24thState

Why Individual Liberty is Everything

From time to time in our great nation we get into passionate battles that separate "red staters" from "blue staters" and I find these moments very sad. While the 2nd Amendment is the subject at the moment, health care liberty is another, and there will be new ones tomorrow. Many well-meaning neighbors ask simple questions like "what is wrong with banning assault weapons?" and cannot understand the impassioned reactions from people they might dismiss as knuckle-draggers. There is a simple reason why people so forcefully fight for individual liberties that has nothing to do with the NRA.

This history video by Dick Morris explains how the horrific Dred Scott decision (from the lawsuit beginning in Missouri) had our majority, slave-holding Democrat Supreme Court deciding that blacks were property. This is why I so revere the bedrock principle enshrined in the Bill of Rights of individual liberty. No one should have the power to enslave you. Sadly, the Democrat Party then AS NOW, wanted to put foundational civil liberties up to popular vote or the rule of judges.

We must never forget that majorities of our forebearers voted away the actual humanity of our black brothers and sisters. By stripping an entire ethnic minority of their humanity the white Democrat majorities then had no qualms depriving blacks of their 2nd Amendment rights. These irreconcilable inconsistencies spurred the creation of the Republican Party which was founded on the bedrock belief that the Constitution that fails to protect any of us will fail to protect all of us.

It is with a tremendous expression of faith for so many to entrust any politicians, especially a Congress that never enjoys more than 20% popular support, with control over our health care or our right to self defense. If you are one of those who believes that individual liberties should be subjected to control by politicians or popular vote, remember Dred Scott and prepare to inherit the wind.

Akin and the GOP - If Only Romney had Newt's Brain

During the GOP presidential primary, many of us bemoned the lack of a perfect candidate which lead someone to suggest "Newt's Brain for President". Hilarious! So many of us had issues with him, but his rhetorical skills are in a class by themeselves. So thinking about how badly Republicans up and down the party structure have handled the Akin issue, I had this wishful thought. What would Newt have said about Akin, were he the nominee.

"You know, I disagree with what Akin said about rape and pregnancy. I think he has his facts wrong on the science, and I disagree with him, but....
For the President of the United States to stoop to the level of character assassination that he did and suggesting that a sitting member of Congress in any way suggested that rape was sometimes legitimate is inexcusable and way beneath the dignity of the office. That kind of character assassination is to be expected from consultants and operatives, but for the President, the one who is supposed to unite Americans, to be so divisive as to invent a supposed "Republican war on women" and then twist a man's words way beyond what he was clearly trying to say, to fit that derisive narrative is something he should be ashamed for doing. And if he is not ashamed, that is because you guys, in the fawning media refuse to vet this guy and hold him accountable. That is shame to you.

More from what I wish Romney has the cajones to say:
If we are going to accuse anyone of implying there are "legitimate rapes" how about turning your guns away from Akin, the father of two daughters (and four sons) who is probably one of the cleanest members to ever serve in Congress, and look at Clinton and the Kennedy family, the ones the left holds up as the greatest defenders of women."

Ladies and Gentlemen: Gina's Book Launches Del Mar Horse Racing Opening Day

Ok, shameless plug for my best girl. Please link it, "like" it, tweet it or otherwise share it, because the fruit of Gina's labor of love is born today. When the publisher, AMG established today as the date, who knew there would be so much excitement in San Diego surrounding the opening day of the 75th anniversary of the races at the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club.

So when the bugler plays "Call to the Post" at Del Mar, you won't see Seabiscuit, but you may see Gina, probably on her phone doing one of about 20 radio interviews today regarding the book she co-authored with Dr. Dathan Paterno, Ladies and Gentlemen: Why the Survival of Our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor.

Phyllis Schlafly says,

"Dr. Gina and Dr. Dathan Paterno open a groundbreaking window to a world of chivalry, manners, and decorum that our younger generation has never visited and, indeed, has never even heard described. The feminists have repeatedly manifested a particular animosity toward the word “lady.” But this remarkable book puts male and female behaviors in proper focus, historically, biblically, and in contemporary relationships."

Pamela Geller adds,

"Gina Loudon and Dathan Paterno diagnose the political contro- versies of our age magnificently, rightfully perceiving them as symptoms of a much deeper malady. The unique and profoundly perceptive cures they prescribe are right on target. If the analyses in this book are heeded, our country will be on track to regain the position of preeminence that it once won not by force of arms, but by the power of ideas and the ladies and gentlemen who exemplify them."

