvious criticism of NCLB centers on the dictate that 100 percent of students must demonstrate proficiency by 2014. Try as you might, 100 percent of students cannot be taught to tie their own shoes, much less demonstrate proficiency in math and reading and if that is the law, then (to quote Charles Dickens) "the law is a ass."

Obama's proposed changes would require schools to demonstrate "progress" on standards rather than be judged solely on "meeting" standards. However, from what I've read, these new standards would still be those created by individual states. Still, there have been recommendations that these state standards be replaced by national standards. If that should ever come about, I would advise those in power to look into using two national standards already in place: namely, the GED and the US Citizenship Test.

The General Educational Development test was designed by the American Council for Education and offers a General Equivalency Diploma to people who successfully pass a battery of five tests. Originally created to help those GIs who entered World War II military service before obtaining a high school diploma, the GED is now used primarily for non military high school drop outs, although it is used at times for other non-completers such as immigrants or home schoolers. The five tests cover writing, social sciences, science, reading and mathematics. What could be a better national standard than requiring high school graduates to demonstrate the knowledge required of a drop out to obtain a GED?

Likewise so with the US Citizenship Test. This test, administered and created by US Citizenship and Immigration Services, is a requirement for most immigrants seeking naturalized US citizenship. The test covers the basics of US history and government and would offer a fine national standard for high school graduates. Just as with the GED, surely US high school graduates should have the same knowledge of their own country that is required of immigrants seeking citizenship.

Require these two standards of graduating high schoolers and you have the makings of a sound, basic education. Supplement them with practical skills such as nutrition and healthy living, as well as much needed day to day economic skills, such as balancing a checkbook and staying out of debt, and you have a practical education. Supplement this with a healthy dose of technology, critical thinking and decision making and you have the makings of a modern education.

Finally, supplement all this with an abbreviated reading list taken from the Great Books curriculum of St. John's College and you have a fine education indeed. One that the rest of the world would envy.

The Argument for Public Education.

2009-12-08T08:41:00.000-08:00

I have taken Liberals to task numerous times in this blog. But, I believe that it is now time to do the same for Conservatives, especially those who do fail to recognize the need for the proper funding of a vital segment of our infrastructure: namely, education. As I have argued before, we are now in a world economy, one that requires a highly educated and innovative population in order to compete. And that my friends - of all political persuasions - requires an immediate and generous investment in public education. Private education is simply not up to the monumental task of bringing our children up to 21st century standards and of handling the massive job of training, and continually retraining, American workers.

In my own state of Kansas, extensive funding cuts have reduced K-12 student funding to 2006 levels. Projections hold that additional expected cuts will soon reduce funding to levels last seen in the 1990s. This, of course, does not tell the whole sad story since it does not adjust for inflation or allow for the additional burden of unfunded national mandates, and it sure as heck doesn't allow for the evergrowing, and increasingly important, need to teach 21st century skills such as problem solving, critical thinking and modern technology.

Our state has already cut services to the bone - both in education and in other state services. Additional cuts will cause real harm to real people. Consequently, additional revenue must be found and that will take courage on the part of our legislators.

Personally, I favor an increase in sales tax. That is the only funding source that I know of that will pull in money from out of state. When any visitor stops in Kansas to purchase a tank of gas or a Happy Meal, he will be contributing to the Kansas Education Fund.

By the way, I also favor something similar on a national level by doing away with the Federal Income Tax and replacing it with a National Sales Tax. That way, visitors to the United States can likewise contribute to maintaining our country's security and protection. But that, of course, is another editorial.

The Need for Modern Infrastructure

2009-11-21T04:57:00.000-08:00

Readers of this blog know that I believe in federal and state investment in infrastructure and that I include in this grouping two items often left out: namely education and broadband access to the Internet. Today I would like to briefly comment on the potential for the latter.

First of all, I believe that if taxpayer money is to be spent on stimulating jobs (and I, unlike many center-right conservatives, do believe in such investment) then it should be spent on projects that are truly needed and on those projects most likely to produce a future benefit. These projects should also be located where they are most needed. In other words, such money should not be directed by political patronage, but instead directed where it can be objectively shown to produce the most benefit to the United States and its citizens.

One possible infrastructure project that has been explored by Wired Magazine is the production of a "Smart Grid" that would make our electrical distribution system more efficient, thereby saving huge amounts of money, energy and fuel. Such a system, again as advocated by Wired, could follow along the existing Interstate Highway system to minimize expenses and to allow for easy access for construction, upgrade and repair. This would be similar to the old idea of placing telegraph lines along train routes.

Such placement of a grid system might not, at first glance, seem as efficient as cutting through the country side and building a system that follows more direct paths from Point A (the power company) to Point B (the individual home or business). However, the federal and state governments already have access - both physically and legally - to land along the highways, so such an approach should be vastly cheaper and quicker to establish.

I would advocate that we not only use this new Smart Grid system to better distribute electrical power, but also to broaden access to the Internet. We need to have free, or at least inexpensive, broadband access for everyone in the U.S. and this new power grid system might just be the way. The FCC has been exploring the potential of Broadband over Power Lines (BPL), a system that would offer Internet access to anyone who has access to an electrical outlet. Any school that has a donated modem and computer, any business that invested in a computer system, any teenager that saved his dollars for a computer kit from Radio Shack, would have access to a world wide and ever expanding economic system.

Just as broadcast radio once opened up minds and wallets in the 1920s, and just as broadcast television did the same in the 1950s, a coast to coast broadband system could entertain, educate and potentialize. The American entrepreneur spirit could be rekindled by allowing everyone to be a potential online entrepreneur.

Ft. Hood

2009-11-20T03:26:00.000-08:00

When you join the military, you know that there is always the possibility you will be killed in the line of duty. But, you expect that death to be at the hands of a foreign enemy. You don't expect to be killed by a comrade in arms, by a man wearing the same uniform as you.

If your mind harbors any inkling of that dark possibility - as you stand there swearing to support and defend the United States Constitution - you believe that it will be in a tragic case of accidental friendly fire.

The recent slaughter at Ft. Hood was not that. It was instead the shameful act of a fanatic, a coward, a terrorist and a disgrace to his uniform. Maj. Malik Nada Hasan opened fire on his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, as well as on civilian workers, who were attempting to help the military carry out its goal of protecting the country.

Hasan may well face the death penalty for his shameful crimes. Or he may spend the rest of his life in federal prison, being housed and fed by the same Americans he attempted to kill. Either way, as long as he lives, may his name be treated with contempt whenever military personnel and veterans gather to celebrate Veteran's Day and to salute those who died honorably for their country, including those - military and civilian - who died on November 5. For Hasan committed one of the most shameful acts a soldier can commit; he fired on his fellow soldiers.

I'll reserve judgment for the moment on whether there are others - politicians and upper echelon military officers - whose names should be added to Hasan's, people who prized political correctness and diversity above the lives of our brave soldiers.

The Greatest Generation?

2009-07-06T06:58:00.000-07:00

Former US Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara has died. I hope that he rests in peace and that God has mercy on his soul. However, while he was alive, he certainly made some interesting choices, some of which had disastrous results.

Heralded as the "architect of the Vietnam War" under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, McNamara attempted to win a conflict without really waging war and without applying the lessons he should have learned from World War II and the Korean War. He oversaw America's escalation in Vietnam from less than 1,000 advisers to more than 500,000 troops, and then limited the tactics of those troops. He also helped coordinate what was then the most massive bombing campaign in history, but then severely restricted the approved targets for those bombing raids. As a former officer in the WWII Army Air Corp, he should have known better. Perhaps, worst of all, he and his cohorts (namely, Kennedy and Johnson) refused to listen to their own military leaders who advised from the start that you had to move decisively against North Vietnam, that you couldn't just attempt to pacify South Vietnam and hope for a Korean War-type settlement, complete with a divided country and armed troops staring at each other across a demilitarized zone.

In spite of these hobbles placed upon the US military, hobbles that needlessly cost massive casualties, the troops still managed to win every major battle during the Vietnam War. They then saw their sacrifices go for naught because US political leaders failed to learn important lessons from earlier conflicts. Namely, they didn't learn that a military victory was only the first stage of a true victory; you then needed to also build a foreign government that was capable of governing and protecting itself. Until this latter part was completed, you had to keep combat troops on the ground even if it meant a commitment of decades, if not generations. Such were the lessons of World War II and the Korean War, lessons that our political leaders of the Vietnam War failed to apply.

Much has been made about the generation of Americans that endured the Great Depression and fought World War II. Journalist and writer Tom Brokaw has dubbed them the "Greatest Generation." And admittedly, that generation certainly showed grit, determination and fighting ability. However, it must be pointed out that the men who led our country to victory in World War II were not members of the Greatest Generation, but rather members of the earlier Victorian Generation. The truly great leaders - Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and (if you wish to add a half-American) Winston Churchill - came from that earlier generation. When the so-called Greatest Generation ultimately came to power, they largely dropped the ball when it came to waging war. They failed to lead us to victory. Among these I would include John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and, yes, Robert McNamara.

A Wait and See Week.

2009-07-01T09:35:00.000-07:00

By all appearances, this has not been a great week for Republicans. A potential Republican presidential candidate self-destructed, a liberal judge appears destined for the Supreme Court and another Democrat is headed for the US Senate. However, I would argue that we are actually in a better position than we were previously, as long as we stick to our guns and don't lose our composure.

First of all, the loss of South Carolina's Republican Governor Mark Sanford as a possible 2012 presidential candidate was not earth shaking. Let's be realistic, until he was caught with an Argentine mistress, he was not all that well known. His weakness for the South American woman has been good material for late night talk show hosts, but happening this early in the present administration's term, it will probably harm no one but Sanford and his family. * It will be a non issue by November 2012 simply because the governor will now not be a presidential candidate. Thus, the toll on the Republican party's chances of regaining the White House will be nil. That would not have been the case if the mistress had suddenly appeared in the middle of a Sanford campaign, say in July 2012. Then, the disclosure could have damaged other Republican candidates as well as the Republic Party itself. It's good that this particular time bomb went off when it did - long before it could do some serious collateral damage.

Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor still appears headed for the Supreme Court (see my editorial of May 26, 2009). It doesn't appear that she was damaged by being overturned on the New Haven firefighters case by the very court she wishes to join. The Supreme Court wisely sided with the Caucasian firefighters who wished to be judged on their demonstrated abilities, rather than on their race. Senate Republicans need to make their case against Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings, supporting the principal that she can't seem to grasp: that racism is still racism even if it's called "affirmative action."

In the end, of course, Sotomayor will be confirmed. The Democrats simply have too many votes to stop the confirmation. But, the Republicans can still go on record as the party that seeks a color blind society and opposes any nominee, of any color or gender, who believes otherwise.

That, of course, brings us to Al Franken. After a lengthy court battle between himself and Republican Norm Coleman, Franken will now be the junior senator from Minnesota and the 60th Democratic vote in the Senate. ** This, of course, effectively eliminates the possibility of a Republican filibuster during this session. But, let's face it folks, the Republicans' chances of effectively forging a filibuster against 59 Democrats were not significantly greater than against 60. There is simply too much space between the stances of the moderates and the conservatives in the Republican party for them to stand that united, even against the opposition party. And, at least this way, neither the Democrats nor the voting public can reasonably blame the Republicans if any of the Democrats' proposals, laws or regulations bring about a worsening of our nation's troubles. The Democrats must now deal with the axiom that states: "if you break it, you own it."

I am not one of those Republicans who secretly hope that the Democrats fail, even if it means damaging our country. However, I am confident that voters in the 2010 and 2012 elections will see huge federal budget deficits, a struggling economy and a tense foreign scene. And the Democrats must now take both the blame and the credit, to be parcelled out as the voters see fit.

____________________________________________________________________

*Let's give credit where credit is due. Some of the jokes about Sandford have been hilarious. I especially got a laugh out of Craig Ferguson's comment that "Oh, great! Now we're outsourcing mistresses" and Conan O'Brien's observation that "That's strange, since Republicans have historically not done well with Hispanic women."

**Due to a somewhat unique party system in Minnesota, Franken actually belongs to the Democratic Farmer Labor party. However, the Minnesota party is affiliated with the national Democratic party.

Up in Smoke.

2009-06-20T05:42:00.000-07:00

President Obama has just signed a bill into law that will give the Federal Drug Administration power over tobacco. The new law will allow the agency to regulate and restrict cigarette advertising, sales and contents.

The law is probably a good thing, but I seriously doubt that it will accomplish much. It will probably lead the FDA to attempt restricting tar and nicotine in tobacco products. This will likely lead to battles, with the tobacco industry trying to lobby their friends in congress and ultimately dragging the FDA into court. In other words, the law - like most government measures - will prove to be far more expensive and far less effective than originally thought. The taxpayer will have to foot the bill. And ultimately little of substance will be accomplished.

Although the agency will now have the power, I doubt that the FDA will expend much effort in restricting substances added to cigarettes. Everything from ammonia to oak chips has been know to be added and some of the substances contain powerful carcinogens. And I would be surprised if the FDA will concern itself with contemporary curing techniques for tobacco. At least one study maintains that speeding up the process by heating the tobacco, which I understand is a widespread procedure in tobacco processing nowadays, creates some extremely deadly carcinogens. This replaces the old process whereby tobacco was allowed to simply dry in the barns.

A possible alternative to FDA regulation would be to outlaw tobacco altogether. This would probably cut down on smoking, but would also add another drug to the already long list of illegal drugs. Nicotine addicts - AKA smokers - would still be purchasing tobacco products, only now it would be from the local drug dealer instead of the local drug store.

