Friday, July 12, 2013

Brad Stevens to the Boston Celtics is a surprise, but it could pay off

Brad Stevens sat in a hotel coffee shop last February on a cold Saturday morning killing time before his Butler basketball team played later that day against George Washington at Smith Center.
“I guess the only thing I know for sure about the future is that I’ll be coaching against someone here in Washington,” he said with a laugh about the possibility of Butler leaving the Atlantic 10 Conference for the new Big East. “The only thing I don’t know is which building I’ll be coaching in.”
Verizon Center turned out to be the building. But the opponent won’t be Georgetown. It will be the Wizards.
In one of the more stunning coaching moves in years, the Boston Celtics hired Stevens as their coach on Wednesday. To everyone in basketball, Danny Ainge’s way-outside-the-box decision came from nowhere. Stevens’s name had never been mentioned. At 36, he is unquestionably one of basketball’s great young coaches, but if he left Butler — considered a big if by everyone in the sport, including Stevens — it was considered a given that it would be for one of the college jobs: Indiana, Duke, North Carolina, Kansas.
The list might not even have been that long. Stevens had already turned down several big-time openings — including UCLA this past spring — after becoming one of the game’s bright lights in the wake of Butler’s back-to-back trips to the national title game in 2010 and 2011.
The thought that Stevens’s next stop might be in the NBA crossed very few minds. He loved coaching at Butler. He had grown up in the Indianapolis area, gone to college there and worked there — first as the young corporate executive he is often mistaken for, then as a coach at Butler for 13 years — the first seven as an assistant; the last six as the boss.
His departure is a loss for Butler, but more than that it is a punch in the stomach for college basketball. Stevens wasn’t just one of the best and the brightest, he was one of the college game’s truly good people.
He won 166 games in those six years helming Butler, an average of just fewer than 28 victories a season. If he had maintained that average for the next 30 seasons — granted, easier said than done — he would have been at 1,000 victories at 66, the same age Mike Krzyzewski, the college game’s all-time winningest coach (957 wins) is right now.
There’s no doubt that money played some role in this decision. Butler was reportedly paying him about $1.2 million per year, and his contract was through 2022. That’s very good money with lots of job security.
But the Celtics, according to several reports, will pay him $22 million over the next six years, meaning his salary will at least triple. Stevens has two young children, and that kind of money will create a lot of financial security for them. What’s more, if the NBA doesn’t work for him, athletic directors will line up around the block for the chance to return him to the college game.
There will, of course, be those who will point out the lack of success college coaches have had making the transition to the NBA. Most will fail to point out that in almost every case, including Rick Pitino’s disastrous run with the Celtics from 1997 until 2001, the coach was taking over a very bad team. In fact, Pitino had success in New York when he first made the college-to-NBA jump from Providence in 1987.
Clearly, Stevens isn’t being handed the keys to a very good team. Ainge made the decision to go back to square one on draft night when he agreed to trade Kevin Garnett (who is older than Stevens), Paul Pierce and Jason Terry to the Brooklyn Nets for, in essence, three No. 1 draft picks. As of now, the Celtics are Rajon Rondo and a bunch of reasonably good role players. The days of the Big Three — Garnett, Pierce and Ray Allen — that led the Celtics to an NBA title in 2008 and the finals in 2010 are long gone.
If the Celtics make the playoffs next season, Stevens should be coach of the year. More likely, they’ll be in the lottery and they can begin restocking with the first of the nine first-round draft picks they now own in the next five drafts.
That’s one reason why this is such a brilliant hire. The Celtics are going to be a young team, and Stevens will be the perfect young coach to mold them in the same kind of tough-minded, get-after-it-on-defense culture that he nurtured so well at Butler.
It’s worth remembering that one person who didn’t believe in the notion that a great college coach can’t become a great NBA coach was Red Auerbach. In 1990, he flew to Washington to meet secretly with a relatively young college coach who had made a name for himself by taking his team to four Final Fours and two national championship games in five years.
Krzyzewski almost took the job Auberbach offered that day — “because it was the Celtics and because it was Red Auerbach,” he said — but ultimately stayed at Duke.
Auerbach wasn’t around to woo Stevens, but there’s no doubt that Ainge was able to sell him on the fact that, even when they are rebuilding, the Celtics are still the NBA’s signature franchise.
Under Stevens, they will no doubt become The Celtics again. And you can bet, that, somewhere in the Boston Garden in the sky, Auerbach just lit up a cigar.
For more by John Feinstein, visit washingtonpost.com/feinstein.
Photo: AP
Related:

