Monday, June 13, 2016

Rape at Stanford

Lessons From the Stanford Rape
The View from the Middle

A little over a year ago, a young man named Brock Turner took advantage of an inebriated, unconscious young woman behind a dumpster on Stanford’s campus.   This opening line should be proof enough for most of us that this was not a consensual act.  This March, a jury found him guilty of three felony charges of sexual assault (technically not rape) and the judge sentenced him to six months in jail and three years of probation. 
This set off a firestorm of criticism across the country suggesting the sentence was insufficient and demanding a recall of the judge, Aaron Persky.  While this approach might make some people feel better, it has little chance of success and even less of a chance of diminishing rape on college campuses across this country.  There are, however, a few actions that we could take as a people that might actually put a light on this epidemic and help bring it under control.
First, this young woman took this to court and weathered the persecution that she knew would come with her actions.  Too many women fail to report their rapes even when sobriety is not an issue.  Learn from this brave young woman and demand justice.  She also wrote a lengthy account of her feelings about that night and the entire trial process.  It is lengthy, but I have supplied a link below for your convenience.  I do encourage you to read it to get a full appreciation of what she endured.


Second, this would show that the system will actually work if you give it a chance.  Turner was only sentenced to six months in jail, but also got three years of probation and a life sentence on the sexual offender register.  Even a three year jail sentence, which is what the victim in this case asked for, would have only resulted in a year and a half of actual time served.  I would have certainly approved of that longer sentence, but the real deterrent is a lifetime of embarrassing explanations of the disgusting behavior that qualifies any person for such a register.
We need to make these consequences of rape abundantly clear to every incoming freshman on every campus in America.  I can’t imagine a university that would resist delivering this sort of “no tolerance” message to their students since the cost would be minimal and the impact could be so dramatic.  I personally can’t imagine what pleasure a man would get from a sexual encounter like the one described in this case, but for those who might, a vision of life on the sex offender register might be just the medicine they need to resist the temptation.
Finally, let us address the elephant in the room.  In her petition to the judge the victim in this case wonders if this sexual abuse could have been avoided if she had not been intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness.   Would Mr. Turner have simply moved to a different victim or would this incident have not occurred at all?  While better judgment on her part might not have changed the circumstances for Brock Turner, I think it is fair to conclude that it would have changed everything for this young lady.
So the big take-away from this terrible incident is for women (and men too) not to put themselves at risk by over indulging in alcohol, especially when in the company of men who are probably doing the same thing.  This in no way suggests that this young lady is to blame for this incident, but when anyone reduces their physical and mental capabilities to the point of making themselves defenseless, it makes them vulnerable to reprobates like Brock Turner.  You can be innocent, but still suffer grave damage.

In closing, if you are a young man who takes advantage of women as in this case, know that you disgust me and virtually all of the rest of society and you deserve whatever punishment our system allows.  If you are a young woman, especially on a college campus, I beg you not to put yourself at risk.  Even better, I would ask you to keep a vigilant watch out for your fellow sisters of the world and step in when you see situations like this developing.  While a disaster avoided cannot always be identified, it is no less consequential. 

Saturday, June 4, 2016

The President Babbles Hypocrisy

The President off Teleprompter –
“If, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if” – Smooth!
The View from the Middle

If you haven’t seen the President’s recent attempt to speak without his teleprompter, I’ve attached a link below for your convenience.  While his serial stuttering got most of the attention, it is the hypocrisy of what he said that I want to focus on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSxo9-Z5Ki0

In my opinion, Barack Obama has been the most divisive President in my lifetime, if not of all time, yet he has the hutzpah to lecture us on the dangers of being divided.  Isn’t this the same President who said, back in 2008, that the people of the Midwest tended to, “cling to their guns and religion”?  Isn’t that an attempt to divide people along socio-economic and religious lines at the same time? 
Is this not the President who called half of America “the enemy” in a Univision interview back in 2010?  So, if you disagree with the President on any issue, you are no longer an American.  You are the enemy.  Any person can win the Presidency by simply acquiring a simple majority of the Electoral College votes, but that person must govern for “all the people”.  How does a person do that when he has such disdain for so much of the citizenry?
The President also tried to turn the poor against the rich and vice-versa.  According to the President, everyone who is rich is a “cold hearted capitalist type.”  He continually minimizes the effort that many rich people have made and the risks they have taken to amass their wealth.  Back in 2012 he suggested that if a person had a successful business, “you didn’t build that.”  He has also famously compared the country’s rich to “lottery winners”. 
Even though some people become wealthy by inheriting fortunes, this doesn’t make them automatically selfish.  In fact, many of these people are very generous and hard working in their own right.  Just take a look at the Walton family.  Also, while there is a certain amount of luck in every life, most wealth development is a result of hard work, intelligent choices and a willingness to take risks.  No matter what the President (the true lottery winner) thinks, these people are not adversaries.  They are proud, loyal Americans who just happen to have a different opinion than he does. 
Finally, the President’s most disappointing act of division in America has been along racial lines.  Many, including me, had hoped that the President could have had a very positive impact on race relations in this country.  Unfortunately, that has not happened.  Today 46% of Americans believe that race relations has gotten worse under this President, while only 18% believe they have gotten better. 
This because it suited the President to divide us in this area.  From the beer summit to Trayvon Martin to Ferguson, he and Eric Holder, his minion, fanned the flames of racial discord for their own political gain.  Ben Stein (writer, lawyer, actor and political and economic commentator) labeled Barack Obama the most racist President in history, and I tend to agree with him. 