About the book:

Ladies and Gentlemen studies the history of the terms that once elevated the ideal woman and man and illuminates how the structure of Western society established and maintained the virtues. In contrast, the book demonstrates how three movements—atheism, liberalism, and radical feminism—undercut these ideals, especially in the 20th Century. Rather than a dry history lesson, readers will understand the crucial contributions of government, family, literature/media, and churches in producing a culture that either esteems or debases the best of each gender.

Ladies and Gentlemen draws aggressive battle lines in today’s culture war, pressing Christians and conservatives to value all people, cherish manners, humility, and graciousness, and esteem virtue above self. It directly challenges politicians and media
personalities to honor and reflect a culture of honor, as well as calling all conservatives to reward public figures who exhibit these
traits, while rebuking or rejecting those who do not. The book exemplifies several public figures on both ends of the political spectrum who engender the traits of the lady or gentleman, as well as several who clearly fail.

Finally, Ladies and Gentlemen paints a portrait of modern civility, proving that women can be warriors without burning bras and men can be tough without smoking Marlboros on horseback. It instructs parents how to raise their own children to be ladies and gentlemen. Incorporating Biblical principles and an awareness of modern day challenges, it boosts parents’ ability to navigate the
murky waters of today’s culture.

 

Missouri or California: Are You Manly Enough To Handle The Truth?

Admit it, you love rankings, at least when they are in your favor. This one was a huge eye-opener for me and there is a deeper political point. A couple of months ago, I was commuting back and forth between San Diego and Birmingham, as in "Sweet Home Alabama". You truly have to live in Alabama to understand why that moniker fits. So I was staying with a friend in San Diego, who I will not name, but he knows who he is. This former St. Louisan stands well over six feet tall, plays hockey regularly, and even electric guitar. All good, right? So I am thrilled to tell him that I located St. Louis style pork steaks in San Diego, of all places. I was going to grill a feast, made for a man, just like what we grew up eating in St. Louis. All we need is some of Louie Maull's special sauce. And then he says it. Ah, I think I will pass. What?!?!?! He then proceeds to sing the praises of some fake sausage called..."Tofurky". He and his lovely fiance prefer to go meatless, mostly. What happened?

I come across this recent ranking of the Manliest Cities in America. Suddenly, it all makes sense. After growing up in St. Louis (#7 out of 50!!!! Go CARDS!-Shoot yeah!), now living in Birmingham (#5 Roll Tide!), certainly a lot manly influences have rubbed off on me. I literally crave red meat like a vampire craves, whatever they crave. I cannot explain it, its just who I am. So I could not understand how my friend, the hockey playing, big guy prefers Thai vegetable stir fry and sushi, and would rather eat a tube of Tofu and pretend it is sausage. Now I know. While all of that manly culture was rubbing off on me (many cities #7 and #5) my friend has spent the better part of four years in San Diego, number, ahem, 50. See what has rubbed off on him? Yep.

San Diego is the least manly big city in the country. It is even behind "fashionable" Kansas City (#20) - respectable. Look what this city did to my friend. Truly depressing. Forget about my friend for a minute, and let us take a look at the entire Golden State. The ranking shows that four of the five girly-mannish cities in the country are in California which includes, not-surprisingly, San Francisco and Oakland (#s 49 and 48), and LA (#46). Even the capitol city, Sacramento comes in at an effeminate #44. How could a state famous for gold miners and cowboys, Governors like Reagan and even Schwarzenegger be such femmland with four of the five girliemannest cities? Even the sports teams, Padres, Dodgers, and, Angels-Really? Not even the uber-manly Albert Pujols (formerly from #7 St. Louis) can make the Angels sound manly. Come to think of it, Albert's bat is nothing like it used to be in St. Louis. Hmm?

So how did the state of John Wayne and Ronald Reagan now become the state of Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein? A recent study in Human Nature may shed some light. The leading Hollywood action hero manly-men, namely Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris and Sylvester Stallone, basically the entire cast of The Expendables (I LOVE this franchise), and one of my favorite patriots Gary Sanise, stand out as Republicans in otherwise hard left Hollywood. Evidently, there is only so much testosterone to go around, and higher levels of testosterone packed manliness equates to voting well, like a man, ie. Republican. Sorry, Tom Cruise, but making you into a real man is simply ah, Mission Impossible, or is it?

One of the factors measured in the manly city piece is manly restaurant categories versus girly choices. So if a city has more coffee shops, sushi bars and vegan cuisine than BBQ joints and steakhouses, you better have a healthy variety of gun clubs and race tracks or you are toast. So I think I know what happened to my friend. He left extremely manly St. Louis, landed in San Diego and got in with the wrong crowd. Someone suggested dinner out at a "great Thai place". It seemed harmless enough. You can get some meat, plus it is spicy. This is the gateway drug to feminine eating. Next he tried sushi. Fish undoubtedly played a role in shoving beef aside. Then, someone suggested a vegetarian restaurant. It was all over. So goes California.