A modest GOP agenda for 2013


By 


July 11, 2013

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

The conventional wisdom evolves. Yesterday, Washington was merely broken, gridlocked, dysfunctional. The passive voice spread the blame evenly. Today it’s agreed that Republican obstructionism is the root of all evil — GOP resistance having now escalated to nihilism and indeed sabotage.
Sabotage carries a fine whiff of extralegal, anti-constitutional vandalism. This from media mandarins who barely bat an eyelash when President Obama unilaterally suspends parts of his own health-care law — just as he unilaterally stopped enforcing current immigration laws for 1.7 million young illegal immigrants, thereby enacting by executive order legislation that had failed in Congress. So much for faithfully executing the laws (Article II).
The new CW knowingly deplores the 113th Congress for having passed the fewest pieces of legislation in at least four decades. Why, they were sneering, it couldn’t even pass the farm bill, the essence of bipartisanship for oh so many years.
Which is the perfect example of the fatuousness of measuring legislative success by volume, as if every new law represents an advance of civilization. The farm bill is the quintessence of congressional logrolling, trade-offs and kickbacks — in which the public interest is systematically trumped by some moneyed and entrenched special interest. Its death (lamentably temporary — it was partly resurrected on Thursday) was well-deserved.
Opposition to Obama’s entitlement-state agenda — beginning with Obamacare, long before it began falling apart before our eyes — should be a source of pride for Republicans. Nevertheless, they shouldn’t stop there. They should advance a reform agenda of their own.
The major thrust should be tax reform. The time could not be more ripe. The public is understandably agitated by an IRS scandal that showed not just the agency’s usual arrogance and highhandedness but also its talent for waste, abuse, corruption and an overt favoritism that even Obama called outrageous.
Support for tax reform is already bipartisan. Its chief advocates are Democrat Max Baucus and Republican Dave Camp, respectively Senate and House chairs of the tax-writing committees. Their objective is the replication of President Reagan’s 1986 bipartisan tax-reform triumph: closing loopholes and using that revenue to lower rates across the board, which helped propel two decades of near-uninterrupted economic growth.
Tax reform is the ultimate win-win. It levels the playing field by removing the advantage of lawyered, lobbied interests. It eliminates myriad distortions in capital allocation and lowers marginal rates — both of which spur economic growth. And it simplifies the code, thereby reducing the arbitrary and unaccountable discretion of IRS bureaucrats.
The House Republicans are preparing a 25 percent cut in the IRS budget. This is silly and small. It will change nothing. Radical simplification of the tax code will change everything.
Second, take a clear position on immigration reform. “Comprehensive” or piecemeal matters not. What matters is to stick to the essential principle: legalization in return for real border control — so that this is the last amnesty we will have to grant.
Any law containing both deserves support. The current Senate bill does not. Setting soft goals for border enforcement is an invitation to this and future administrations to fudge and fake.
Be clear. Be principled. Be unafraid. The country wants legalization and border control. Show that only the GOP is fighting for both.
Third, on the policy front, demand from the president a clear policy on Afghanistan. After highly acrimonious exchanges with President Hamid Karzai, Obama is openly considering a complete pullout next year.
U.S. national interests cannot hinge on personal pique. Karzai is both deeply unreliable and terminally ungrateful. But he will be gone one day, as will Obama. The terrorist breeding/training grounds of Afghanistan and Pakistan will remain.
For four years, the president argued that our strategic interests require a residual presence in Afghanistan in order to prevent a re-establishment of terrorist safe havens in the region.
Does he still believe this? After all that price in blood, two-thirds of it under Obama, is he going to leave an anti-terror force behind? Enough with the agonized ambivalence. Obama must be made to argue the case one way or the other.
It’s a modest agenda, although true tax reform would be an achievement of historic dimensions. But it should by no means diminish rigorous GOP efforts to stop an Obama program that aggrandizes government in every sphere (education, health care, energy, finance) and passes monstrous thousand-page bills that not only effectively delegate unlimited power to the unelected bureaucracy but, like Obamacare, are so unworkable that the administration itself has to jettison one piece after another.
Oppose further expansion of the entitlement state, reform the tax code, secure the border, demand clarity on Afghanistan. A modest, doable, responsible agenda for 2013.