It would, however, eliminate one strange phenomena: cash subsidies to tobacco farmers. There's an old axiom that states, "If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, then tax it." When it comes to tobacco, the US federal government does both.

I believe I have a better idea than either offering more power to another federal agency or putting people in jail for smoking cigarettes. The bill would basically outlaw the sale of tobacco, but would allow citizens to smoke anything they grow themselves. In other words, it would be a "you grow it, you smoke it" bill. You can smoke all the tobacco you want, as long as you grow it yourself. However, you can't sell the surplus crop. You can give it away, but you can't barter or accept money for it.

This would accomplish several things. (1) It would likely cut down on tobacco use. Getting a cigarette would no longer be as easy as walking down to the local convenience store. (2) It would put the tobacco industry out of business, thus eliminating their substantial lobbying power. And (3) It would eliminate the need for subsidies to tobacco farmers. After all, who is going to bother farming a crop they can't sell. The taxpayers would no longer be seeing their hard earned money go to subsidize lung cancer.

Nearly as important, the move would not give more power to the federal government, cost more taxpayer money, or create a whole new class of criminals in the form of tobacco users.

Perhaps more controversially, I would also extend this bill to cover marijuana. Just as with tobacco, the policy would be: you grow it, you smoke it. Procession would not be illegal. Smoking would not be illegal. But don't get caught by your local police trying to sell your product. To do so would be to face a hefty fine. Get caught enough times and you could do 90 days in your local jail: in other words, strong enough measures to discourage sales, but not self-defeating measures that would fill our prisons with long-term felons.

I recognize that the devil is often in the details and that there would be unforeseen consequences. But, I believe that a "grow your own, but no sales" tobacco/marijuana policy would ultimately do far more good, and save far more taxpayer money, than federal oversight, subsidization or outright prohibition.

Sadness in Sin City

2009-06-11T06:27:00.000-07:00

If you look long enough at anything you'll sooner or later find a sad element. Whether the subject be fictional, non-fictional or biographical, sufficient examination will always yield the truism that part of the human condition is sadness. However, when the object of your research is Las Vegas, you don't need to look very long at all to find that element. For one thing, you're continually surrounded by people who foolishly believe that gambling is a means of increasing their income instead of just another form of entertainment. People who would never expect an evening on the town - complete with dinner and a show - to put money in their wallet will, for some reason, lay their paycheck down on a card table in hopes of striking it rich.

I became aware of another thought-provoking, and potentially sad, possibility during a recent visit to Vegas. In between sessions on a video poker machine, I had to visit the little gambler's room. (Okay, I'm being too cute here. I had to use the rest room). Standing there at a urinal, I noticed a Filipino custodian, walking down the row of porcelain receptacles, retrieving soggy cigarette butts and scrubbing away with a brush. Now, my father was a custodian for a good part of his life and I personally have custodial experience. But, both my father and I had jobs that included cleaning tasks outside the rest room. We at least got to spend part of our shifts vacuuming office floors and sweeping hallways. This man's entire working world lay within the confines of that casino bathroom. I thought at the time, what a sad existence that must be, spending your working life cleaning up other people's excretions.

Now, I recognize that the cleaning man may not have been sad at all. I've learned that a great deal of life enjoyment is a matter of attitude and serotonin. And I realize that in comparison to the improverished life he and his family may have left behind in the Philippines, this job might not be bad at all. But still, I couldn't help but think that if indeed America is moving away from a manufacturing-based economy, bypassing an information-based economy, and heading towards a service-based economy, then I've seen the future and it sucks.

If you leave the casino (and the restrooms) and walk the streets, you'll quickly see that the creative architecture and expansive neon up above overshadow an often grimy world down below. There are traffic jams and car accidents on the streets; there are hustlers and panhandlers on the sidewalks - all elements found in any major city, but writ large by the exploitative nature of Las Vegas.

Vegas lets people behave in ways they never would back home. That's part of its draw and charm. But it seems to have an especially strange effect on some young women. It inflames their desire to exhibit themselves. They parade around in dresses cut low enough to show more areola than discretion and short enough to show their Brazilian wax job. I'm not talking about pole dancers, cocktail waitresses and prostitutes - their selection of dress makes perfect sense. They're showing their bodies for money. The more skin on display, the higher their tips. But I'm talking about the "civilians," young women who leave their offices and college classrooms, travel to Vegas and immediately walk the streets and visit the lounges in costumes that would look at home on a Frederick's of Hollywood manikin. On top of it all, they travel those sidewalks in stiletto heels. I would think that adds an element of actual pain to the journey. It's arch straining and back breaking enough to walk the miles between casinos in running shoes.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm glad those women are out there. They're beautiful to look at. But, I wonder about their motivation. They're not out to actually get laid. Then their dress and behavior would, like those of the strippers, make perfect sense. Instead, they're aiming to feel sexy without having sex. They're actually competing against their scantily-clad sisters and they're keeping score by seeing how many men they can frustrate and how many free drinks they can con out of those men.

I'm not exactly sure what this all means, but I don't believe that it's terribly healthy. And I can't help but believe that there's a sad element to the girls' behavior.

Vegas

2009-06-10T13:33:00.000-07:00

When you relate stories that happened before your time, or at least happened beyond your own experience, one often needs to rely a bit on legend. Legends are funny things. They often tell more about the human condition than about a particular event. They are often historically inaccurate but usually contain an element of truth. Such is the legend of Las Vegas's mobster days.

And here's how it goes. Once upon a time, organized crime ran the city's gambling industry. A visionary named Benjamin "Bugsy" Segal, representing the Sicilian Mafia, saw the potential of casinos and hotels in the Nevada desert. Segal (who, by the way was Jewish, not Sicilian) built the Flamingo Hotel and Casino on what would one day become the Las Vegas Strip. Segal didn't live to see his dream fulfilled. It seems that he had enemies, some of whom shot him dead in a friend's Beverly Hills home in 1947. However, the mob stayed on after Segal's demise, building more casinos and hotels and generally establishing a tourist economy that converted a small desert town into a thriving, cosmopolitan city.

Now I have no idea just how comprehensive the Mafia's control actually was over the local gambling industry, either on the Strip or downtown on Fremont Street. But I seriously doubt that, even in the mob's hay day, it was total and complete. The gangsters had to deal with returning G.I.s, running on high octane testosterone after kicking butt on the Germans and Japanese, as well as local vested political and law enforcement offices that had been handling criminals since the relatively recent frontier days when an offending outsider often found himself at the wrong end of a rope.

In addition, the mob had to continually deal with non-Mafia "business men," such as Benny Binion, a Texas gambler and casino owner who had personally killed at least two men and had probably helped kill several others before ever moving his operations to Nevada. Such men had a bad habit of not being intimated by eastern mobsters with vowel-ladened names or by anyone else.

None the less, the legend maintains that the Mafiosos controlled at least most of the Las Vegas casinos back in the day and that they did a pretty good job. They made huge profits, paid huge taxes, hired a virtual army of employees and, in general, proved to be good business men. In return for their contributions to the local economy, they were largely left alone as long as they treated the tourists well, kept petty crime out of the area and kept their portion of the city clean and safe.

Such were the golden days of Las Vegas, an era that, for all intents and purposes, lasted until Howard Hughes and his fellow representatives of Big Business gained control of the city and its casinos some time around the early 1970s. According to some Vegas visitors, the city has never been the same since. It has changed, and not for the better.

Leaving legend behind and drawing now upon my own experiences, I would have to say that the post-mob decline of the city must have been gradual. When I first visited Vegas in 1985, it was still a gambler's paradise and a tourist's Mecca. The casinos were exciting and well run, the rooms and food were cheap, and the streets were safe. You could walk from the Hacienda at the south end of the Strip to Foxy's Firehouse on the north and never encounter a panhandler, much less a purse snatcher or drug dealer.

I fell in love with the city and visited it three additional times through the coming years. And yes, things changed. Each time I returned the city had grown and the Strip had become more congested with hotels. The Hacienda was torn down for construction of Mandalay Bay. Foxy's burned down. Cheap buffets became harder to find, as did inexpensive beer and shrimp cocktails. Slot machines stopped paying off in coins and started paying off in slips of paper. Used playing cards, fresh from the blackjack and poker tables and which had previously been given away to hotel guests as souvenirs were now sold in the gift shops for a buck and a half.

There were other changes too. Panhandlers appeared on the streets as did an army of men handing out cards of nude women, advertising escort services. The sidewalks became dirtier as, I'm sad to say, did some of the casinos. Gang graffiti appeared on walls and even on casino symbols. The last time I visited, there was graffiti written across the stomach of the clown statue outside Circus Circus. In other words, the barbarians were no longer just at the gate; they were actually beginning to claim the Strip.

If you doubt that this sad process is still ongoing, I invite you to stand on a corner at the northern portion of the Strip and look to the west. Urban decay is encroaching.

Now, I'm not foolish enough to be nostalgic for a time when organized crime controlled anything, including Las Vegas casinos. Mobsters were not people to be idolized. They were ruthless and violent. But damn, I can't help but wonder what the Strip would look like if they were still in control. Would the panhandlers be forced to move along? Would the escort service advertisers be persuaded to find a less intrusive way to peddle their wares?

There is, of course, a far better way to clean up the Strip, or at least the streets and sidewalks of the Strip than to ask the mobsters to return. Surely, the hotel and casino owners and the Las Vegas city fathers can unite on an effort to return the area to some semblance of yesterday. More police in the streets and foot patrols on the sidewalks would be a good start.

If not, the already declining tourist trade will accelerate in its downward spiral. What the current economic situation has already started will become the norm. The Strip will not likely disappear, but the area's profitability will certainly drop. Las Vegas is no longer the only game in town. There is legalized gambling now across the country and Mr. and Mrs. America need only travel to their local Indian reservation to lay their money down. They are already inclined to stay in their home state because of economics and they certainly will do so if they find the streets of their old vacation destination dirty, unsafe and crowded with panhandlers.

________________________________________________

Writer's note for those readers who might think that I've made a common mistake: I fully realize that technically most of the Strip lies not in Las Vegas, but rather in the unincorporated Clark County areas of Paradise and Winchester. However, in most people's minds - including mine - the Strip is part of Las Vegas and so my writings and ramblings reflect this widespread conceit.

Supreme Court Nominee.

2009-05-26T08:23:00.001-07:00

President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court cannot be a big surprise to anyone. Of the serious contenders for the position, she was the one who best fit Obama's criteria. In other words, she was the gender and ethnicity he was looking for this year.

If there were more Republicans in the senate, Obama might have gone for an easier win with a "safer" nominee such as Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. But, with 59 or 60 Democratic senators - depending on when or if Al Franken is eventually seated - Obama was confident enough to go with a slightly more controversial candidate. Face it, Gov. Granholm only fulfills two-thirds of the Democratic trifecta. She is female and at least moderately liberal. But she is so obviously Caucasian that she could be an advertisement for sun screen.

Besides, Granholm has said she did not want the court position, preferring instead to continue trying to help her troubled state as governor - a personal decision that, if true, is principled and perhaps even admirable.

Still, Sotomayor is all but assured a seat on the Supreme Court, which is worrisome since she has taken several judicial stances that are troubling. She believes that the federal government should interfere in labor-management conflicts that obviously don't threaten public safety (witness her ruling on the 1995 Baseball Strike) and she has issued at least one ruling against free speech (Avery Doninger V. Paula Schwartz).

But, her most troubling position has been in the case of New Haven Connecticut firefighters - several Caucasians and at least one Hispanic - who scored well on a promotion exam only to find the results thrown out because no Black, and few Hispanic, candidates had passed. Sotomayor appears to believe such a procedure is okay, leading one to believe that - in her mind - racism in the name of affirmative action is permissible.

A lot has been made about Sotomayor's hard childhood - diabetes, growing up in a Bronx housing project, losing her father at a young age - and indeed, Obama displayed the judge's challenging background at Tuesday's announcement, as though they were reasons for supporting her nomination. It has been my experience, however, that such factors only come into play when a candidate already shares the supporter's views. Clarence Thomas had a hard childhood, but liberals didn't hesitate to vote against his nomination. Bill Clinton had a hard childhood, but several Republicans still voted to impeach him.

How the Republican senators handle Sotomayor's confirmation hearing will tell us a lot about the party's future strategy. If the senators question her harshly, that means the party is playing to its conservative base. If, on the other hand, they treat the nominee with kid gloves, then the party has decided to place pragmatist over principle and play to Hispanics, hoping that they become a part of some future Republican coalition.

The True Face of the Republican Party.

2009-05-25T08:10:00.000-07:00

There is currently an ongoing contest for the newest representative face of the Republican Party. Right now there are two main contenders: Rush Limbaugh, representing the conservative, hard core values wing of the party, and Colin Powell, representing the moderate, big tent faction.

The race is, of course, not official. Michael Steele is the Chairman of the Republican National Committee and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. But, instead the competition is being played out in the media and on the blogosphere and has been pulling some big names into the debate. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance, has weighed on the Rush side. I have not heard anyone pipe up for Colin's side of the competition, but I'm sure there are many supporters out there somewhere.

The debate, of course, clouds three significance points. First, virtually all Republicans share some values with Powell and others with Limbaugh. Second, a terribly important wing of the party is missed in the debate. And third, and probably most significant, both Powell and Limbaugh have missed a vital fact: they are still debating 20th century issues while the world has moved into the 21st.

Very few Republicans (or, for that matter, Democrats) are whole-heartedly conservative or liberal, Limbaugh or Powell. Some members of the party, for instance, support abortion rights or affirmative action, while believing in free trade. Others, believe in protectionism in international trade, but believe that abortion is murder and/or affirmative action is a racist policy.