The once proud, hardscrabble, frontier state began taking its dietary lead more from the Far East (which evidently is not far enough) and less from the Midwest. The consequences are tragic. With lady men in charge of girly states like California and New York, what do you expect? Its like an all woman jury. Throw the book at no one and be sensitive to the needs of the accused. More compassion and less accountability. More June Cleaver and less Ward. These states are so sensitive that they lost their sense! You know what tofu does to a man?

We realize there are exceptions to these rules. I married a "hang-em high" wife. I think she was more excited about the .45 I got her for Christmas than she was for the engagement ring. The point is, these girly food states are marked by generous welfare benefits, eye-popping pension outlays, too many home decorating stores and maxed out credit cards. Hello? Anyone see a pattern here? So what we need is to man up as a nation. Cruise, how about laying off the Scientology-my-body-my-temple diet, and spending more dinners out at your Hard Rock Cafe? Have you seen that manly menu? It was founded by a Southerner (Memphis #3). Getting the picture?. So as hard as it may be, you princesses in the Big Apple, Boston and LA, should should quit eating like Gandhi and start eating like St. Louis' John Goodman. Take a page from the big man from fly over land. Did you realize Missouri has a balanced budget and a AAA bond rating? Do you ladies even know what that means?

So California, Eat right, man up, balance your books and maybe you can stop that testosterone exodus for Texas. Heaven knows they have enough. JR Ewing has enough manliness for a small city all by himself. Meanwhile, maybe I can pull off a Brazilian steakhouse intervention on my wayward friend, before its too late for him.

Heritage Bus Tour Events



The 'Your Money, Your Values, Your Vote' Bus Tour form the Heritage Foundation will have two stops in St. Louis.

Tonight, Heritage Tavern will host an event at Two Hearts Banquet Center in Sunset Hills from 6-8.  $10/person with pub fare & cash bar.

MO Heritage Tavern Event - May 10

Tomorrow night, a panel of speakers will present at Westminster Christian Academy's Theater in Town & Country from 7-9.  This event is free to the public.

The Values Bus website has more information on the events.

 

Choose Your Best-Case Scenario

Here's a tidbit of news: Number of licensed dog breeders in Missouri is dwindling:

The number of dog breeders in Missouri has declined since the state began enforcing tougher standards and regulations.  The Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation reports more than 500 commercial kennels have closed in the state since January 2009. 

So, which is the better spin on this news?  Proposition B cost the state more than 500 jobs, or the thought that Proposition B might have increased the number of unlicensed dog breeders in Missouri with less oversight?

 

Did You See Any School Bus Pictures From Jeff City Rally?

Word has come through the grapevine that a local school district used their school buses to transport students to Jeff City to participate in the MoveOn.org Rally.  Please check through your cameras to see if you happened to find anything related, and forward to PM@24thstate.com

Update: The video below implies that school buses were used to transport union protesters to Jefferson City this past Saturday [jump to 2:00, more here]. Just like in Wisconsin, unions in Missouri seem to be using government property to get their message out. Sharp Elbows noticed something similar in St. Louis last week.

Update 2: Alert reader and citizen journalist Jackie sent along the following:

I just got a call back from Janet Winterrose at the Clayton School district. She is listed as the contact person for the school board and states she is the assistant to the superintendent. She confirmed that a high school teacher informed her that they went to a "speech and debate" meeting AT the Capitol. I asked where at in the Capitol. She replied, "I didn't ask the teacher that information, but I can call you back and let you know." I then got on the phone and called the state Capitol and spoke to Mandy who is in charge of events (I got transferred twice). She stated there was NOT any speech or debate meeting or competition at the capitol this past weekend. She told me the only events at the capitol were the Tea Party Rally, Moveon.org and a CoffeeParty meeting on Saturday. And something about Missing People or children on Sunday. I have looked at the calendar of events at the school district and there is nothing about any speech and debate competition or meeting at the capitol this weekend.

 

 

Update 3:  A Facebook message is now saying that Bob McCarty got confirmation from the district that the schoolbuses were there for a separate event.  I do want to apologize for the slapdash nature of this post.  There were several different editors contributing information that was second-hand sourced, and information wasn't shared as it was posted.  Call it growing pains.  We'll try to do better. We're also creating separate identities separate from the main account for each of the contributors.