As MLB suspension looms for Alex Rodriguez, Yankees third baseman still in race against time to get paid


A-Rod has to know he’s never going to be remotely close to the player he once was — the player he needs to be in order to satisfy both the Yankees’ needs and his own ego.

By Bill Madden


July 11, 2013

Alex Rodriguez is in minors trying to get his lost season up and running while baseball is looking to notion that embattled Yankee star did his best to slow the Biogenesis investigation. AP

Alex Rodriguez is in minors trying to get his lost season up and running while baseball is looking to notion that embattled Yankee star did his best to slow the Biogenesis investigation. (AP)

It is now a frantic footrace with the MLB drug posse for Alex Rodriguez, who will never play another game for the Yankees but is desperately trying to make sure he doesn’t lose a penny of the $100 million owed him on the last 4½ years of his contract.

In plain view, A-Rod is going through the motions, playing in rehab games for the Class-A Tampa Yankees in the Florida State League, all in the name of making his way back to the Bronx by the end of the month. It is just an elaborate charade.

A-Rod has to know he’s never going to be remotely close to the player he once was — the player he needs to be in order to satisfy both the Yankees’ needs and his own ego. It is why he is alleged to have constantly sought the latest designer PEDs and assorted other treatments to restore his faded skills.

In the meantime, behind the scenes, Bud Selig’s MLB drug sheriff, Rob Manfred, is bearing down on A-Rod with a looming suspension for his involvement with alleged Miami steroid dealer Tony Bosch and his Biogenesis clinic in South Florida — the place that apparently served as baseball’s drug cheats’ and wannabe drug cheats’ version of a CVS. But it goes further than that. MLB investigators are now also looking into whether A-Rod has had anything to do with procuring and/or compensating the attorneys for the witnesses they have been interviewing in the Bosch scandal. If he has, then he’s facing a whole new set of charges — aside from baseball’s joint drug agreement. Still, as one baseball official with knowledge of the investigation told me, MLB may already have more than it needs to suspend A-Rod, the Milwaukee Brewers’ Ryan Braun and others for a lot more than just 100 games on drug violations alone.


“They’re going for the nuclear option,” is how the official put it.


In recent days, as A-Rod has looked woefully out of sync at the bat — he got his second hit in six games and an RBI Wednesday — and somewhat less than gazelle-like on the basepaths and in the field, he has put out caution signs that recovery from the sort of hip injury he’s attempting to come back from “is a process” and could take some time. He has until July 22 on this rehab assignment to prove to the Yankees he’s ready to be placed on the major league roster. If not, he goes back on the disabled list and, presumably, back to batting, baserunning and fielding drills in Tampa, along with further evaluation from the doctors.

But as the Daily News reported June 26, A-Rod’s real mission is to get himself to the safe haven that will protect him from losing any of his money as a result of being suspended by baseball — and that place is the so-called “unable to perform” list, where he and baseball doctors determine whether the severity of his hip condition is such that it precludes him from being able to perform.

This is what happened with the Baltimore Orioles’ surly slugger Albert Belle in 2001 when a similar hip injury forced him out of the game and he collected the remaining $39 million on his five-year, $60 million contract, with the O’s recovering $23 million of that from the insurance company.

If A-Rod is suspended while on the disabled list, he does not get paid.

However, there is an appeals process for any player suspended under baseball’s joint drug policy that could take at least a month. So it would seem the meter is also ticking for MLB if it wants to get the most bang for its buck on any suspension of A-Rod. For if during that time, it is determined A-Rod is unable to perform and is forced to retire, like Belle, he gets paid in full and the insurance will cover the Yankees for approximately 80% of the $100 million. Thus, a suspension of A-Rod after it’s been determined he is unable to perform would be but a Pyrrhic victory for baseball.

Either way, the Yankees win.

Though it’s been speculated that A-Rod is facing a 100-game suspension for multiple violations of baseball’s drug policy in the Bosch case, it appears Selig’s men are looking to kick him out of the game for a lot longer — very possibly permanently.

They have had their fill of what they see as A-Rod’s lies, deceptions and apparent continuing ventures into the PED netherworld — this after visiting schools and lecturing kids on the dangers of drugs on behalf of the Taylor Hooton Foundation, and telling ESPN, shortly after his admission of taking steroids while with the Texas Rangers from 2001-2003, that he wanted “to turn my mistake into something positive” by focusing on youth anti-steroid education.

Right.

In short, Alex Rodriguez has become a constant embarrassment to baseball and a living, breathing, still-playing symbol of the steroid era, which continues to plague the game and dog Selig’s legacy.