Many see the intelligence and logic behind the Powell doctrine of warfare. And many of those same people are offended by the former Secretary of States' approach to social issues.

Considering that "mix and match" approach to party politics, most Republicans would fail the litmus test of either Rush or Colin. Rush would likely frown upon those party members who see a difference between abortion in the first trimester and partial birth abortion in the third. Likewise, I can't imagine Powell taking kindly to anyone voicing the belief that racial preferences fail the "equal protection under the law" test of the constitution.

This, of course, leads me to my second point: the Libertarian wing of the Republican party is represented by neither Limbaugh nor Powell. Except for Ron Paul, this has been a neglected faction, one that is likely offended by at least some of the beliefs of both Rush and Colin. Limbaugh sees nothing wrong with imprisoning literally millions of drug offenders, while Powell quite obviously sees nothing wrong with the federal government telling employers who to hire and how much to pay them and encouraging public universities to drop color blind admissions policies.

Lastly, neither Limbaugh nor Powell seem to realize that the world has changed. International commerce now requires that Americans must be continually educated and retrained in order to compete on the world market and that requires a healthy dose of public education (a blind spot of Limbaugh). In the modern world, infrastructure is no longer limited to highways and bridges. It now means a readily accessible information highway and a highly trained work force.

Likewise, Powell believes the racial makeup of a school is more important than a meritocracy which ensures that the best and brightest are admitted. A level playing field does not necessarily mean equal representation in a college graduation class. But, it does mean offering the most capable and educated American employees to compete with foreign workers.

In summation, a debate over the "face" of the party may be a good mental exercise, just as disagreement over the party's platforms can be healthy. But, we all need to keep in mind that this particular debate may be most significant in what it reveals about the current state of the party and in what it neglects to address.

The Old Double Standard

2009-05-02T06:13:00.000-07:00

Hidden somewhere in the recent barrage of news stories about the Swine Flu drifting north from Mexico is a little noticed story about racial discrimination. It seems that New York Governor David A. Paterson has settled a discrimination case brought against him by a Caucasian staff photographer who claims he was fired two years ago so that Paterson could hired an African-American. This all took place when Paterson ousted Sen. Martin Connor as minority leader.

Paterson has maintained that it was all just "politics," that the white photographer was simply a hold over from the Connor administration who had to be replaced because he wasn't a member of the Paterson team. Race, Paterson claims, had nothing to do with it. However, he has agreed to use $300,000 of New York citizens' tax money to make the case go away.

Imagine the out roar if the races had been reversed, if Paterson had been white and the fired photographer black. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the national media would all be calling for Paterson's firing, if not for his imprisonment. It would be the lead story on nightly news broadcasts and the cover story on national news magazines. As it is, it has to be the most ignored story of the week.

A double standard is obviously in place and the mainstream media need to answer for it. Elected officials - whether they be white, black or any other conceivable color - are legally bound to not base their hiring decisions on race and the media are honor bound to give discrimination stories fair, objective and equal coverage.

Living Life Forward.

2009-04-16T08:34:00.000-07:00

Decades ago, when I was still a very young man and nearing the end of my high school days, an older acquaintance passed on a pearl of wisdom that I have often thought about through the years. He had recently been discharged from the Army and, realizing that I was about to graduate and was heading toward the Navy, was probably reflecting upon his own life.

"It's funny," he told me. "You're never really ready for an experience until after you've already experienced it. You don't really have the knowledge and maturity to make the most of it until it's over."

I remember he laughed a little then, and went on to explain. "When I graduated from high school, as I was sitting there through the graduation ceremony, I realized that I was just then ready to go through high school and make the most of it.

"The same thing happened when I got out of the Army. As I was putting on my uniform for the last time, so I could fly home, I knew that then I was finally ready to go through my military experience."

Of course, he went on to say, you can't live life that way. You have to enter high school as an inexperience freshman and you have to enter boot camp as a raw recruit. But he and I both - even as young as I was - fully realized the irony of the situation. You have to live life running forward, blind and naive. There are no second chances.

Since that moment, sitting in a kitchen and listening to one of the most significant lessons of my life, I have passed many mileposts and as I passed each one, I have always found that lesson to prove true. I have survived high school graduation, boot camp, military life, war, college, graduate school, numerous relationships, a dozen jobs and a half dozen professions - and I always knew at their conclusion that if I could only do it over again, I could do it right. This time I would avoid the pitfalls, make the right choices and cherish all the proper moments. This has especially become evident since I married and started raising our children. And it has especially hit home lately since my own son will graduate from high school in a month. Far more than happened with his older sister, and probably more than will happen with his younger sister, as I've helped my only son select a college and begin navigating the bureaucracy of higher education, I can't help but wonder where the years went. Yesterday we were making a tent in the living room out of sheets and chairs and today I'm advising him on college programs and scholarships.

But I guess that's all we can do. We can't live life over; not even a portion of it. But we can try to pass on our experience to the next generation and hope that somehow they find it useful when making their own decisions.

Whether at my job as a student advisor, or at home with my own children, I recognize the responsibility that places on all our shoulders. But I also realize the opportunity and the blessing.

The Beginning of the End ... Maybe.

2009-03-16T11:15:00.001-07:00

As I write this, the stock market is heading up for the fifth business day in a row. As with all Americans, I hope that this indicates we're finding a "bottom" to the recession. If such optimism proves true, then we need to immediately turn our collective attention to creating a balanced federal budget and eliminating our national debt. And let's see if we can do so before our children have to assume the obligation.

I would like to put out one idea to help pay for the national debt: a national lottery. Run much like various state lotteries across the country, a national lottery could be a creative solution to refilling our national coffers. It might even pull in a goodly amount of foreign money, as people in other countries send in their dollars for a chance at a multi-million dollar payoff.

Once you finish laughing, I hope that you will give this idea some serious thought. If, on second examination, you believe such a lottery might be a good idea, I encourage you to write your congressman. Who knows? We might actually start a national campaign.

I do, however, offer a word of caution. No plan, not even one as creative as a national lottery, will be successful if it's not preceded - or at least accompanied by - a balanced budget. Otherwise, it will just become another case of pouring good taxpayer money down a rat hole.

Returning for a moment to the current positive stock market numbers, I have to ask if the recent taxpayer bailouts of industry and banks helped the situation? Personally, I find it doubtful. I'm reminded of an old summer camp song that goes, "You push the damper in and you pull the damper out and the smoke goes up the chimney just the same."

I still believe that economies build from the bottom up, and not the top down. If people have money in their pockets, the economy will prosper. And federal bailouts of banks and industries do little, if anything, to put money in the common man's pocket. Indeed, they actually take money out.

To Save or Not to Save?

2009-03-14T06:00:00.000-07:00

There seems to be two very different streams of thought flowing from our current economic difficulties. One is perfectly logical and contains the seeds of long term economic recovery. The other does little more than guarantee years, if not decades, of further recession.

Economists have recently reported that Americans are once again saving. They are taking a portion of their paychecks and putting it away in banks or credit unions for that proverbial "rainy day" that suddenly seems very close at hand. The current rate of household savings is five percent, a large increase over recent years when the rate was hovering around (and sometimes falling below) zero.

Furthermore, some economists believe that this is not just a temporary reaction to harsh economic times, but rather a true paradigm shift. Much like our grandparents, who quickly and permanently became frugal when the Great Depression hit, contemporary Americans are changing their buying, savings and investment habits. Going into debt for some new luxury item has taken a back seat to building some sort of personal economic stability. They are (to borrow a phrase from Bob Dylan) creating a "firm foundation (for) when the winds of changes shift."

An opposing philosophy, however, has also emerged. This one maintains that the answer to America's economic problems is credit, credit and more credit. Americans, so says those espousing this latter belief, need only to go further into debt to right our economy. This thought, sadly, has been put forth by none other than our President. Barack Obama has chosen Elkhart, Indiana, with its 15-plus unemployment rate, as his personal symbol of struggling America. The mainstay of the Elkhart economy is (or at least was) the manufacture of recreation vehicles. When hard times hit, people logically stopped buying RVs. Suddenly, owning a huge, self propelled mobile home didn't seem so pressing.

Consequently, Obama has openly stated in speeches that American banks need to have federal, tax-payer supported bailouts so they can make more loans to people wishing to purchase RVs. To his mind, this equals economic recovery: Joe and Julie Jones in Austin, Texas take out a loan for an RV so that Bill and Jill Smith can keep their job in Elkhart manufacturing RVs.

The problem with this approach is, of course, what happens when Joe and Julie lose their jobs? Suddenly, they have no means of paying off the RV loan. They default and, if enough of their neighbors follow suit, their bank collapses. In the end, the RV factory in Elkhart closes anyway and Bill and Jill are once again unemployed. And, to make matters worse, neither family has savings to fall back on.

Trust me. I'm not an economist, but even I can see that borrowing money is not the proper solution. It's not the answer to our federal budget woes and it's certainly not the answer to our personal economic problems. Both the public and private sector will fare far better if everyone concerned lives within their means, saves a portion of their income and, beyond anything else, stays out of debt.

To Thine Own Self be True.

2009-01-26T06:34:00.000-08:00

In my last segment I wrote about a recent trip to a Kansas Job Corps training center and I would like now to take a moment to mull over the significance of one observation I made during that visit. Basically, I found that the vast majority of students at the center had chosen to pursue careers that would historically have placed them with their specific gender. In other words, at least on the day I visited, the construction trades classes were filled with male students and the health industry classes - where students trained to become Certified Nursing Assistants - were filled with women. There were exceptions. There was one man in the nursing class I visited. There was one woman in the security/law enforcement class. But, by and large, the students had headed themselves toward professions that were historically populated by their own sex.

If the Job Corps center is any indication (and I believe it is), then the sometimes frantic efforts of feminist policy makers have produced limited results. There are exceptions. I know for a fact that there are far more women doctors and lawyers than there were a generation or two ago. But, by and large, and despite liberal social pressure (also known as political correctness) and liberal policies and laws, women still gravitate toward historically female occupations, just as men tend to gravitate toward historically male occupations.

That is probably why feminists have recently concentrated on forcing employers to pay "equally" for "equivalent" jobs. To such policy makers' minds, a truck driver with three months training should be paid the same as a secretary with three months training. In other words, the market forces be damned. The fact that both the truck driver and the secretary are both free at any time to leave their respective professions and pursue the other's vocation is irrelevant.

This, of course, heralds the feminists' latest attempt at social engineering, as well as a change of tactics. They apparently believed, at one time, that the world would be a better place with more female truck drivers, cement workers and plumbers. (They didn't seem so concerned about there being more male teachers, librarians and nurses. But that is fodder for some future editorial). However, much to their collective disappointment, Rosie the Riveter proved to be largely a result of war time necessity and not a symbol for a new paradigm.

I know for a fact that many are not happy with this fact. A great deal of vocational training funds are contingent upon schools and training centers placing more and more trainees in "non-traditional" classes. The fact that when left to make their own choices, students chose not to pursue a feminist utopia, seems to be setting hard with many liberals.

In essence, choice is good. Government funded schools and training centers should be required to allow both girls and boys to pursue any profession they wish. However, when the students have made their choices, the schools should not be pressured to change the students' minds. This is basically the difference between the very American ideal of freedom and social engineering - where people are denied choice in some misguided effort to build a specific future.

Job Corps. A model for the future?

2009-01-24T05:20:00.000-08:00

This past week, myself and two other adult sponsors took a group of 15 small town high school students to the Flint Hills Job Corps Center, located near Manhattan, Kansas. It was an eye opening experience for our students. Coming from a small town, rural environment, they suddenly found themselves surrounded by a largely black, largely urban student body. Such experiences, I believe are good. You need to see the world outside your comfort zone and, I'm sure, an eye-opening trip to rural American would probably be likewise enlightening for many of the Job Corps students.

As for myself, I came away from the Center as an even stronger supporter of vocational training than I had been before. Dedicated to training 16 to 24 year old students for "high demand, high paying" employment, the Job Corps is trying to realistically fulfill a societal need for trained workers while also preparing young people for the outside world. The students are provided with free room and board, education and even a small amount of money. In exchange, the students are expected to mature into skilled, productive workers and citizens.

Does the Corps sometimes fail? You bet. Not all the students graduate. Some get into trouble along the way and are thrown out of the program, others simply don't have what it takes - in determination and/or intelligence - to complete their program. Such is life, I'm afraid - a hard learned lesson that most of us have seen or even experienced on our way to adulthood and gainful employment.

Also, I'm sure, the Job Corps sometimes gets it wrong in its pursuit of "high demand, high paying" jobs. No one has a crystal ball when trying to estimate tomorrow's job market and I'm sure that sometimes those in charge of the Job Corps find themselves training students for jobs that end up being neither high demand nor high paying and, perhaps, are even non-existent by the time the student is trained. I was happy to learn, however, that Job Corps is attempting to evolve, to weed out programs that no longer meet the proper criteria while, at the same time, developing new programs. For instance, an office skills program at the Flint Hills Center was recently discontinued. It's pure speculation on my part, but I imagine that the secretarial jobs the students were preparing for proved to be low paying and perhaps dead-ended.

So, at least at first glace, it appears the Job Corp administrators - at least those at the Kansas center - are trying to look at the world with a mature and realistic eye. You get rid of what doesn't work and try something new until you find something that does work - a rarity in the governmental world.

I can't help but wonder if the Job Corps wouldn't prove to be a good model for a larger training system, one that hopefully would help revive our faltering economy. It seems to me that a skilled work force would do far more to revitalize our national economy than anything resulting from the hundreds of billions of dollars that our federal government is pouring into banking and the auto industry.

