Like a fine wine …

… Senator Robert C. Byrd only seems to get better with age.  I first began to appreciate our Senior Senator when he was the lone voice in the wilderness urging President Bush, Congress and the American people to reconsider their headlong rush into a war in Iraq.  During that debate, he used his tremendous grasp of history to explain that we had never before gone to war in the absence of a clear and imminent threat to our nation.  America paid a heavy price for failing to heed Senator’s Byrd’s message.

Today Senator Byrd speaks truth to power about coal.  His theme: “The time has come to have an open and honest dialogue about coal’s future in West Virginia.”

  • Why aren’t we having that important dialogue?  Because politicians and industry are “scapegoating and stoking fear over the permitting process.”
  • Can the world live without coal?  ”No deliberate effort to do away with the coal industry could ever succeed in Washington because there is no available alternative energy supply that could immediately supplant the use of coal….”
  • What about mountaintop removal coal mining?  ”It is not a widespread method of mining, with its use confined to only three states.  Most members of Congress, like most Americans, oppose the practice, and we may not yet fully understand the effects of mountaintop removal mining on the health of our citizens.”
  • What about climate change?  ”To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand….”
  • What do we need to do?  ”West Virginians can choose to anticipate change and adapt to it, or resist and be overrun by it.”

West Virginia will pay a heavy price if it fails to heed Senator Byrd’s message.

Tagged with:  

Sycophants

I had the great fortune of discovering competitive debate in high school.  To be a good debater, you must be able to argue multiple sides (there aren’t just two) of an issue.   This means you also have to appreciate that issues are rarely black and white and that the best ideas generally are nuanced.

Reflecting on this, I read with amusement Kathleen Parker’s wonderful opinion piece in The Washington Post titled “The GOP’s Suicide Pact” on Sunday.  Ms. Parker makes fun of the GOP’s proposed ten-point  purity test “to weed out undesirables from their ever-shrinking party.”  If the purity test is adopted, a Republican will have to agree with at least eight of the ten points to receive party support.

The first purity test item: “We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s ‘stimulus’ bill.”  What about the bazillion dollar bailout of the financial services industry, which dwarfs the stimulus bill in terms of cost and was supported by many Republicans?  What about those earmarks Republicans were so fond of during the Bush administration?  What makes it OK to support one initiative, but not another, given that all have expanded government and increased national debt and deficits?

How about purity test number two: “We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care.”  We will have no health care reform at all if we leave it to the market.  Isn’t the better question: What role should government play – regulator, provider, or some combination of the two?  But that would require nuanced thinking.

Lest any of you Democrats think Republicans have the market cornered on obsequiousness, I encourage you to look at the Wise and Manchin administrations.  Having observed both closely, I repeatedly saw people in key positions suppress good ideas because they knew it was better for them to go along and get along than to speak the truth. By way of example:

  • I know of two situations in which state-level cabinet officials allowed flawed legislation to pass, rather than raise basic problems that readily could have been corrected, for fear of running afoul of the Governor.
  • I repeatedly saw state-level cabinet officials avoid important public policy issues because the issues could not be summarized in a five-second sound bite.
  • Read the op-ed commentaries of your state-level cabinet officials: Not one of them says anything meaningful or important, much less nuanced.  Indeed I would refuse to publish them if I were a newspaper editor.

Savvy political parties, politicians, and leaders don’t surround themselves with sycophants.

Tagged with:  

The smokeless gun

The Associated Press finally tells us why a federal grand jury will be hearing testimony in the Marshall University – Emily Perdue matter.  John Perdue told officials he was the State Treasurer, and Robin Perdue told them she was director of the State Grievance Board.

The most telling quotation: “My contention has never been that the student did not do the work to earn the grade,” Wyant said. “The problem for me has always been the way it was handled, and the fact that right from the beginning I knew it was not right. Other students do not get that kind of attention.”

Emily Perdue did the work, but it’s a crime because she was given special treatment?  By special treatment, I assume we’re talking about an expedited path for completing coursework after Marshall University treated students in this program pretty shabbily as best I can tell?  And just where is the quid pro quo – the thing that someone at Marshall University was promised in exchange for the favorable treatment?  Again I ask why anyone would take a matter like this before a federal grand jury?

Tagged with:  

Hitting rock bottom?

From Clark Kerr’s creation of a higher education master plan to the construction of a brand new research university for the 21st century in Merced to the development of an all-but-free community and technical college system, California has been a leader in public higher education for more than 50 years.

Today we are watching the greatest higher education system on earth implode: On Thursday the University of California System increased tuition 32 percent and still needs $913 million (not too far from $1 billion) in cuts to balance budgets.  On Friday students across the UC system protested and students at Santa Cruz and Berkeley took over buildings. Meanwhile California’s community colleges cut students, classes and staff at a time when community colleges are expanding by leaps and bounds elsewhere.

Has California hit rock bottom?  Some people say no; I say yes.  Why?  Any state in which the state’s former finance director seriously researches whether the state can convert from a state to a federal territory so the federal government can step in to address the fiscal crisis has no direction to go but up.  Incredible, just incredible.

Tagged with:  

A criminal matter?

I hope the U.S. Attorney’s Office has more evidence than I suspect it has to justify calling the Marshall University provost and a professor before a federal grand jury in the Emily Perdue grading matter.

As best I can determine, the only scenario that would produce an indictable federal crime is this: Someone made it easy for Emily Perdue to earn grades for her independent study because her father is the State Treasurer AND he or someone close to him somehow exerted influence inappropriately (not just as a concerned parent) to obtain a favorable outcome on behalf of Miss Perdue.  I can’t imagine the second half of the equation being satisfied in the absence of some clear quid pro quo, which no one has suggested publicly to date.  Furthermore, the quid pro quos available to a State Treasurer, unlike a Governor, Senator, or Congressman, truly are very limited.

While certainly worthy of internal examination by Marshall University’s provost and faculty senate, the Perdue matter hardly seems worthy of CRIMINAL investigation. To an outsider, these subpoenas appear to be political.

 

Tagged with:  
Page 2 of 512345
CONTACT

© 2010 DCT Advisors LLC
Post Office Box 224
3288 Winfield Road
Winfield, West Virginia 25213
Phone: 304.541.0332
Fax: 866.783.0511
Email: dct@dctadvisors.com

text

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

THIS IS NOT A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT. DCT Advisors performs exclusively non-legal work. The materials on this website have been prepared for informational purposes and are not legal advice, nor do they create a lawyer-client relationship.