The sooner he goes away — for good — the better off everyone, including A-Rod, will be.

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Today's Tune: Fleetwood Mac - Silver Springs (Live)

China Questions Climate Consensus


July 11, 2013


The world's most populous nation is officially openly debating whether fears of anthropogenic global warming are justified by science.  In May 2013, the Chinese Academy of Sciences translated and published the reports of NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change).  While providing a platform for discussion of climate issues, the CAS does not necessarily agree with the NIPCC's conclusions -- which are contrary to those of the UN-IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change).  Rather, the CAS demonstrates a commendable willingness to encourage open discussion of important scientific questions.  It may well be a first; no such discussion has ever been permitted by the UK's Royal Society or by the US National Academy of Sciences.
However, there seems to be a division of opinion within the Chinese Academy, as is evident from the fact that their (Beijing) June 15 Workshop featuring the NIPCC conclusions is to be followed by a September symposium that clearly supports the IPCC point of view. I hope that internal debate of the science will allow the CAS to reach a considered opinion on whether Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a danger to human welfare, as has been claimed by alarmists.  [Some pertinent questions are listed at the end of this article.]
But there is more involved here than just debate about climate science.  Many personal factors enter in, as they do for scientists everywhere.  Once part of the IPCC process, a scientist will typically attend many workshops and symposia during the year, usually at exotic locations (Bali, Cancun, Marrakesh), staying in first class resort hotels.  There's also the camaraderie of being part of an international scientific effort, making interesting contacts and forming scientific and personal friendships.  And then there is a certain prestige attached to international efforts, often reflected in professional advancement, increases in salary, prizes and honors -- not to mention lucrative research grants from compliant government agencies and generous private donors (that often include 'Big Oil'!).
Finally, there's the feeling that the scientific efforts may help to determine important national policies that "save the climate" and advance human welfare.  At least that seems to be the opinion which is current in the United States and Europe.  But it would be rash to assume that this idealistic hope is really true.  One cannot imagine that important decisions about the future of economic growth and national development in China would be held hostage to purely scientific opinions.  If anything, national policies tend to be fairly conservative and skeptical about the supposed danger of AGW.  In China, such decisions are probably made by the National Development and Reform Commission, which has also handled international negotiations related to the Kyoto Protocol (to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases). China has opposed Kyoto -- and the US, unlike other OECD nations, has never ratified the Protocol. 
In support of this view, one can consider the agreement between President Obama and the Chinese president, at their recent meeting in Hawaii, to reduce the emission of HFCs (hydro-fluorocarbons), used in refrigeration as a replacement for CFCs.  Their communiqué said nothing about Carbon Dioxide, the most significant greenhouse gas, released in creating energy from fossil fuels, vital for economic growth.
One can of course cite as a counter-example the recently announced climate policy of President Obama, which seems to be driven by fear of AGW -- or, more likely, by fear of losing the political support of climate alarmists.  Though a small segment of the US population, the alarmists do include a large fraction of the media and other influential opinion-makers.  Mr. Obama has promised what amounts to a "war on coal," the most plentiful and cheapest fuel for generating electricity.  But there's every indication that the White House policy is politically motivated and not driven by science.  A good indicator of the real motive is the possibility that Obama will veto the Keystone-XL pipeline, which is to bring Canadian tar-sand oil to Texas refineries.  As everyone realizes, such a veto would simply be a sop to environmental activists, since it will hardly affect the decision of the Canadian governments to recover the oil from the tar sands. 
On the other hand, China has just said they will experiment with Cap-&-Trade policies.  But I suspect the aim here is not simply to reduce the emission of CO2 but to use it as a driver to improve the efficiency of old coal-fired power plants, which is as low as 11%.
For comparison, most US power plants have efficiencies of at least 35% -- i.e., converting 35% of the heat generated in the combustion of coal into useful electricity.  The "super-critical" coal plants now coming into use are capable of efficiencies of 55%.  This means that China can build coal-fired electric generating plants producing five times as much power (with the same amount of fuel) as the old types now in use -- certainly a worthwhile goal.  But it will do little if anything for the global climate and should not be considered as climate policy.
Some questions for IPCC:
As mentioned earlier, the Chinese Academy of Sciences is planning a September symposium in Beijing to rally the pro-IPCC arguments and try to convince their government that humans make an important contribution to global warming.  In anticipation of this symposium, one would like to ask the organizers the following kinds of questions: 
1.    Can you explain why there has been no significant warming observed in the last 15 years -- in spite of a rapid increase in the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide?
2.    Can one explain why the tropical atmosphere has shown no warming between 1979 and 2000 (ignoring the 1-yr long temperature spike of 1998, caused by a Super-El-Nino), and then again between 2002 and 2012-while models predict that the atmosphere should warm faster than the surface?
3.    Can one explain why the Antarctic has been cooling, with Antarctic sea Ice growing steadily-while models predict a global warming with most of the effects at high latitudes? 
4.    Why is there is a striking difference in observed temperature trends between Northern and Southern hemispheres, not exhibited by climate models?
5.    There is also a striking disparity between observed and modeled latitude dependence of clouds and of precipitation.  Why is that?
6.    Can one explain what caused the observed strong warming between 1910 and 1940?  It is unlikely to be anthropogenic, since the level of greenhouse gases was quite low before World War-II.
7.    Can current climate models account for the observed Multi-decadal Oscillations of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans?
8.    Finally, can one explain the existence of the so called Little Ice Age, between about 1400 and 1800 AD, and the apparent coincidence of extreme cold with low sunspot numbers?
It is clear that the climate models cannot explain what is actually being observed.  Yet it is a principle of science that observations must always take precedence.  Models have not been validated by actual observations and therefore should not be used to make predictions about the future.  The IPCC's most recent report claims that models and observations do agree; but these claims are clearly questionable.
The Chinese Academy of Sciences has taken an important step in trying to answer questions essential for a rational climate policy.  The world will watch their pioneering efforts with great interest.
A quick word about carbon dioxide: It is an odorless, non-toxic natural constituent of the Earth's atmosphere.  As the basic food for all plants, it is absolutely essential for maintaining life on our planet.  CO2 should not be called a "pollutant."  In the geological past, its level has been ten times or more higher than its present value; in fact, our major food crops developed when CO2 levels were about five times higher.  China is now the world's largest emitter of CO2 and thereby making an important contribution to increasing agricultural yields at a time when much of the global population is still hungry.  The world should be grateful to China.
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project.  His specialty is atmospheric and space physics.   An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.  He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute, and an elected Fellow of several scientific societies.  He co-authored the NY Times best-seller "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years."  In 2007, he founded and has since chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See www.NIPCCreport.org].  For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/china_questions_climate_consensus.html#ixzz2Yjs8TjBO
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Murder on the Democracy Express