The Obama administration wishes to expand unemployment benefits. But for whom? For laid off industrial workers waiting for jobs that have already disappeared and are not coming back. And for how long should the benefits be continued? Six months? A year? And then what for the still unemployed worker? A low skill, low paying job? Welfare? That seems to me to be a poor investment for tax payer money, as well as a poor investment of time on the part of the ex-worker.

How about instead linking unemployment benefits to training? The Job Corps typically trains a student from six months to two years and a similar investment for older, unemployed workers might seem to be a huge investment. But we need to ask ourselves about the end product. Under the current system, we end up with an underemployed worker with outdated skills. Under an expanded training program - based on a Job Corps model but intended for older workers - we would likely end up with a retrained worker, ready once again to be a productive employee, only this time with 21st century skills.

Such a move would not be without sacrifices on the part of the worker and his or her family. Unemployment benefits, even those continued for months or even years, will never be enough to keep up a mortgage or even a car payment. But under a training program - unlike the current system - the worker would end up being a trained, employable citizen.

We all need to think outside our comfort zone. Just like the rural students visiting an urban Job Corps center, we need to think outside our past experiences. We need to realize that economies work from the bottom up and that, rather than pouring an obscene amount of tax payer money down the banking and industrial rat holes, we would do far better training our unemployed workers for the 21st century.

Appointment by Race.

2008-12-31T06:29:00.000-08:00

It will be interesting to see what happens with Roland Burris, recent appointee to the senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. The senate Democrats have stated that they will not seat anyone appointed by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevish, who is governing under threat of indictment and impeachment. That statement was issued, of course, before the Democrats knew that the appointee would be an African-American, although surely they knew that was a likelihood.

If the Democrats now back down and go ahead and seat Burris, it will be a strong indication that liberal guilt still rules their party. They will yield to those in their party, such as Illinois representative and former Black Panther Bobby Rush, who has virtually dared them to stick to their guns and "lynch" Burris by treating him as they would a Caucasian appointee.

If on the other hand, the Democrats stay strong and refuse to seat Burris, it just might be an indication that they are finally willing to begin to leave race behind and to make some movement toward that color-blind country they always said they wanted. This is a move that Republicans made decades, if not generations, ago. The GOP has demonstrated that commitment by pushing for individual rights and equality before the law. The Democrats, on the other hand, have pushed continually for racial quotas, affirmative action and hate crimes - all based on the belief that the answer to past discrimination is even more discrimination in the future.

The senate Democrats have a goodly amount of cover. They issued their "no seat" rule long before an African-American was appointed. Burris has made contributions to Blagojevish's campaign, thereby further tainting an already tainted appointment. And, perhaps most importantly, President-elect Obama has voiced support for the Democrats' stance on a Blagojevish appointment. This speaks well for Obama. Let's hope the future will also speak well for senate Democrats.

A Return to True Republican Principles

2008-12-30T09:14:00.000-08:00

It has lately been argued that the Republican Party needs to return to its roots, and I agree, although not perhaps in the way many would have it. Such advocates usually have in mind a more solid support for pro-life issues, laissez-faire capitalism, true civil rights (meaning individual rights as opposed to racial and gender quotas disguised as affirmative action) and balanced government budgets. While I can certainly argue for supporting the last three (I have a somewhat unique take on abortion, which I may or may not share in a later editorial), I don't believe that these issues, in and of themselves, form a firm foundation for rebuilding the party. Instead, I advocate we return to the true basic beliefs of the Republican Party, those being "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, and Free Men." These elements constituted the 1856 campaign motto of the first Republican Nominee for President, John Charles Fremont. So, in the spirit of the Party of Lincoln, before there even was a President Lincoln, let us examine these issues with a modern eye:
1) Free Soil. This portion of the motto indicated support for the Homestead Act, which became law in 1862. The act was seen, somewhat naively, not only as a way to settle the West, but also as a way to help build a nation of yeomen farmers. For our purposes, a modern equivalent would be support for free education, training and, if necessary, relocation. In other words, government support to help our citizens become productive and hopefully self-supporting.
2) Free Labor. Everyone has the right to form unions, leave their job and, if they wish, to become self-employed. There needs to be the promise that, should a citizen become a self-supporting entrepreneur, that no government - be it federal, state or local - would attempt to strangle the new born enterprise in the name of protection for existing businesses. In other words, citizens would be free to build their business, offer their service, or plow their land without government interference.
3) Free Speech. This would be self-explanatory if there weren't constant challenges to this basic right. Nowadays, this comes almost exclusively from the left, whose devotion to colleges speech codes, elusively defined hate crimes and self-serving harassment policies have often trumped the right to free speech. A recommittment to free speech could only help the party find its soul and move forward.
4) Free Men. This, of course, dealt with the issues of slavery in Antebellum United States, an issue that was effectively handled by the Civil War. I suppose if we were to pledge allegiance to this basic fundamental, we would take stronger stances against ongoing slavery in the modern world. According to the organization Free the Slaves, there are currently 27 million people still in slavery, primarily in Africa,the Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean. While I would argue against U.S. military intervention in those geographic areas, I certainly believe a louder and stronger public condemnation on the part of our government is in order. This could be followed by a U.S. motion for the United Nations to actually enforce its own Article Four, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that, "No one shall be held in slavery..." Such a move on the part of our country would not only help put the UN to shame (if such a thing is possible) for its lack of action, but would also put our own domestic problems into perspective.

In summation, if we are to "return to principles" as we rebuild the Republican Party, let us at least return to our founding principles. As those who have read my earlier writings know, I'm all about examining and, if they prove true, enforcing past principles as we head into the future. The winning party in years to come will be the party whose leaders can see the possibilities of modern technology, can support free enterprise while protecting its citizens from unfair trade agreements, and can recognize that most people wish to be productive and self-supporting and will help them on their way to those goals. That can certainly be the Republican Party as long as it also clings to its founding principles.

The Good Bailout.

2008-12-03T06:02:00.000-08:00

Finally, a bailout plan that I can live with ... and not just for the obvious reasons.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R., Texas) has proposed a two month tax holiday to replace the rest of the Paulson-Pelosi bailout. Gohmert's plan would relieve taxpayers of the burden of federal income tax and FICA for January and February of 2009 and, in the process, pump an estimated 334.4 billion dollars into the national economy. Since the remainder of the P&P bailout would cost 350 billion dollars, Gohmert's plan would actually save 15.6 billion dollars.

I like this primarily because it allows people to keep more of their own money and spend it any damn way they want. Nothing says, "economic recovery" like citizens with money in their pocket. However, I need to add, I also like this plan because it recognizes a fact that has been lost on politicians lately: economies don't work from the top down, but rather from the bottom up. No government bailout to businesses, or for that matter to financial institutions, can help if there aren't people out there with sufficient cash to make purchases. No amount of government (ie: taxpayer's) bailout money to GM will help unless there are people out there with enough purchasing power (ie: money) to buy a car or truck.

I actually have a degree of sympathy for business people. They have been regulated nearly to death. But the answer is not a federal bailout, but rather an easing of regulations. Unless businesses are physically harming people or someone else's property, they should, with a few exceptions, be left alone. However, they shouldn't then be allowed to come before Congress asking for a handout.

Face it, the average citizen is a much better judge of where and when to spend his money than is some elected official in Washington, D.C. If we are determined to further unbalance an already unbalanced federal budget, let's at least do it in a way that will actually help our economy. If enough citizens have enough money in their pocket, then failing banks will be replaced by new, more efficient banks and failing car companies will be replaced by companies than can produce a vehicle, at a reasonable price, that people actually want to buy.

Credit as a solution?

2008-11-26T05:29:00.000-08:00

We have now heard the latest "brilliant" (note the sarcasm) idea from the government's economists: loosen up credit. In other words, encourage everyone - from Fortune 500 CEOs to the kid working at McDonald's - to go even deeper in debt. This apparently includes those seeking home loans, car loans and even credit cards. To the economists' minds, if people will just buy more things they can't afford, we can borrow our way out of this recession. After all, what's good for the federal government must be good for the average working man.

Of course, the economists and elected officials are neglecting the obvious: that's how we got into this sad economic state to begin with. Loans were made - often at the encouragement of the federal government - to people without the means to pay those loans back. This began a downward spiral that ended with multi-billion dollar handouts, all paid for by the tax payer. To think that more of the same is the answer to our economic woes is, at best, illogical.

Now, I'm not going to allow this blog to become an ongoing advertisement for financial adviser Dave Ramsey. I respect his financial advice and attempt to follow it myself, but he's fully capable of peddling his own wares. However, I do believe his advice should be listened to, both by individuals and federal economists. And just what is that advice? Basically, don't go into debt. Not for a car, not for a vacation and certainly not for a credit card. He makes an exception for a home loan, as long as the buyer pays a 10 percent down payment, accepts a 15 year, fixed rate mortgage and as long as the monthly payments are no more than 25 percent of the buyer's take home pay.

How can we apply these principles on a federal level? Probably, very simply. I would advise that, if the federal government is determined to bail out financial institutions, we attach one non-negotiable condition: that tax payer money can only go for (1) student loans, (2) business loans or (3) private home loans, provided the buyer follows the above Ramsey principles. All borrowers would need to show that the investment will likely result ultimately in financial gain and all borrowers would need to be able to demonstrate that they have a realistic expectation of being able to pay back the loan. If this means federal oversight, then so be it. If a bank doesn't want to limit itself to such government-backed loans, then it is free to use its own money any way it pleases, only without the help of the American tax payer. Likewise, institutions that do accept federal financial assistance would be free to use other, private funds for any kind of loan they wish, but they would do so at their own risk. They won't be bailed out for making pay day loans or backing credit cards.

We cannot borrow our way out of a recession, any more than we can tax our way out of one. Sound economic principles need to apply to borrowing and spending - both on a private and federal level - if we are to get back onto solid ground.

Technology and the rebuilding of the Republican party

2008-11-07T03:46:00.000-08:00

I keep having this feeling that both parties - Democratic and Republican alike - are missing the boat when it comes to the changing world around us. We are indeed, to coin a phrase from Thomas Friedman, living in a flat world, where modern technology and a world wide economy increasingly govern our lives. But to listen to the recent campaigns of McCain and Obama, the topic was obviously the elephant in the room - the one that everyone was determined to ignore.

Obama is now our president, but unless I missed something along the way (which is certainly possible)he doesn't have a plan for us to more effectively play on this field. What does he believe is the role of the federal government when it comes to our country and the changing world? Is there still a plan around somewhere for aiding schools that have no access to the Internet, or perhaps not even computers? Will an Obama presidency attempt to help Americans who lost their jobs to foreign companies? Wasn't there a plan around at one time to build an "information highway," a cheap, readily accessible, high speed network that would give Americans a leg up on the emerging Informational Age?

I call upon Obama, and all our representatives, to address this issue. If we are to effectively compete in a flat world, we all need to address the subject.

Welcome to the economy, Mr. President

2008-11-02T04:55:00.000-08:00

I'm not very good at predictions, but I feel confident in saying that Tuesday night, John McCain will not be our president elect. He is a great man, but he won't be our next president. Nor, I hate to say, should he. I fear what many voters obviously fear: he doesn't appear to have a firm grasp on modern technology and he doesn't have a plan to help our weak economy. To anyone with even half a brain, it's obvious that our government's oft repeated failure to balance the federal budget has aided our economic decline. Especially after our recent unfunded bailouts, we owe so much money, primarily to China, that there's precious little to loan to fledgling companies and/or assist out-of-work voters. We can't offer serious tax cuts, which would help our economy, without going even further into debt. Likewise with public works projects - such as repairing our aging highway system - which could at least temporarily employ a goodly amount of citizens.

John McCain's answer has been that old standby: cut federal government spending, but he hasn't said where we should cut. I - as well as most voters - are skeptical. If Ronald Reagan couldn't balance the budget solely with spending cuts I doubt that McCain can.

Not that Barack Obama has any great plans. Or, if he does, he hasn't shared them. But, he at least acknowledges that the federal government can't continue to spend like a drunken sailor without raising taxes somewhere, on someone. And, as a Navy veteran, I know about drunken sailors and the fact that the bill ultimately comes due. Followers of financial adviser Dave Ramsey know that the worst thing you can do is go into debt. And, to my mind, what's works for the family budget should also work for the federal budget.

So, ultimately, the economy killed McCain's chances at the oval office. Had we (God forbid) had another 9-11 style terrorist attack, McCain would be our next president. But, instead, our economy went south and that means an Obama presidency. Fellow Republicans should take comfort, though. The Republican party will be born anew on Tuesday night. Our defeats will be the ashes from which we raise again. Let us make a pact now, though. That this new Republican party will adopt as one of its primary principles a balanced federal budget, and that this time around we won't just give lip service to that goal.

Technology and the Boomers

2008-07-01T04:16:00.000-07:00

I have lately been reflecting upon my generation. As me and my fellow Post War Baby Boomers reach our AARP years, it is perhaps time to look back over our lives and think about how we can best pass on our knowledge and experiences to coming generations. After all, as with all generations, if we don't make an effort to leave something behind, all that we learned, all that we struggled for, will be for nothing. Knowledge retained is knowledge lost, unless it is passed on to others.

We are a generation upon whom technology was painted on. The core of our mental selves was formed through the old techniques of books, blackboards and typewriters. We learned to read and write at our mothers' knees by listening to stories and in the classroom through repetition and (if we were lucky) through phonics, all delivered by a real flesh and blood human being. Technology, such as it was, was extremely limited.