24thstate is growing into the community site Jim always envisioned for it, but it's taking some doing to get everyone on board correctly.  

Astroturfed Union Talking Points On Collective Bargaining And ACT Scores

On my Facebook page, a well-meaning connection dropped this little nugget into his comment stream.

Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Their ranking on ACT/SAT scores:

South Carolina - 50th
North Carolina - 49th
Georgia - 48th
Texas - 47th
Virginia - 44th

Wisconsin is currently ranked 2nd. Welcome to the race to the bottom.

It's an interesting piece, because it's all over the internet in a Google Search.  There is no citation for the piece, and the comments are left mostly byanonymous users at hundreds of newssites and comment sections covering the union strike in Wisconsin.

This is astroturf at its finest.  A low-paid intern or first year employee cutting and pasting a talking point into comment sections as they register, too lazy to change it up, and too rushed to bother creating real profiles to post from.

The tipoff for me was the use of educators.  The use of the word "educators" instead of teachers is a code word meant to make you think of the word educate, which is so much sexier than teaching. 

The problem is the "statistic," no matter where it came from, is bunk.  Focusing on the students who took the ACT/SAT doesn't cover the whole educational picture.  It covers those most likely to graduate across a state (knowing full well that school districts within a state, and even a city, vary wildly).  It doesn't touch on dropout rates at all. 

 Let's look at those dropout rates by county, instead of by state, and see what we get.  Here is a list from 2006 in USA TODAY.

The top five counties for graduation rate include one in VA, one in NC, two in Maryland, and one in Texas.

The bottom five counties for graduation rate are Detroit, Baltimore, New York, Milwaukee, and Cleveland.

3 out of 5 of the top are in states without collective bargaining.  5 out of 5 states at the bottom have collective bargaining and fail their students.  Milwaukee, in Wisconsin, has a graduation rate of lower than 50%.  Care to explain how collective bargaining is helping educators there?

Let's not make the same mistake of the astroturfed teacher's union commenters.  The dropout rate, even by county, has a lot more to do with living conditions in big cities, money available for the schools, city, state, and local governance, and yes, even how states track and present their data.  It's not an effective way to argue for collective bargaining in either direction to point to SAT scores or dropout rates, especially 90% of the states use collective bargaining.

But you do have to wonder who paid for this astroturf.  Who is attempting to poison the debate about the power and influence of teacher's unions in such a manner?  Why are they afraid of the truth?  It doesn't seem like the type of thing someone confident in their teaching abilities would offer up to the public at large.  It seems more like power politics with a heavy whiff of propaganda, intended to denigrate those who support the Wisconsin governor by calling them stupid.

Too bad I caught them.  Call it the benefit of a Texas public school education.

Taking The Red Pill: The Tea Party Outside The Matrix

Do you recall the end of the Matrix?  You hear a phone ring.  It's picked up and connected to a modem. And then you hear Neo (Keanu Reeves) say:

I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid.  You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I  didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to  tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and  then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm  going to show them a world … without you. A world without rules and  controls, without borders or boundaries; a world where anything is  possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.

The message is a powerful one, even if it is yoked to a science fiction movie, and it's worth exploring in context of the Tea Party and modern politics.  It's not for the you, the successful American people who stood up and took a step towards greater freedom.  It's for the statists, and the bureaucrats, and the global governance types who just can't stand the idea of a free people shrugging off its chains.

The power of film is not to be taken lightly.  The ability to influence people with pictures and music is well-known, and yet it still retains the power to move us.  The modern cinema, just barely a hundred years old, is as valid as medium as the live theater performances of the ancient world. It gives us a common language to discuss the human condition, something to ponder when it's done.  It allows you to ask yourself, if I were a character in the movie, what would I have done?

The science fiction and fantasy fiction genres succeed because they make fans confront moral choices in stark contrast.  In Star Wars, you're either on the side of the Empire or the Rebels.  In Star Trek, you're either an explorer with a good heart or a barbarian/robot intent on destruction or assimilation.  In Lord of the Rings, you're either with the Dark Lord or the Men of the West.  The storyline revolves around a character or group of characters with the power to make a difference.  Some know they have the power, others don't (with that discovery forming the basis of the story), but the end conclusion is the same.  Given power, would you use it wisely, even to your own destruction?

The Matrix Trilogy is the same basic plot.  A powerful champion discovers his gift, decides to use it for the good of the people, and then discovers that it is not enough.  Ultimately he sacrifices himself against all odds and teams up with a former competitor to defeat a greater evil, which turns out to be the amoral Mr. Smith, a being who simply seeks to grow by consuming what others have made.  Mr. Smith steals the identity of others and replicates himself, creating a mindlesss mass of automatons in a dark world. 