An Egyptian mystery with no easy answers — and no heroes. 

July 11, 2013

Egyptian protesters hold posters of Egypt's now-deposed President Mohammed Morsi that read “Rebel” and “Down with Muslim Brotherhood rule” during an anti-Morsi rally in Tahrir Square (Photo: Amr Nabil, AP)

Who killed Egyptian democracy? Elite foreign-policy analysts have been providing strikingly divergent answers.

Egypt’s military is, of course, the prime suspect. The “world has witnessed many such putsches in the past half-century,” writes the Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl. The “ultimate losers . . . will be those who cheered it on.”

Bloomberg’s Jeffrey Goldberg is among those charged with waving pom-poms. “There are so many good reasons to be happy and grateful for the latest turn of events in Cairo,” he wrote. “The Brotherhood’s most vicious war was on women. It has also been working assiduously to marginalize, and even terrorize, Egypt’s Christian minority.”

Somewhere between the two is former British prime minister Tony Blair: “The events that led to the Egyptian army’s removal of President Mohamed Morsi confronted the military with a simple choice: intervention or chaos.”

Then there are those making the case that there was no Egyptian democracy to kill — it was just a mirage. “Liberal Americans,” writes Mark Steyn, “casually assume that ‘developing countries’ want to develop into something like a Western democracy. . . . The Brotherhood was checked — but not by anything recognizable as the forces of freedom.” Adds Andrew C. McCarthy: “In Egypt, at this stage of its development, liberty lovers remain outnumbered. The massive protests against the Muslim Brotherhood administration are an encouraging sign that Egypt’s democrats are growing in strength, but they should not be mistaken for a wholesale rejection of sharia supremacism.”

I would charge Morsi with democracide. He fatally wounded Egypt’s democratic experiment long before the military stepped in. He posed as a democrat to win an election, then governed as a majoritarian — sometimes defined as one whose notion of representative government is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Determined to transform Egypt into the Muslim Brotherhood version of an Islamic state, Morsi grossly violated minority rights and the independence of the judiciary, jailed journalists for “insulting the president” — in free societies that’s a habit, not a crime — ignored the rule of law, and prosecuted Americans who had come to Egypt to help promote democracy.