I do agree that we are strongest as a people when we are united, but it irks me when this President, who has divided this country along economic, religious, political, racial and gender lines (a whole other story I didn’t have time to get into), has the guts to suggest that he has been a uniter.  This simply proves that hypocrisy and duplicity are alive and well in Washington.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

A Solution in Search of a Problem

A Solution in Search of a Problem
The View from the Middle

While I’m on vacation, I thought I would give you a couple of quick thoughts to keep ya’ll thinking.
I think all of the news outlets have read my recent article on the transgender bathroom situation.  Most have concluded, as I did, that this action by the White House is a solution in search of a problem.  Whether it is the new non-discrimination laws to protect the LGBT community or forcing transgenders to provide birth certificates to go to the bathroom, where are the offenses?  An anecdote does not a trend make.  We need common sense, not more laws.  Below is a link to my article.  If the link doesn’t work, just copy and paste the address into your browser.


            Finally, did any of you see this season’s final episode of Marvel – Agents of Shield?  Not only was there a necklace with a cross on it floating in the cabin of the Shield aircraft, they even talked about a single man (the hero) defeating the villain (they even called him Satan during the show) and thus saving the world through his “sacrificial” death.  It was a great parallel to the Christian faith.  Hear, hear!!  I loved it.  If you haven’t seen it check it out.

Now, I’m checking out until next week.  Read the “Of Mountains and Molehills” article above.

Love ya’ll


Kevin C

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Hillary's Big Tell

Hillary’s Big Tell
The View from the Middle

Just out of curiosity, I looked up the definition of a “Freudian Slip” the other day, and here’s what I found.  It is “An unintended error in speech or writing that reveals a person’s real intentions - OR – When a politician accidently tells the truth and reveals his or her true motives.”  OK, I added the “politician” part, but it really makes sense doesn’t it.  And my timing was impeccable, because Hillary had a whopper of a slip earlier this year. 
Here’s what Hillary said, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”  She didn’t say that the coal business was dying of natural causes.  She said that, “We are going to put coal companies out of business.”  Oops, the truth slipped out.  And I know it's the truth because that statement is very consistent with what Barack Obama has been saying for years.
Mr. Obama said, “If someone wants to build a coal powered plant, they can.  It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all of the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”  He has also said, “Under my cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” 
Notice that neither Hillary nor the President said that coal companies would go out of business because it is getting too expensive to get coal out of the ground.  They implied that they would destroy them through governmental regulations, fines and taxes.  The good news is that at least the truth is out, and now we can deal with it.  Hillary Clinton will try to destroy the coal business, and eventually the oil business if she gets the opportunity.  Should we be doing that?  The short answer is “No”!
First, we should be thanking God that he has blessed the United States with the bountiful recourses we have.  We have more coal than Saudi Arabia has oil.  We have more oil than all of the Middle East countries combined and natural gas may be our most abundant resource.  Thank you, God, and these are the resources that have fueled our industrial growth for at least the last 200 years. 
I’m also a big fan of renewable energy, especially the sun.  Did you know that the sun puts down more energy in an hour than the world consumes in a year?  But unfortunately, we haven’t figured out how to effectively and efficiently convert that power to a usable form.  Today, solar power only accounts for about 1% of the US electrical power.  I’m confident that we’ll figure it out, but it’s not ready to shoulder the power needs of our country today.  So how should we proceed?
There is a natural process called “creative destruction” that has fueled capitalism from the beginning.  Creative destruction is the ceaseless churning of the free market as old businesses and industries are replaced with new more productive and efficient ones.  The really good news is that our total society benefits through better products, shorter workweeks, better jobs and higher standards of living.  The fundamental role of government in this natural process is to stay out of the way. 
But that’s not what Hillary and Barack Obama want to do.  They want the government to step in and destroy entire industries with no realistic plan on how to replace them.  Let me give you an example of how creative destruction should work.  Back in 1768 Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot built the first car.  It was powered by steam, and at that time, virtually everyone in America got around by horse and buggy.  Over a hundred years later in 1886, Karl Benz made the first gas powered car and the horse and buggy were still king.  In 1908 there were only 8,000 cars in the US and there was only about 144 miles of paved roads, and the horse and buggy was still dominant.
Today, there are almost as many passenger vehicles as people in America (256 million in 2013) and we have over 2.5 million miles of paved roads, and the horse and buggy have been relegated to hobby status.  Slowly, over those 248 years, people who make cars slowly replaced the people who made buggies.  Today there are many more people employed by the auto industry, at relatively higher wages, and society has benefited tremendously from this transition.
What if our government had decided to place its heavy hands on the horse and buggy industry back in 1768 by over taxing it, over regulating it and applying punitive fines to it with the intent of destroying it?  Even if their intent were to accelerate the development of the automobile, it would have had the opposite effect, because that industry was not ready to satisfy the transportation needs of our country.  What if they had done it in 1886?  Same affect.  What about 1908?  Same.  We would have only retarded the development of the auto industry here and thus around the world.
With a wisdom that ran from Washington to Lincoln to Wilson to FDR, our government allowed the auto industry to develop at its own pace.  That is what we should be doing with the energy industry. 
We will eventually figure out how to convert solar and wind energy effectively and efficiently, but we can’t do that today to satisfy our energy needs, even with massive subsidies.  Punishing or destroying fossil fuel industries will not get us there faster.  In fact, it will probably retard the progress and punish the average American through job losses and higher energy costs. 

As usual, my recommendation is for the government to get out of the way and let the natural creative destruction process do its job.  Put money into research (NASA, MIT) instead of subsidies (Solyndra), which we can do at a fraction of the cost to encourage the process, but most importantly, GET OUT OF THE WAY!!