And that's where you come in.

White House Startup Initiative Doomed To Fail Because Startups Aren't The Answer

Time was that being a business owner was a swell thing.  You ran a company, employed workers, joined your local chamber and gave money to local philanthropies.  It felt good, and people looked up to you.  Today, that's not exactly the case.

While it's true that most politicians make kissy faces at small business owners, the "job-creating engines of the economy," they also do everything in their power to make the risk of owning a business unacceptable.

Don't be fooled by the Startup Initiative just released by the WhiteHouse.  Buried at the bottom in the last bullet-point is the real focus of the piece - campaign literature for states that Obama needs to carry in 2012 to be re-elected.

• Foster innovation and entrepreneurship in states and regions such as Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and New Orleans

I'm sorry, but taking someone from AOL to teach small business start-ups?  That's typical of Washington thinking.

What can actually be done to boost small business job creation?  Very little by this president. We are facing major structural and attitudinal changes in the way we approach the economy, and a president that falsely accuses doctors of cutting off feet for profit, tells bankers that he is holding back mobs with pitchforks, and supports people like Van Jones who preach "social justice" as everyone having the same economic outcome just doesn't get it.

Small businesses are not start-ups.  There's a huge difference in what you're trying to achieve.  At issue is the very definition of a start-up and what people want from it. Start-ups are generally seen as a vehicle for quick money, rather than as a drive to improve a marketplace or improve a community. While there is nothing wrong with making money, those who make fast money building and selling a company emerge as different players than those who spend a lifetime or generations building a company.  That has a big effect on the next wave of entrepreneurs. Who wants to dig in and work 70 hours for 30 years when you can bust your hump for 5 years and walk out rich with plenty of leisure time? Of course, for most, this doesn't happen, but the dream is more powerful than the reality.

A tech company is a lot more exciting than a janitorial supply company. Which do you think has a higher success rate in creating millionaires?

The quick money paradox didn't just happen - it was also a reaction to decades of new regulations from all levels of government. Trying to build and run a company is hard work, and we've made it harder with paperwork and laws that on one hand are aimed at "fair" labor practices, but in reality make it not worth it to build a company over a long period of time.

It's the modern dilemma. Laws designed to prevent exploitation of the lower and middle class choke off the jobs that employ the lower and middle class. In our effort to be fair and just, we've simply not made it worth it for tens of thousands of highly qualified people to take the risk of starting a business.

I recently had a lengthy conversation with a friend of mine whose college roommate moved overseas to start a business.  The roommate was a mid-level worker, nothing much to see in his job.  1 year later, he's banking $2 million a quarter in a fresh business in Southeast Asia.  Now that's clearly an outlier, and earning that kind of money in the nation he's in has other problems (like warlords, crime bosses, and revolutions where they burn everything you own).  I also imagine he doesn't treat his workers that well.  But at least he has workers.  Surely there is some middle ground between no law, and laws that so utterly crush the entrepreneurial spirit that our best and brightest simply stop hiring?

We saw this in 2008, as businesses shed millions of workers in preparation for belt-tightening. What happened to the small businesses? Many laid off every worker and focused on a smaller, but more profitable book of business. What they found should terrify us. They found they could make more money working less hours, and without the hassle of employment.

Today, I know many, many talented people who have multiple streams of income from consulting to small websites, but who employ only a part-time accountant. They're happier, make more than they ever did, and while they have a tinge of guilt for their past employees, don't see a reason to risk their comfortable lives. The problem, of course, is that this leaves a lot of people without jobs, and creates a class of people who have been taught by experience that there is no gratitude from the community for being employers. When you complain that corporations and businessmen are all evil and greedy, it should come as no surprise that people stop putting themselves inside those targets.

When small businesses get tax breaks for selling out early (capital gains), but are penalized with legal compliance and workplace restrictions for staying in the game, what do you think you are going to get?

I want to stress that this is not just a federal government problem.  State and local paperwork play a role as well.  It's not that this paperwork is all worthless, it's that there is too much to do, and too much risk, and ultimately, too many barriers.  A worker protected from all risks will always, always end as an unemployed worker. 

We don't need investment.  Or coaching.  Or targeted tax cuts.  Or even capital gains cuts  What we need is a smaller system that punishes bad actors, tort reform that works, and a renewed commitment to lifting up the good business owners as the backbone of the country.

What we truly need is for all levels of government to shrink back into their constitutionally-prescribed roles, and let Americans achieve again.

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

      — Robert Heinlein