Egyptians might have tolerated all that and more had Morsi not undermined foreign investment and tourism, two unsteady pillars of Egypt’s economy. That, in turn, spread destitution and hunger at an alarming rate.

Adding insult to these many injuries, Morsi appointed a member of Gamaa Islamiya as the governor of Luxor, the ancient city where 58 foreign tourists were murdered in 1997 — by members of Gamaa Islamiya.

Reluctantly but rightly, the New York Times’ David Brooks has come to the conclusion that the Muslim Brotherhood and other “radical Islamists are incapable of running a modern government. Many have absolutist, apocalyptic mind-sets. They have a strange fascination with a culture of death. . . . Once in office, they are always going to centralize power and undermine the democracy that elevated them.”

There are those who argue — as has columnist Eugene Robinson — that Morsi nevertheless “honored the terms of a peace treaty with Israel,” thereby setting “an extraordinary example for the rest of the Muslim world.” Bosh. At this point in time, Egypt’s military is in no position to fight another war. Had Morsi been so foolish as to order Egypt’s generals to attack the Jewish state, they would have laughed in his face — if he were lucky.

An Egyptian civil war, however, is suddenly not unimaginable. On Monday, Egyptian soldiers fired on a crowd of pro-Morsi protesters, killing more than 50. Also on Monday, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) posted a video showing Morsi supporters throwing opponents off a roof. Vengeance will be sought. The voices urging calm may prove unpersuasive.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Reuel Marc Gerecht argues that it would have been much better — that Islamism would have been much more profoundly discredited — had voters rather than soldiers turned Morsi out of office. I agree — though I somehow doubt Morsi would have quietly packed his bags and waited for the taxi.

General Abdul Fatah al-Sisi, chief of Egypt’s armed forces, has announced a “roadmap” out of the crisis. It is to begin with the formation of a civilian, technocratic government and a committee drawn from a wide political/ideological spectrum — Islamists included — to rewrite the constitution. That would be followed by a referendum as well as parliamentary and presidential elections. Call it Egyptian Democracy 2.0.

Should the U.S. support this effort? What, realistically, is the alternative? President Obama appears to see it that way too, which is why he’s trying to circumvent a U.S. law banning funding to any country where a democratically elected government has been overthrown by a military coup or decree.

The Wall Street Journal agrees with Obama — not something you see every day — pointing out that America’s $1.3 billion in annual military assistance buys “access” to Egypt’s generals. I would only add that access should not be confused with influence. If it becomes clear that we don’t have the latter — not just on economic policies but also on guaranteeing human rights for Christians and other minorities — it may be time to stop paying for the former.

— Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security.

Black Education Tragedy


Walter E. Williams | Jul 10, 2013
http://townhall.com



As if more evidence were needed about the tragedy of black education, Rachel Jeantel, a witness for the prosecution in the George Zimmerman murder trial, put a face on it for the nation to see. Some of that evidence unfolded when Zimmerman's defense attorney asked 19-year-old Jeantel to read a letter that she allegedly had written to Trayvon Martin's mother. She responded that she doesn't read cursive, and that's in addition to her poor grammar, syntax and communication skills.