Born in the years following World War II, most of us began our formal education in the late 1950s or early 1960s, usually by entering a first grade classroom, our oversize crayons and Big Chief writing tablet in our hands. The classroom was not terribly different than that attended by our parents and grandparents. There were bulletin boards on the walls. There were books on the shelves. And there was a teacher standing at the front of the class, a woman with extreme power over our little lives and hopefully enough teaching ability to transfer what was in her head into ours. She was our portal to the outside world. If she didn't know it, we weren't likely to be exposed to it.

While in the lower grades, we listened to science shows on a classroom radio. While in the upper elementary grades, meaning the fifth and sixth grades, we watched science and vocal music shows provided through PBS on classroom televisions, which were still thought to be experimental. Filmstrips and 16mm films were enough of a rarity to actually cause excitement in the younger students. We'd walk in one morning, see the AV equipment set up, and actually smile. Today we were going to see a film.

Communication was largely limited to vocal lecture as well as paper and ink (PandI) books. Teachers would hand out those books and, if they were feeling creative, run off their own mimeograph sheets. Ah, who can forget that wonderful smell of those fresh sheets. Sitting at our desks, we'd take one sheet and hand it back to the student behind us and then, even before reading its contents, bring the purple-printed paper up to our noses. There was no smell quite like it.

As for "hands on" technology ... well that was usually delayed until our high school years. There we learned the mysteries of test tubes and Bunsen burners in science classes. Nearly everyone took typing, back long before it was called "keyboarding." We'd sit at our desks, using an invention dating back to the early 19th century, to create the printed word. To draw from my own experience. I took typing in my junior year. We used manual typewriters to make our creations. Our greatest step forward (technologically speaking) happened during the last couple of weeks of the spring semester. With the seniors already gone, we were allowed to move to another, more advanced classroom, where we got to use electric typewriters.

When it came to computers, as I pointed out in my article Publishing in the 21st century, they were distant, almost mythical things. We'd see them in movies and occasionally on television. We knew they existed in universities and in Washington D.C., in the Pentagon. They were a mainstay of science fiction, where they generally led to dehumanization and sometimes even to oblivion for mankind. As for using computers ourselves, or even seeing one up close ... well, that was still years away.

And so we spent our formative years. If we were intelligent and lucky, we were exposed to science and math, history and English. We knew about Albert Einstein, Madame Curie, William Shakespeare and perhaps even Ernest Hemingway and George Orwell. We could read, write and cypher - all with a book, a piece of paper and a pencil. What advanced technology we learned came much later - in college, on the job, perhaps in the military. It was simply painted on over our already developed psyches and on top of our formal education.

Compare this with our children. They have known personal computers since their infancy. They could probably keyboard before they could speak properly. Television was "old technology" to them, as were personal calculators. They knew how to use the Internet, at least by the end of their elementary school years and, at least by high school, they were likely handed their own laptop computer.

Advanced technology was their constant companion. For them, knowledge of computers and the Internet was part of their basic training. It never had to be painted on. Instead, it was part of their educational fabric.

I'm way too wise to label the Baby Boom generation as a "transition" generation and expect the label to carry any kind of special awe and respect. I believe that technology is likely to advance so fast in the foreseeable future that all coming generations will be transitional generations, bridging the gap between the technology of their own childhoods and that of their children.

But still, I can't help but think that we Baby Boomers are indeed a special, perhaps even blessed, generation. We saw the first astronauts go into space and later land on the moon. We saw televisions go from over sized black and white image cabinets to two-inch, color screen, hand held devices. And we saw computers go from room-sized, government owned oddities to personal laptops.

I suppose that we - the Baby Boomers - could do worse than to devote our own coming decades to making sure that the best of our tech-restricted education is not lost, but carried over to coming generations. We can ensure that Shakespeare and Hemingway will still be read, even if it is over a computer screen. We need to embrace technology, realizing always its liberating properties, as well as its restrictions. We need to remind people that technology without content is only a toy.

Bibliography for Publishing in the 21st Century

2008-06-25T11:11:00.000-07:00

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cardwell, D. (2001). Wheels, Clocks, and Rockets: A History of Technology. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Hart, D. Hartland. Blog. http://hartland-dlh.blogspot.com

Hart, D. (2002). Year of the Rat. College, Texas: Virtualbookworm.com.

Hart, D. Year of the Rat: a novel by Don L. Hart. Website promoting Don L. Hart's novel. http://donlhart.tripod.com

Hart, D. Tonkin Gulf Yatch Club. Blog for Don L. Hart's novel. http://tonkingulf.blodspot.com

Hedrin, S. Network. Novelization of movie. New York: Pocket Books.

Howe, J. The Rise of Crowdsourcing. Wired. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds_pr.html

Lewis, M. (2002) Next: the Future Just Happened. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

ONLINE PUBLISHING AND RESOURCES

Lulu, Inc. www.lulu.com

U.S. Copyright Office. www.copyright.gov

Virtualbookworm.com Publishing Inc. http://virtualbookworm.com

Publishing in the 21st Century (Part 3)

2008-06-11T04:51:00.000-07:00

(This is the third and final installment of my article on modern writing and publishing. As always, I welcome feedback from my readers).

WHAT FUELS THE MACHINE?

In his book, Wheels, Clocks, and Rockets: A History of Technology, Donald Cardwell maintains that the explosion of inventions that led to the Industrial Revolution was largely the result of patent law reform. With the modernization of such laws, the inventor could now benefit from his inventions, both financially and in societal status. Cardwell argues that unless an inventor can so benefit, he is unlikely to spend much time or money in the pursuit of creativity.

There is obviously a great deal of truth to this argument. For instance, people in ancient China invented many things - among them gunpowder and movable type - long before such innovations saw light in the West. However, it is unlikely that many of these Chinese inventors made much money from their creations. The system was simply not friendly to personal gain, even if that gain would have been the logical result of new and better ideas.

It was only in the Western World (Europe and later the U.S.), where individuals could benefit from their inventions and the resulting increased productivity, that such inventions led to an economic revolution. Innovative and creative people, from Samuel Colt to Thomas Edison, saw a chance to make a buck with a new invention and a patent, and thus modern capitalism was born and capitalism strengthened.

So, most people would agree, strong patent laws have served us well. They brought about about nothing short of an expansive technological revolution and produced a standard of living in the West (especially in the U.S.) that is the envy of the world.

However, to quote the character of Howard Beale in the film Network, "I think that was it, fellas. That sort of thing is not likely to happen again." We are now living in a post-Industrial Revolution world, one where ownership of ideas and inventions are, at best, tenuous. The person who, to borrow an idea from Star Trek, ultimately creates transparent aluminum or some other similarly strong and clear material, may or may not become rich. He will likely have to fight tooth and nail for his patent rights and employ an army of lawyers to keep a monopoly. Even if he is partially successful and is able to hold on to part of the societal benefits from his invention, such as fame and historical acknowledgement, his financial benefits will be diminished, if not lost outright. He will never garner the wealth that inventors from the Industrial Revolution era were able to accumulate and ultimately he will be lucky to hold on to a relatively small portion of the money resulting from his invention.

Why? You may ask. What brought about this change? The answer is simply that societal evolution did not stop with the Industrial Revolution. It instead moved on to what Alvin Toffler calls the "Third Wave," an era where ideas have largely replaced money as the "coin of the realm." And, in this era of the World Wide Web, iPods, laptops and cell phones, ideas are very hard to hold on to; they have a habit of moving on to other people at the speed of light. The Internet spreads ideas, and thereby modern capital, around with very little regard for the originator.

What holds true for patents and industrialists will also hold true for copyrights and writers. Authors and, to a slightly lesser extent, artists will be lucky to hold on to the societal benefits (status, name recognition, etc.) derived from their works. The financial benefits will be diminished - just as with inventors - and could quite possibly be lost altogether. An author will produce a novel and fight to keep a monopoly on the work. But ultimately, that novel will find its way into cyberspace, where anyone with a computer can read and enjoy the author's writings.

This is bad news for the people who would, in an earlier era, have made money off of the author - the publisher, printer, book store owner and maybe even the literary agent and lawyer - but it may not necessarily be bad news (or at least disastrous news) for the author himself. He may still benefit. Indeed, in the realm of public acclaim, he may even benefit more than he would have back in the days of PandI books. Remember, back in those olden days, unless the author was one of the chosen few, that one percent who got to see their works in print, he would die unknown and unread. Even if he was one of those lucky enough to actually be published, his work might be read by a few thousand people. But now, his writings could potentially be enjoyed by millions, perhaps even billions, of readers.

As an example that someday has already arrived, at least for this author, I need only to turn to the Google Book Search (previously known as the Google Print)project. This project places sizable portions of one's book online without compensation to the author. I have noticed that my novel, Year of the Rat, has been included in this project. So, people can now log on and read most, though not quite all, of my book.

Does this help me or hurt me? The jury of course is still out, but I doubt that it has hurt me. I now have some exposure and name recognition that I would otherwise not have. Some people may read the online portion, like what they see, and go ahead and buy my book; I doubt that few, if any, would intend to purchase my book, but instead just read the portion online. But, has it helped me? Quite frankly, with my sales as anemic as they are, I believe the answer could well be "yes," but, of course, I can't prove it.

This doesn't mean an author should never fight for his rights. He needs to be sure his published works are properly copyrighted and even registered with the federal government. I always have done so on my major projects. For this purpose, you can start by visiting the United States Copyright Office at www.copyright.gov. I also recommend having an ISBN number added to any printed work and perhaps even to your major online creations. Most PonD publishers will do this for an added fee. The number makes it easier for readers to find and purchase your book and adds a degree of legitimacy to any claim you may need to make about your ownership of your creations.

But, in the end, the author needs to be realistic. Technological history, and therefore literary history, are not on his side if he wishes to monopolize his creation. He therefore needs to take this seeming disadvantage and somehow turn it into an advantage.

SO, WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM FOR SCRIPTWRITERS?

Money still speaks, even to authors. I've already cited examples of web sites asking for contributions, or selling advertisement. These approaches could work, perhaps even work well, for writers of short stories, articles and even novels. But what about scriptwriters and, by logical extension, other professionals involved in the movie and television industry? Here the problem becomes a bit more sticky. It takes a huge investment of time and energy to write a novel, but it doesn't require a great deal of capital. Not so with movies; you need the big bucks to turn a movie idea into a reality.

Now, how does the scriptwriter fit into the current state of affairs that I described earlier for the modern author? Can the scriptwriter, if he is wise, retain his good name, literary fame and perhaps even a little capital? Will he, like the author, have to fight hard for what little money he can garner from his work by somehow asking for contributions, selling ads and/or holding his works hostage until the members of the audience pay up? In other words, what does the world of movies hold for the "dream and idea" people in an industry that is facing declining ticket-buying audiences, digital piracy and easily available downloads?

Obviously, just as in music, cheap downloads can probably work for movies. Music aficionados will currently shell out 99 cents for a music download; movie fans will probably do the same for a movie download. And of course, there is always advertising. It worked for broadcast television and, I personally believe, would have worked for satellite television. That is why it always struck me as funny that the cable TV industry chose to use a different paradigm when it began to worry about people with satellite dishes picking up their broadcasts. The image of Bubba Boomershine, living out in rural America with his huge satellite dish, pulling in "free" images of the Tonight Show from Burbank, California, seemed to terrify the industry. The fact that Bubba was also being exposed to advertisements from Burbank seemed to be lost on the TV officials. They chose to scramble his signals and make him pay for decoders. I suspect that movie officials are considering a similar plan for movies.

But, what if the satellite television people had chosen instead to not only allow people to pick up their signals, but had actually encouraged them to do so? They could have, for instance, offered inexpensive satellite dishes to Bubba and his neighbors. Wouldn't the satellite people then have had a vastly expanded version of broadcast TV, which had been, at least in its heyday, extremely profitable. Surely, if WalMart and McDonalds and Victoria's Secret will pay $1,000,000 for a one minute commercial being broadcast to 20 million viewers, they will pay far more for an audience of a hundred million.

But logic aside, I'm afraid that the online movie industry will follow the satellite TV industry's model and try to block, restrict and hold hostage their movies. I'm also reasonable sure that the movie industry's profits will diminish as a result when, in my humble opinion, they could have instead followed broadcast television's example and have watched the online movie industry's profits eclipse those of satellite television.

This brings us back to the initial question. Will the Internet democratize the movie industry the same way it is democratizing the writing and, to a slightly lesser extent, the music industries? My answer would be yes, but to a far lesser extent. Once again, the financial cost of writing a story is low. Even the cost of recording a song to the web is relatively low. The cost of producing a movie, on the other hand, is high. But, as with astute authors, modern film writers and film makers just might see that there are also advantages to creating during the Third Wave. We may, therefore, see more independent movie makers be at least successful enough to stay afloat. We will also probably see more "small," homey movies (Think Little Miss Sunshine)that concentrate on character development and less on spectacular effects. We will likely see more plays, with their relatively low production costs, on the web. And we will almost assuredly see more animated movies, which are also relatively low cost. One artist can create a dozen characters; one actor can create a dozen voices.

But still, the big movies - the Titanics and Ben Hurs of the future - will probably still need to be made by multi-million dollar studios. So, if you're going to write a script for such a movie, be aware that you are going to be swimming in very rough waters and that space in the lifeboat will be extremely limited. New tech may help you, but not much.

AMATEURS, PORN AND CHANGING TIMES

I'm sure by now most readers have realized that this article's themes are two fold. They are: (1) technology has democratized literature and art. And (2) this process has had a leveling effect on payment. Whereas a few professionals used to make the big bucks and most made nothing, nowadays less professionals make the big money, but many struggling writers and artists make some, albeit relatively little, money.