Jeantel is a senior at Miami Norland Senior High School. How in the world did she manage to become a 12th-grader without being able to read cursive writing? That's a skill one would expect from a fourth-grader. Jeantel is by no means an exception at her school. Here are a few achievement scores from her school: Thirty-nine percent of the students score basic for reading, and 38 percent score below basic. In math, 37 percent score basic, and 50 percent score below basic. Below basic is the score when a student is unable to demonstrate even partial mastery of knowledge and skills fundamental for proficient work at his grade level. Basic indicates only partial mastery.
Few Americans, particularly black Americans, have any idea of the true magnitude of the black education tragedy. The education establishment might claim that it's not their fault. They're not responsible for the devastation caused by female-headed families, drugs, violence and the culture of dependency. But they are totally responsible for committing gross educational fraud. It's educators who graduated Jeantel from elementary and middle school and continued to pass her along in high school. It's educators who will, in June 2014, confer upon her a high-school diploma.
It's not just Florida's schools. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, nationally most black 12th-graders test either basic or below basic in reading, writing, math and science. Drs. Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom wrote in their 2004 book, "No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning," "Blacks nearing the end of their high school education perform a little worse than white eighth-graders in both reading and U.S. history, and a lot worse in math and geography." Little has changed since the book's publication.
Drexel University history and political science professor George Ciccariello-Maher disapprovingly says that the reaction to Jeantel's court performance "has been in terms of aesthetics, of disregarding a witness on the basis of how she talks, how good she is at reading and writing." Harking back to Jim Crow days, he adds: "These are subtle things that echo literacy testing at the polls, echo the question of whether black Americans can testify against white people, of being always suspect in their testimony. It's the same old dynamics emerging in a very different guise." Then there's Morgan Polikoff, assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California, who says: "Cursive should be allowed to die. In fact, it's already dying, despite having been taught for decades." That's the kind of educational philosophy that accounts for much of our nation's educational decline.
The educational system and black family structure and culture have combined to make increasing numbers of young black people virtually useless in the increasingly high-tech world of the 21st century. Too many people believe that pouring more money into schools will help. That's whistlin' "Dixie." Whether a student is black or white, poor or rich, there are some minimum requirements that must be met in order to do well in school. Someone must make the student do his homework, see to it that he gets a good night's sleep, fix a breakfast, make sure he gets to school on time and make sure he respects and obeys his teachers. Here are my questions: Which one of those requirements can be achieved through a higher school budget? Which can be achieved by politicians? If those minimal requirements aren't met, whatever else is done is mostly for naught.
I hope Rachel Jeantel's court performance is a wake-up call for black Americans about the devastation wrought by our educational system.

Newly Released Documents Detail the Department of Justice’s Role in Organizing Trayvon Martin Protests


DOJ deployed obscure section to play role in Florida protests. Also read:Justice for Trayvon, Race-Hustler Style, by J. Christian Adams

Posted By Bryan Preston On July 10, 2013 @ 9:29 am In Politics | 74 Comments

Trayvon Martin supporters march through downtown Sanford, Florida, on Monday, March 26, before the start of a town hall meeting about Martin's death. (CNN)
Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents proving that the Department of Justice played a major behind-the-scenes role in organizing protests against George Zimmerman. Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in February 2012.

Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the DOJ on April 24, 2012. According to the documents JW received, a little-known DOJ unit called the Community Relations Service deployed to Sanford, FL, to organize and manage rallies against Zimmerman.
Among JW’s findings:
  • March 25 – 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being “deployed to Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
  • March 25 – 28, 2012, CRS spent $1,142.84 “in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
  • March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida.”
  • March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”
  • April 3 – 12, 2012, CRS spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.”
  • April 11-12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male.” – expenses for employees to travel, eat, sleep?
JW says the documents it obtained reveal that CRS is not engaging in its stated mission of conducting “impartial mediation practices and conflict resolution,” but instead engaged on the side of the anti-Zimmerman protesters.
On April 15, 2012, during the height of the protests, the Orlando Sentinel reported“They [the CRS] helped set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police Chief Bill Lee according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” The paper quoted the Rev. Valarie Houston, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church, a focal point for protestors, as saying “They were there for us,” after a March 20 meeting with CRS agents. 
Separately, in response to a Florida Sunshine Law request to the City of Sanford, Judicial Watch also obtained an audio recording of a “community meeting” held at Second Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Sanford on April 19, 2012. The meeting, which led to the ouster of Sanford’s Police Chief Bill Lee, was scheduled after a group of college students calling themselves the “Dream Defenders” barricaded the entrance to the police department demanding Lee be fired.  According to the Orlando Sentinel, DOJ employees with the CRS had arranged a 40-mile police escort for the students from Daytona Beach to Sanford. 
“These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations.”
Organizing such protests falls well within both President Barack Obama’s and Attorney General Eric Holder’s wheelhouses. Obama was a “community organizer” in his career prior to elective politics, a position that uses protests and street theater, along with threats, to obtain concessions from businesses and other political opponents. Holder has accused America of being a “nation of cowards” for not discussing racial issues enough. He also described black Americans as “my people” during a congressional hearing.

As the Zimmerman trial winds down, the threat of race riots should he be acquitted has risen.