This latter theme is readily seen on the Internet in "open source" materials. In online literature, this is seen in free articles, stories and books offered on the Web. This article, I suppose, is an example of that. When it comes to other, less artsy items offered on the Internet, so-called "open source" materials such as the free software platform Moodle, are also offered free. Moodle, has allowed many individuals and even schools to create online, e-learning classes. The company apparently makes its money by charging for service for, and add-ons to, the software. This has led some cynical individuals to say that, "open source is free. But if you want it to work the way you want it to work, it will cost you money."

Perhaps the most interesting form of open-source is the Wiki, as readily seen on Wikipedia. Here many individuals work on a single project, such as an "encyclopedia" article. One person writes and then turns it over to other people to do their own thing. The result can be interesting and even informative but from what I've seen, it often lacks continuity and high quality writing. Still, Wiki offers some interesting possibilities for the online literary world. I can easily see websites appearing that feature ongoing stories; anyone who wants to can add or subtract from the story, plot line and/or characterization.

(In fact, there are probably such websites already out there on the Internet right now. Does anyone know of any examples they would like to share?)

As with many of my observations, I have trouble seeing how anyone makes money from a Wiki story, with the possible exception of the website owner. However, back in the PandI world, at least one such project did make money. Naked Came the Stranger was somewhat of a literary hoax, written by 24 journalists under the pseudonym of Penelope Ashe. Each writer created a separate chapter for the book, with only the barest knowledge of plot line, characterization and the other writers' chapters. The brainchild of Newsday's Mike McGrady, the book went on to make a great deal of money and to even make it onto the New York Time's Best Seller List.

I feel that the Internet is an excellent platform for such projects. However, once again, I suspect the profits will be small since the competition will be huge.

A NEW ERA

Another interesting phenomena to come along as a result of the Internet is "crowdsourcing." This ongoing phenomena was well noted and documented by Jeff Howe in his article "The Rise of Crowdsourcing" for Wired magazine. Howe explains how services once handled by a few, relatively well paid professionals are now, more and more, being handled by many, lesser paid individuals. His article describes the dilemma of professional photographers, especially those who made a large portion of their living from so-called "stock photography," pictures of often nameless people and places, generally used in advertising.

Such professionals, according to Howe, used to charge around $200 to $300 dollars per image. However, now competition has virtually eliminated that source of income for these photographers. And where has that competition come from? From amateur photographers, people who are good with a camera and are willing, even happy, to part with their creations over the Internet for as little as $1 per image.

In other words, photography is now experiencing the same phenomena that is rapidly changing literature and non-fiction writing. Due primarily to the Internet, the very nature of the craft is changing. Whereas, a few professional used to make a relatively large amount of money, now many "amateurs" are making small amounts of money. This evolution has now led to what Howe calls the "age of the crowd." Others have described this as the "age of the talented amateur."

Reading Howe's article, it struck me that one industry in particular will be especially hit hard by this change in eras. The pornography industry has made the transition from live action (think plays during the Roman Empire), to still photography, to movies, to pay per view television and finally to the Internet. However, the players remained the same: a few professionals - both in front and behind the camera - made the money. Now, however, a good many amateurs are willing to do the same thing - publicly expose themselves and have sex for the pleasure of others - for a great deal less money. Heck, there are doubtlessly those out there who will do it for free.

CONCLUSION

Modern writers - for that matter, anyone involved in creative work - need to be aware of changing times. They have entered an interesting and perhaps even profitable new era, but it is one very different from that of their predecessors. Whereas, in bygone times, most writers would never be published, now virtually anyone can be published. On the other hand, whereas a few professionals once made a large amount of money, nowadays that multitude of amateurs out there in cyberland will now spread the wealth around. They will, in other words, take the money that would have gone to those few professionals, pocket a little of it themselves, and send the rest on to other amateurs.

In summation, publishing in the current era can be a great thing if you're seeking recognition and wish primarily to have your works read. But, it may not be terribly profitable unless you can use your creativity for other purposes than for your stories and articles. However, there may still be money out there to be had for your writings, if you can recognize the changes in the publishing industry and take advantage of them.

(This concludes my article. However, I intend to include an annotated bibliography and webliography with my next posting).

Publishing in the 21st Century (Part 2)

2008-06-05T07:37:00.000-07:00

(This is part 2 of my series on publishing in the modern world. I hope you enjoy it and, as always, I encourage you to email me and offer feedback).

LETS LEARN ANOTHER LESSON FROM THE MUSIC WORLD

Before we leave the world of pay per view writing altogether, let me offer one more observation. This one is again from the music world whose often self proclaimed representatives fought furiously against illegal music downloads during the early days of the current century. To hear them wail, you would have been convinced that Napster, with its access to free, albeit illegal, music downloads would be the end of the music industry. The kingpins in the industry - both well-known musicians and less well known (although probably more powerful) "suits" behind the scene - fought it all out in court, taking not only Napster, but also several of the amateur downloaders to trial. The music industry representatives, at least at first, seemed to win. Napster disappeared from the web and colleges across the country set policies against their students downloading music. But, in the end, it was a losing game for the industry, at least the way their lawyers were fighting it. Nearly at the speed of light, other downloading software and services appeared on the web, replacing Napster with hundreds, if not thousands, of substitutes. People who wanted to download music found a way. The music industry was ultimately on the wrong side of industrial history.

However, some companies quickly realized that many, if not most, of those people out in cyberland would actually pay for downloads, if they were cheap enough. WalMart currently sells tunes for 94 cents; iTunes for 99 cents. Selling it cheap is better than not selling it at all, especially if you're selling in large quantities. And nothing produces large quantities like the Internet.

That also goes for authors. In other words, "keep it cheap." Don't try to sell an ebook for the same price you would a paper and ink ("Pandi") book, or even (ala Stephen King) for anything nearly as expensive as a Pandi book. That doesn't necessarily mean you will never make any money from your ebook. After all, your expenses should be extremely low. You can use a free website, advertise cheaply online, and never need to pay for cover artists, editors or even for paper. Also keep in mind, you have the potential online to reach a much more vast audience than authors or publishers still dealing in the paper and ink world of traditional publishing. And, the money you take in with a self-published ebook is all yours. So, at least theoretically, instead of earning a $1 commission on a Pandi book that you sold to a publisher, you can now charge $1 per download for an ebook and whose rights you continue to retain. And, although your chances of selling ten thousand downloads are admittedly extremely slim, they are still better than you being published by a major publishing company and actually selling ten thousand copies of a Pandi book. This is primarily the case since, once again, 99 percent of authors will never be published by a major publishing house.

Of course, the question arises: What about that other one percent, the ones whose book actually "makes the big time?" Of that small number, there are doubtlessly a few who would have benefited far better with the old, Pandi style of publishing. Although, even for those lucky few, the difference may not be as great as one would suppose; think once again about the $1 commission vs. the $1 download example I cited above. Your chances of making the big bucks on a self published ebook are probably about the same as selling your novel to a large publishing house and having a best selling book: about 1 in 100.

Even if there is a sea change in the publishing world and online publishing becomes the norm, there will still be a small band of writers who make it big. And those people will still become millionaires. Once again, $1 is $1 and a $1,000,000 is $1000,000, whether you earned it through a book commission or from sales of ebook downloads.

And this, I suppose, brings us to the most important advantage of self publishing an ebook: at least some people will get to read it if you put it online. Of those 99 percent of online writers who never make the big money, they will still know that their works are being enjoyed by readers somewhere. That's not the case for those 99 percent of Pandi authors whose works never get published.

There were other lessons to be learned from the Napster vs. the Music Industry conflict, one of which centers on the fact that in the midst of that legal war, some musicians were actually happy that people were downloading their music for free. In fact, some went so far as to bypass Napster altogether and offer their tunes free on their own websites. These were largely either beginning musicians, trying to gather a flock of happy listeners and/or they were those who made the bulk of their money from live concerts, rather than recordings. Listeners who grew to like a particular group's music from free downloads were certainly more likely to pay for a ticket when the band came to their town. So, I suppose, the lesson can be stated as: "It's sometimes better to give it away, than to try to charge for it." Perhaps, you might be better to offer your writings for free online, rather than try to charge people for the privilege of reading your works. In fact, if you offer your works for free, you are bound to draw a larger audience and are therefore more likely to be able to sell advertising on your website, which is certainly one potential way to garner some cash for your writings.

This is a lesson that apparently was not learned by the satellite television industry. We'll speak more on this later, in the section on script writing. In the meantime, let's move on to another way of seeing your writings in print.

WHAT IF I WANT TO SEE MY WRITINGS IN A BOOK?

For those writers of a certain age (and I readily include myself in this group), there is no substitute for seeing your writings on paper, stuck between two hard covers with some professional, symbolic illustration on the front and your photograph on the back. We are the writers who grew up in the pre-Internet era, when computers were something only seen in a James Bond film and the World Wide Web was something Spider Man might strive for. Although, I suspect there are many younger writers who also believe that they will never be fully satisfied until they can sit at a table in a bookstore and sign their names on copy after copy of their book for a procession of fawning readers.

For such people there are still alternatives to traditional publishing. Print on Demand (I use the term "PonD" or "Pond") companies are currently springing up throughout the world and can readily be found on the Internet. The term "Print on Demand" simply means that the company prints up book orders when people want them. This differs from olden (and in some cases, not so olden) days when major publishers would print up thousands of copies of a book long before any sales took place, hoping that the books would actually sell. This latter style of business could obviously become extremely expensive for the publisher, especially if he had judged the public's tastes incorrectly and was stuck with a warehouse full of non-selling books. Because they abandoned this style, Pond companies take little or no risk on an author. They cannot lose money on the writer since, if his works don't sell, they simply won't print any of his books. These companies are generally divided into three categories: (1) those who are somewhat selective in their choice of authors (although not as selective as traditional publishing houses), (2) those who will publish anyone with the cash, and (3) those who will publish for free, making their money only from book sales.

There are probably advantages and disadvantages to all three alternatives. With the first, you have a few bragging rights. After all, "your" publisher doesn't accept just anyone. Whether that translates to anything you can actually put in your wallet is probably doubtful. For an example from my own experiences: I went with Virtualbookworm.com when I wanted to see my writings on paper. The Virtualbookworm officials maintain that they are selective in their choice of authors, although of course there's no way I could prove that. I will say however, that I have largely been pleased with the service I received, and continue to receive, from the company. I've paid a total of about $200 for their services through the years and (get ready to laugh) I still hope to someday actually sell enough books to recoup my expenses.

With category number two publishers, the biggest advantage centers on the fact that you're sure to get your book published. However, it could cost you more than going with number one and it will certainly cost you more than going with number three. In return, with number two, you will get help (for a fee) with editing, advertising and even with rewriting the weaker portions of your manuscript. I hesitate to offer an example of this category, since I have no personal experience with such a publisher. But perhaps, some of my readers can offer up their own experiences.

With category number three, the author provides the rewriting, editing, typing and almost anything else you can think of. However, if you do the work, you'll see the results on paper, even though you will probably need to purchase a copy of your own book to do so. The company makes its money almost totally from book sales. A well known example of this category is Lulu.

I fully realize that the boundaries between these categories are so fuzzy as to be almost nonexistent. For instance, all three categories offer editing services for a fee. In other words, it's simply the primary focus of the particular publishing company that determines its category. Virtualbookworm, for instance, probably makes more money per author from their fees than does Lulu, since the latter's focus is apparently on those authors who handle their own editing and other services.

"Vanity press" is a term associated with publishing houses who require an author's money before putting ink to paper, as opposed to traditional houses who cover the expense of their printing and promotional services without cost to their selected authors, that one percent of writers who have been selected as "sellable" by the houses. As a result of this difference, vanity press houses garnered a shady, or at least mercenary, reputation. This was largely a result of the fact that their services could be extremely costly to the author, to the tune at times of several thousand dollars.

To be perfectly objective, Pond houses (at least those in categories one and two) are a form of vanity press. However, the cost to the author nowadays is minimal. He risks relatively little and, if his book actually sells well, he could earn a goodly amount of money. Most Pond houses allow the author to set the price of the book and, at least theoretically, if his book is outrageously popular, he can charge an equally outrageous price, although I wouldn't advise it. Remember, "keep it cheap."

You, of course, will improve your chances of breaking even, or even making some money from your Pond book if you handle all your own services, such as editing and promotion. So, my advice: do everything you can yourself. When it comes to promoting your book, one of the cheapest ways can be online, with a web page or blog. Several online companies offer these free of charge, as long as you allow them to advertise on the page. Some, such as blogger.com, will even pay you a portion of the receipts received from those advertisers.

One thing you should be aware of: when it comes time to actually sell your writings, some bookstores will not handle Pond books. However, I've found that some small independent bookstores will offer you space for a portion of your profit or even, if they are especially kind-hearted toward struggling writers, offer it free.

Remember, with Pond publishers, you will only make money when you sell books. So, you will need to hustle if you want to profit from your writings. There are authors who travel across the country with a box of their Pond books and actually make money. In a former life, I was a librarian and I purchased a couple of books from such authors through the years.

(In my third, and final, chapter, I will offer some ideas on protecting your rights as an author by using such means as ISBN numbers and copyrights and by registering with the US government. As promised, I will also venture into the sometimes shadowy world of script writing, pornography and "crowd sourcing."

Publishing in the 21st Century (Part 1)

2008-06-03T14:59:00.000-07:00

(The following is the first installment of a three part article that I wrote some time ago, but which has been gathering dust in my files. As always, I encourage feedback from my readers).

I can't take his money.
I can't print my own money.
I have to work for my money.
Why don't I just lie down and die?
--Homer Simpson

Want to be a published writer? No problem. Just get a free web page from some enterprise such as Yahoo, put your story, article or book into digital form, and post it on the Worldwide Web. Ta-daa. You're a published writer. Simple, huh?

Of course, there are a few problems with this approach. For instance, how will you make any money from your writing efforts? Will people actually pay for something they can get for free?

But these difficulties aside (don't worry, we'll return to them later) there's no doubt that the world of publishing has changed. No longer do writers - some of them, very good writers - need to live out their lives unpublished, with, at best, their families and friends enjoying their works. That's the way it was only a few short years ago; most writings never saw the light of day and most writers went to their grave without their work ever appearing in print. In all likelihood, many good, great, or even history-changing works were lost because editors and publishers couldn't, or wouldn't, see the potential of an author and his writings.

The 21st century author need never succumb to that fate. Today, in addition to the traditional publishing houses, there are also ebooks and print-on-demand publishing houses - both of which have allowed millions of writers to have their works read. We live in very exciting, and potentially profitable, times for creative people. Books, music and even movies are becoming democratized as the old priesthood (editors, publishers, movie and music producers) lose their grip on their industries. The person who creates can now be the same person who presents his work to the world. The gatekeepers are still guarding the gate, but the fence itself has disappeared.

Although a new phenomena, this is actually a variation on a very old paradigm. Back in the days of Benjamin Franklin, a master printer not only printed his own materials, but also interviewed, researched, edited and wrote. And now that day has come again.

YOU DON'T NEED TO BE FAMOUS TO LEAVE YOUR MARK

Indulge me for a moment, while I offer my philosophy on modern creative writing. I'll use an analogy from the music world, specifically, the Blues. In my opinion, most modern Rock guitarists learned their style from one or both of two schools that emerged in the 60s. These schools can most easily be categorized by their premiere practitioners: Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton, both of whom quite openly owed their style to Chuck Berry. Chuck Berry, that well-known early R&R man from the 50s, in turn, owed his style to fabled Blues guitarist Robert Johnson. Now, placing aside folklore that maintains Johnson owed his musical skills to a deal he made with the Devil, most people believe that Johnson largely learned his guitar style from Bluesman Sun House. But who taught House his chords and notes? That name has been lost to music history, or at least to me. But that nameless person (or persons) ultimately influenced Blues and Rock, as did all those other nameless people whose works and style Johnson, Berry, Hendrix and Clapton heard and tried to imitate.

Writing is a bit like that. A few famous writers - such as Hemingway and Fitzgerald -reach the top. But they are influenced and at times even set on a new and different path by a multitude of other, less known (I hesitate to use the term "minor") writers. Ernest Hemingway didn't just emerge from World War I and start writing the Nick Adams stories without ever having read a war story. Doubtlessly, his desire to write was lit much earlier - probably in school - when he read stories, books and plays by other authors and playwrights. If you were to look at a list of authors who influenced Hemingway, you'd probably recognize many names (I'm sure William Shakespeare and probably Edgar Allen Poe would be in there somewhere), but there would also be several names that you wouldn't recognize. Either the authors were well known at one time and have since gone out of style or perhaps they never were very well known; they just simply - at one time or another - created a masterpiece of writing. So, to sum up my philosophy, you don't need to be a famous writer to influence the literary world. If you are one of the fortunate ones who find wealth and fame with your writings, great. I salute you. But if not, you can still leave your mark on the world. However, to leave that mark, you do need to have someone read your work and that usually means being published. And "being published" today can mean something very different than it did in Hemingway's time.

Now, let me be the first to say: if you can get your work published by a traditional publisher, by all means, do so. Let's face it, for those lucky enough to have a major house print their books, there is still some serious money to be made and exposure to be earned from these old mainstays of the literary world. But, for the rest of us mortals, there are thankfully other avenues.

PAY PER VIEW FOR WRITERS

If you choose to go the online, self-publishing route, you are immediately faced with the timeless question, "Can I made some money from this?" The answer, of course, is "Maybe, but probably not much." You can, of course, simply ask your readers for a contribution. I've seen author web sites that ask for a donation and there's no reason you can't too. Once again, there is nothing new about this. The troubadours of old visited the castles and ale houses of the countryside, played their songs and told their tales and then did the medieval equivalent of passing the hat. You can simply ask the reader of your web site masterpiece to send his or her check, cash or money order to your address or post office box. If you want to go a little more "high tec," you can utilize a service such as PayPal, which will allow your readers to contribute via their credit card. (If there are any online writers reading this who have experimented with this process, I would appreciate some input from them, since I've personally had no experience with asking my readers for contributions).

If the contribution plate method of payment doesn't appeal to you, you might try a slightly more sophisticated method that involves your readers making a payment before they see the work. You can do this on a individual basis, emailing your stories or articles to individuals after they've sent in their money. You can also simply parcel out your work to your website, a chapter at a time, holding each captive until sufficient funds have arrived and then displaying the next segment of your work for all the world to see, sinner and saint alike.

Well known horror author Stephen King experimented with a variant of this process. He reportedly got the idea when one of his earlier ebooks, Riding the Bullet, was downloaded by more than 500,000 readers from various sources, some of which were unauthorized. King reportedly got the idea for a "pay per view" type of online publishing when a reader who had viewed the book from an unauthorized web site sent King $2.50 out of guilt. So, in late July, 2000, King began placing his new book, a work in progress entitled The Plant, on his website as an experiment in Internet publishing. The book was available to anyone with an online computer. However, readers were asked to send in $1, on the honor system, for the first installment. He also charged $1 each for chapters two and three, and $2 each for chapters four and five. King maintained that, as long as 75 percent of the readers paid up, he would continue to offer future installments of the novel. At first, the experiment went very well. After one week, payments had been received or promised for 76.4 percent of the 152,132 downloads. At the time, King stated that those payments would bring him close to meeting his $124,150 in promotional expenses. So, it appeared things were progressing well and profitable for King. But, by late 2001, King had stopped publication. According to an article by Gwendolyn Mariano, in News.Com, paid readership had fallen to 46 percent with the fourth installation of The Plant and King - after a $2 fifth installation and a freebie sixth - stopped work on the serial to devote more time to "other projects."

So, was this a failure? Well, yes it was. But it was largely a failure of King's own making. King had covered his expenses and shown a profit. A sizable portion of his readers (though no longer a majority) continued to send in money, even after he raised the rates. But, King simply stopped publishing.

Let us "Monday morning quarterback" this endeavor. How could King's experiment in online, pay per view publishing have been more successful? First of all, we need to ask, "were his expectations too high?" Apparently not. He expected (or at least hoped)that 75 percent of readers would pay up. The reality, at least initially, exceeded that number. Did he spend too much of his own money? Well, again apparently not. He recouped his loses and then some. But, I can't help but wonder if he didn't spend too much money on advertising. After all, he was a well know author trying an experiment in online publishing. It would seem that the media would pick up the story, which they did. And where did he advertise? Primarily in "Publisher's Weekly" and "USA Today." Would Internet sources, such as online magazines, have been better as well as less expensive? After all, he was striving for an online, tech-savy audience. Wouldn't an online magazine have been the place to advertise? Likewise, wouldn't ads purchased on selected websites have better reached the desired audience? Also, did King charge too much? Granted, The Plant online was cheaper than it would have been in book form. But $7! That seems a bit high, especially for a novel that was never completed. Finally, King serialized a novel that he had not actually finished writing. I would advise fledgling writers against following this portion of King's example. Instead, you should make sure you have a work completed before putting it, or even a portion of it, online if you are charging for the service.

(In my next installment, I will get into the Nuts and Bolts of online publishing, namely, how do you obtain, and maintain, a web presence. I will also venture into another method of alternative publishing: "print on demand," a process with which I have some personal experience.

In my third and final installment, I will travel briefly into the world of script writing with a quick side trip into the world of pornography, a business that is currently flourishing on the Worldwide Web, but one that is being changed rapidly by the recent phenomena of "crowd-sourcing.")

New Hampshire

2008-01-06T14:56:00.001-08:00

Anyone who read my predictions for the Iowa Caucus can now see why I don't make my living picking lottery numbers. I did fairly well with my predictions for the Republican candidates, but missed it on the Democrats. Nonetheless, here are my predictions for Tuesday's New Hampshire Primary: the Democratic winners will be Obama, Clinton and Edwards, in the order. The Republicans will be McCain, Romney and Huckabee.

Iowa is Coming (the Goose is Getting Fat)

2007-12-31T10:57:00.000-08:00

With only three days left before the Iowa Caucus, it’s probably time to chance a few predictions. After equal parts research, poll watching and gut-feelings, I believe the Democratic winners in Iowa will be, in first-to-third order: John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. There will be only a point or two separating the positions and none of the three will be severely damaged by their showing, although Hillary’s long-tarnished aura of inevitability will receive another coat of oxidation.

On the Republican side, the top three winners (again in first-to-third order) will be Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and (here, I’m going out a bit on a limb) John McCain. Conventional wisdom maintains that Fred Thompson will place third, but I believe his star is fading rapidly.

There will be a couple of things to watch. First will be the showing of Ron Paul. He’s popular with college students and, if he can get them out to caucus, he might actually place fourth in Iowa. Also, one might keep an eye on Hillary’s numbers. If her ultimate total is significantly below what her poll numbers would indicate, there may be a hidden “second thoughts about Hillary” constituency. These will be caucus goers who have been telling pollsters that they would stand behind Hillary but, at the moment of truth, caucus instead for Edwards or Obama. If this phenomena appears, look for it to strengthen significantly in the New Hampshire and later primaries.

Soon after Iowa and New Hampshire, look for some of the candidates to yield to reality and drop out of the race. Not among this number will be the previously mentioned Ron Paul. He has built a following among the libertarian-inclined and has raised far more money than expected. Dennis Kucinich will also stay around. He has neither great funds nor a large following, but he does have a low-maintenance, low-cost campaign and a head full of ideas he would like to share with the country.

One of those who will drop out will be Joe Bidden – a liberal candidate with an obvious hair transplant who doesn’t play well with voters away from the east coast. Since he probably won’t be around long, let me say now that, at least on the issue of Iraq, he has my respect. I disagree with him on many things, but when it comes to the war, he has a concrete plan that could actually result in a lasting peace or at least what passes for it in that part of the world. He envisions a federated Iraq with Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis having “breathing room in their own regions.” As I’ve pointed out before, any loss in Iraq will not be from an American military defeat, but rather from the Iraqi political mess left in our wake. (For more on this, see my editorial of 12/6/06). Bidden at least attempts to handle this near inevitability with creativity, logic and realistic ideas.

Change of Profession (sort of)

2007-12-28T06:40:00.000-08:00

Times change and people change and I'm no exception. After several years as a community college librarian, I have now returned to working in K-12 education. I've taken a position as a student advisor (guidance counselor without the clinical counseling) at a small, rural Kansas high school. Thus far I love the work and hope to stay there until I retire. Those who knew me in high school are probably amazed at my current position, considering some of the deeds (and misdeeds) I pulled off during my own high school years. But, hopefully, the experiences I gained during those years will help me guide young lives and mold young minds. In other words, not make the same mistakes I made.

As I leave the library profession for the second and, probably, last time, I feel that I should make a few observations in passing. After all, I spent nearly 20 years in the profession - serving in high school, public, college and university libraries - and should have learned a few things along the way. So here goes:
(1) Technology is changing libraries almost beyond recognition and, in general, librarians and their everpresent bosses - the administrators and board members - have not kept pace. Computers are often too few in number at libraries and the people in charge often can't quite grasp the fact that, if they offer a wireless connection, people will actually use their own laptops. What Starbucks has known for years seems to be above the heads of many people in charge of libraries.
(2) The American Library Association is largely a liberal organization, stuck in the late 1960s and unable to comprehend the changing world about them. This applies both to the world of technology and the world of politics. The association dropped the ball badly on Cuba and doesn't seem able to rectify, or even admit, that mistake.
(3) Library science is largely a female dominated profession and, sadly, many of those women fail to see that more men in the profession would be a good thing. They are disgusted by the scarcity of male patrons, but are offended by the suggestion that more male librarians would likely mean more male patrons.

So now, I say goodbye to the library profession and look forward to fighting new battles on the K-12 education front. For those who read this blog, I say that I am basically the same person as before. I'm still a Republican with a strong Liberterian streak who believes that government does best when it stays out of citizen's lives and lets them make their own mistakes. I believe the federal government should concentrate on national security, state and local governments should concentrate on law and order, and school boards should concentrate on producing productive, well informed and clear thinking citizens. I have a tendency to be a protectionist when it comes to trade, but I recognize that battle has already been fought and that free enterprise won. With the advent of the World Wide Web, ideas, knowledge and trade have all become international and nothing short of nuclear war or a massive gamma ray burst is going to change that.

So, stay tuned. I'm still in the commentary game.

A Moment of Reflection on Pop Tarts and Talent

2007-12-27T07:05:00.000-08:00

The nicest thing about having your own blog is the freedom to write about anything you damn well please, and right now I'd like to write (some would probably say "waste") a few lines about the latest female pop singer to hit the radar: Avril Lavigne. In short, I like her. I couldn't name any of her song titles (okay, I can actually name two: "Girlfriend" and "My Happy Ending), but I've seen her perform on television and I salute her for being able to actually sit in front of a band and a microphone and sing, rather than just lip-synch.