Don’t miss:

Disorder: Judge Recesses Zimmerman Trial, Excludes Damning Evidence


Article printed from The PJ Tatler: http://pjmedia.com/tatler

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/07/10/newly-released-documents-detail-the-department-of-justices-role-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/

Related:

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Leviathan's Subcontractors


by Mark Steyn
National Review's Happy Warrior


It took me years of living in the United States before I acclimated to certain uniquely American rituals. I noticed early, standing in the pick-up line at CVS or Rite Aid, that it took more time to collect a prescription than in any other country I've ever needed a bottle of pills in. But it was a while longer before I was sufficiently bored to start following the conversations of those two or three places ahead of me in line, as they argued over 78-cent co-pays, or suggested the clerk had perhaps transposed two of the insurance numbers, or explained that the problem might be due to their employer having recently switched from Blue Cross to Cigna . . . Filling a prescription in America is like going to a very fashionable nightclub: You can never be entirely certain the doorman will let you in.

It happened to a friend of mine the other day. Her monthly refill was denied late on a Friday afternoon so she had the weekend to prepare herself for the Monday-morning bad news that her health insurance had been canceled, without notification, and its cancellation backdated a couple of months just to add to the fun. Long story. They all are. Too long for this column, or indeed the average novella. Also very complicated. That's one of the advantages of the system. I confess, as a guest host for Rush Limbaugh on the radio, that my heart sinks a little whenever a caller wishes to explain the particular indignities heaped upon him by his health-care "provider," because generally it takes a good 20 minutes just to lay out the facts of the case, and even then it doesn't really make sense. I don't like to think I'm a total idiot. When an ISI guy from Islamabad expounds on the ever shifting tribal allegiances of North Waziristan, I'm on top of every nuance. When a London tax expert explains money laundering by Russian oligarchs through Guernsey and Nevis via Ireland and Cyprus, I can pretty much keep up. But when a victim of American health care starts trying to fill me in, round about 40 minutes in I have a strange urge to stab forks in my eyeballs. Except then, of course, I'd have to go to an American hospital.

Foreigners can't understand a word of an Obamacare conversation. The problem with health care in most countries is that they're third-party systems, which are by definition economically inefficient, whether the third party is government or private insurance. But that would be too obvious for us. So in America there's the patient and there's the doctor, and there's the insurer, who is provided through the employer, who outsources it to an employee-benefits-management company. By my count, that's a fifth-party system, on top of which Obamacare adds a sixth.

And if, somewhere between the party of the fifth part and the party of the fourth part, things come apart, well, good luck with that. As my friend was told, over and over, by the robot in customer service, "I'm just applying the new federal rules."

You hear that a lot these days. Unable to sleep the other night, I found myself reading the 2011 Federal Reserve rule "amending Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) to implement amendments to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) made by the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act":
The Board's proposed rule provides flexibility in underwriting standards so that creditors may adapt their underwriting processes to a consumer's particular circumstances, such as to the needs of self-employed consumers and consumers heavily dependent on bonuses and commissions, consistent with the Board's 2008 HOEPA Final Rule. See 73 FR 44522, 44547, July 30, 2008.

Sure, it sounds boring, but wait till you see Amending Regulation Z — The Musical. But here's the thing: Why should it be the job of a Federal Reserve "rule" to "provide flexibility in underwriting standards"? In a supposedly private banking system, shouldn't the guy sitting across the desk from the customers be allowed to evaluate his customers as individuals? Ah, but, as readers will have noticed, you can take your credit application to the First National Bank of Dead Moose, the First National Bank of West Dead Moose, and the First National Bank of Dead Moose Junction, and they'll all give you the same answer. They can compete on debit-card design and check-wallet color but ever less on banking services. For most Americans, there are many banks with different names, but increasingly, like the "private" health system, they're uniform enforcers of the federal rules: From the customer's point of view, it's a government bank in all but name.

Most countries decay into statism through nationalization: Britain nationalized health care in the late Forties, France nationalized the banks in the early Eighties. But that's not the American way. So the veneer of a private sector is maintained as an ever more implausible façade for a hyper-regulated statism: Big Government at one remove, subcontracted to nominally private paperwork shufflers across the land. In health care, banking, homeownership, college tuition, Americans now enjoy considerably less freedom of movement than citizens of openly statist nations in Europe.

As it happens, these are all the areas of life the prudent man is enjoined to take care of: Save for the future. Get an education. Buy property. Look after your health. Remorseless governmentalization of all four sectors is part of the ever greater sclerosis in America — and immensely time-consuming. My friend may well get her health care back, after weeks of effort. But so much of life is like that now, isn't it? Not the rough-and-tumble of a free society or the homogenized mediocrity of socialism, but just the vast diversion of so much American energy into shuffling around the regulatory obstacles to daily life.