It's too early to say whether the 23-year-old Canadian belongs in the truly talented category of young female singers, whose numbers include Shakira and Christina Aguilera. But she's certainly a step above the clearly untalented Pop Tart performers such as Britney Spears, Ashley Simpson, Hilary Duff and, when she's trying to sing instead of act, Lindsay Lohan. I also like the fact that Avril has staked out a slightly rebellious look and image that, at least thus far, seem genuine. At least she hasn't fallen into the trap that Pink gladly climbed into - that of promoting an anti-Britney image as a substitute for perfecting one's own unique abilities. Instead, Avril looks pretty much like many of the working class girls you knew in high school: small, thin with a head of bleached blond hair and enough eye make-up to put Liza Minnelli to shame.

Finally, I'm encouraged that Avril doesn't take herself, or her causes, too seriously. She's participated in at least one Saturday Night Live skit that poked fun at overly young, Hollywood talent. And she's an admittedly failed vegetarian, who sometimes gives in to her weakness for cheeseburgers - something true believing, meat-Nazi vegetarians probably find offensive.

In short, she seems to be someone worth keeping an eye on. If she can avoid the usual pitfalls of anorexia, self-righteousness and cookie cutter promotional images, she may have something genuine to offer the world of music and teenage idols.

(For those who worry I've fallen into the same trap that swallowed the mainsteam media - that of substituting tabloid journalism for real news - I can only say, stay calm. I'll soon be back, comentating on more substantial and important issues).

More troops ... for forty years?

2006-12-20T15:02:00.000-08:00

President Bush has said he wants to increase the size of the U.S. military, obviously with an eye toward sending more troops to Iraq. If we are going to try to bring a degree of sanity and peace to that region, that's a necessary step. However, he fails to mention how long he believes those troops will need to stay in Iraq. I would say about forty years might do it. That's how long it took Moses to raise a new generation, capable of self government and military action and, I believe, that's how long it will take the U.S. - with generous contributions of military and financial aid - to allow a new generation of Iraqis to mature and come to power. Hopefully, this new generation would be able to leave terrorism and partisan conflict behind them and govern and protect their own country.

Then, and only then, could we hope to depart Iraq and not leave a bloody civil war in our wake. As I've pointed out before, there's historical evidence that only such a measure will suffice - witness our "successes" in Korea, Japan and Europe where, decades after military victory, we still have thousands of U.S. troops stationed.

Speaking of which, instead of spending billions of dollars on expanding our military, why not consider taking 30 or 40,000 of our troops out of Europe and sending them to Iraq? World War II and the Cold War are over. We won. Surely the time has come for a reduction of our troops in Europe.

Iraq: here we go again.

2006-12-06T16:40:00.000-08:00

The Iraq Study Group has issued its report and, from what I've read so far, I could swear I've heard it all before. At the heart of the ISG recommendations is the belief that the U.S. should concentrate on training the Iraqi army, put its trust in the Iraqi government, and think about going home. For those of us who came of age during the Vietnam War, it all has a familiar ring.

Personally, the whole affair brings home the historically supported point that the U.S. is great at kicking butt. However, we often fall short at nation building.

President Bush was not totally delusional when he landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and proclaimed "Mission Accomplished." Indeed, the invasion portion of the mission was accomplished. What was still to come was the occupation and nation building portion of the task. And it was here we stumbled - just as we often have in the past. A quick look at our history can provide ample examples:

Indian Wars. The Indian War's military phase was not painless - certainly not for the indigenous tribes, but also not for the U.S. Army. Still, the history of those wars is largely one of U.S. soldiers being victorious over the Indians. Custer's Last Stand is primarily notable because it actually resulted in an American defeat.

Still, anyone who would look critically at the reservation system that resulted from those wars would see it as a near total disaster at nation building. The autonomous nations we left behind were from the start drenched in poverty, unemployment and alcoholism. Ironically, legalized gambling has done more good for many tribes than all the well meaning attempts of the U.S. government to build and maintain self sufficient tribal nations.

Reconstruction. The Civil War was the bloodiest, and hardest fought, conflict America has ever tackled. Still, the U.S. was able to overcome the Confederate States in a little more than four years. The nation building that followed, however, was far from successful. By 1877, U.S. troops had been pulled out of the former Confederate States, leaving former slaves largely at the mercy of their former owners. Any goal of a "one man, one vote" democracy would have to wait for nearly another century to come to fruition. It should also be pointed out that the southern states - as a region - still, to this day, lag behind the other areas of the country in everything from unemployment to high school graduations.

Vietnam. This is often touted as the only war we lost, which must come as quite a shock to both Native Americans and Southerners. Still - to stay with my original thesis - Vietnam was indeed the only war the U.S. government (as opposed to tribal or Confederate governments) lost. But even in Vietnam, it must be pointed out that we did not lose there militarily. We won every battle in the war. What we failed to do was create a government in South Vietnam that was capable of defending itself. So long as America called the shots, the North Vietnamese were held at bay. However, when we pulled out, the South Vietnamese nation we left behind fell within three and one half years. Which brings us to:

Korea and World War II. Usually held up as our greatest successes at nation building, it needs to be said that in none of these cases have we actually pulled our troops out. We have nearly 33,000 U.S. troops still stationed in Korea, more than half a century after our military role there supposedly ceased. A real test of our nation building there has yet to be tested. Is South Korea capable of protecting itself from Kim Jong II's army in the North? Who knows? We still have our troops there bolstering the southern government.

Europe is an even stranger case. We have more than 100,000 troops there, more than 60 years after Germany was defeated and 15 years after the end of the Cold War. I still have anyone to offer me a sound reason why our troops are still stationed on German soil. It certainly doesn't speak highly of our confidence in our nation building capabilities.

Likewise in Japan. We still have more than 35,000 troops there.

All of which brings us back to Iraq, where - based on history - I believe we are left with only two options. Either we resign ourselves to a long-term commitment - such as in Korea - or we watch a nation degrade into bloodshed, as happened in Vietnam.

There is, perhaps, a third option. We can partition the country into three parts - one each for the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia. Then, we move all of our troops into the northern portion controlled by the Kurds, who have been, after all, the closest thing we have to an ally in Iraq. Then, we can at least protect the Kurds (and some of the richest oil fields) while letting the Sunnis and Shia battle across the Tigris river until one conquers the other, or until they finally bleed themselves into an understanding.

A Worthless Apology

2006-07-25T07:56:00.000-07:00

There's an interesting little article, tucked away in the July 17, 2006 issue of "National Review." It seems that Englishman Andrew Hawkins - who believes that he is a descendant of seadog, knight and part-time slaver Sir John Hawkins - is determined to apologize for things Andrew had absolutely no control over: namely, the actions of his 16th century relative and the 16th century African slave trade.

Apparently, in the company of 26 other like-minded penitents, Andrew traveled to Gambia, where he donned yoke and manacle and apologized for John's participation in the enslavement process, all of which took place before Andrew's great-great-great grandfather drew his first breath. The point is not (or at least it shouldn't be) that Andrew is related to some long dead slaver. Look far enough back in all of our genealogies - be we white, black or any shade in between - and we can all probably find someone who owned a slave. The point is that you simply cannot effectively apologize for the actions of people you had no control over. It's sad enough when governments attempt to do so, generations after the fact. I'm sure the U.S. government will someday put on ashes and sack cloth over Antebellum slavery. But the process can be downright embarrassing when individuals attempt to do so in the name of their long dead ancestors. Witness Andrew Hawkins' dog and pony show in Banjul.

I would have far more respect for Andrew if he apologized for his own misdeeds or if he worked to stamp out modern day slavery, which still exists in several countries today, including some in Africa.

Now I realize that blogs can have the lifespan of a Tibetan sandpainting. But, should any of my descendants actually read this, please do not apologize for me. I did what I did based on my own beliefs which were shaped by my own decisions and by my era's mores. If anything I did fails to agree with future generations' beliefs and sensitivities, let my record stand on its own merit. Better that you apologize for your own personal shortcomings and work to correct your own era's tragedies.

Join the ALA?

2006-07-01T08:56:00.000-07:00

A final comment before I call an end to my day's writings.

I would like to support a statement by a fellow blogger. Greg McClay, of SHUSH, encouraging moderates, conservatives and liberterians alike to join the ALA. This might seem a strange endorsement considering the issues Greg has with the association. But believe me, his reasoning is sound. If only liberals join the ALA, it will forever remain a liberal organization. However, if the rest of librarians - those who actually use a degree of logic and clear thinking in their decision making - join, they might actually see the association change for the better. It is at least a thought to consider as we librarians wonder whether or not to write a check to an association that fails to share our viewpoints or, in some cases, fails to look out for our well being.

I once had a similar discussion with a fellow educator about joining the National Education Association. My co-worker refused to join because 0f the NEA's open hostility to the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. My comment at the time was: "And that will always be NEA's stance on gun rights unless people like you and I join."

I doubt that he joined. But I still believe my argument was valid.

By the way, I am a Life Member of the NRA.

ALA New Orleans

2006-07-01T08:12:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Greg McClay's account of the recent American Library Association's conference in New Orleans. According to Greg's blog SHUSH (a fine blog, by the way), it doesn't appear there were a lot of surprises.

True to form, the ALA was determined to officially issue statements on everything from the right to unionize to the Darfur Genocide. I happen to believe there is indeed a right to unionize and I would like to see the violence in Darfur ended, but once again I would rather have seen the ALA concentrating on the issues of libraries, librarians and freedom of expression.

Apparently, the ALA also voted to support the idea of single payer, universal healthcare. I suppose this does legimately fall into the ALA's circle of interest. Librarians need healthcare like everyone else and, considering the small paychecks many of them receive for their labors, it's not totally foolish for the association to consider having the government play a role. I realize I part company with many of my fellow libertarians on this issue. The whole point of libertarianism is individual freedom and rights. A citizen should shape his own destiny and having the government provide assistance to one's healthcare can certainly be seen as interferring with those ideals. But then again, so can relying on your employer and/or insurance company for your healthcare. Few things say "loss of freedom" more than having to stay in a job you hate, just to keep your family's health insurance intact. I also don't believe it's good for our economy to have the purchase price of an American automobile include an estimated $1,500 worth of insurance for the automobile workers. This certainly places a burden on American automobile manufacturers when they compete against foreign companies that don't pay for their workers' insurance since their government handles that task.

But back to the ALA conference. I've certainly seen no indication that the ALA revisited the issue of the Cuban librarians imprisonment. No big surprise there.

I wonder how Barbara Bush was received at the conference. Perhaps, some readers who attended her speech would like to report on that. I would be interested in how that session went and if the ALA members were, at least, polite to the First Lady.

The libertarian librarian

2006-06-30T06:43:00.000-07:00

It has taken me some time to find a focus for my blog. But now, thanks to a well known conservative commentator, I believe I have found one.

Michelle Milkin recently wrote an article criticial of the American Library Association in her blog at www. michellemalkin.com. Included in the article was a listing of blogs created by conservative and libertarian librarians. I have checked those blogs out and I believe I shall join their ranks. As a librarian and a Republican I believe I am well qualified.

As I write this commentary, the ALA has just concluded its annual conference in New Orleans. I have yet to read the reports from the conference, but I fear they will tell of an association still drenched in liberal guilt, blind to the realitities of the modern world, tardy with changing technologies and more concerned with being politically correct than with protecting freedoms.

I will be extremely surprised if the conference has made even symbolic overtures to the conservatives in their association, not to mention the conservatives who utilize and help pay for this country's libraries. I will be pleased if the ALA leadership has even made the rudimentary gestures toward fair mindedness that the leadership of the Presbyterian Church (USA) made at their recent 217th General Assembly.

I will be especially interested in seeing if the ALA has made any move toward rectifying its shameful neglect of persecuted librarians in Cuba. Failing to strongly condemn Castro's government for burning books and jailing librarians (who the ALA maintains were not really librarians since they were operating "private libraries") is a blot on the record of the ALA that will stain the association's reputation for years to come.

It now seems to me that librarians are much in the same boat as lawyers. The ALA - with its determination to equate the U.S. boycott of Cuba with the repressive actions of the Cuban government - is an accrediting organization for library schools. The American Bar Association - with its push for racial preferences in admissions despite recent Supreme Court rulings and, in some cases, state law - is the accrediting organization for law schools. Center-right librarians, as well as center-right lawyers, find themselves represented by, and in some cases educated by, organizations that fail to respect their beliefs and values.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that my library education and certification, at the University of New Mexico, was not accredited by the ALA. This is a fact that has kept me out of the running for several jobs throughout my career. Now, however, I am able to take a certain pride in this fact. My resume lacks the approval of, and therefore the taint of, the ALA.

My Novel

2006-04-23T19:39:00.000-07:00

To view the webpage for my novel, Year of the Rat, go to http://donlhart.tripod.com

HARTLAND

2006-04-23T18:40:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Hartland, the ongoing news blog of Don L. Hart. These web logs have done amazing times during recent years. They've changed the face of the news media and, in the process, have humbled the likes of Dan Rather, Trent Lott, John Kerry and Jayson Blair. Perhaps we - you and I - can help in our own little way as we cut through the nonsense that is sometimes passed off as "news" and try to get at the truth.

Blogs (and their older cousins, the web sites) actually operate under a very old model. Back in the days of Benjamin Franklin, a master printer not only printed his own materials, but also researched, wrote, interviewed for, and edited the news. And now - hopefully for the better - that day has come again.

I am sure we have all been misled by so-called "journalists," people who have access to a public forum but fail to properly research their stories and editorials. Saddly, many of them write so poorly that we don't even notice that their writings lack objectivity, reek of bias, and are deficient in that most important of elements: facts. Such scribblers' relationship to true reporters - people who actually do their research before they write - is like that of poison ivy to a grape vine. One of them is beneficial while the other is simply an irritant.

Perhaps we can do something about separating the two during the coming days. We can at least try.