Donald Trump Can’t Do Right For Some

Donald Trump Can’t Do Right For Some

By Chris Freind Donald Trump Can't Do Right For Some

Paul Revere would have it easy today. Instead of a wild midnight ride to alert his countrymen, he could simply post on social media:

“The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! One if by land, two if by sea – and three if via the Oval Office.”

But admittedly, there’s a key difference.

The Brits were unwelcome. Yet for some reason, this White House feels compelled to roll out the red carpet for the Ruskies. And not only do they get the royal treatment, but, courtesy of President Trump, they also get classified secrets. Only in Amerika!

We’ve said it here before: You can’t make this stuff up. From the president’s insane accusations about being wiretapped, to off-the-wall tweets, to this latest doozy – betraying some of America’s most trusted allies and jeopardizing the lives of intelligence assets – the presidency of Donald Trump has become farcical.

And the lack of results bears that out.

Despite enjoying Republican majorities in Congress, the president has accomplished virtually nothing; in fact, he has conceded to Democrats on a host of issues. Yes, Congress must bear some blame, but responsibility for such failure ultimately rests with President Trump himself. And things are only getting worse, as his un-presidential antics and lack of discipline keeps the White House mired in crisis mode, to the detriment of his policy agenda. As his approval rating continues to plummet – the result of no victories – an increasing number of Republicans are openly moving away from him, wary of association as next year’s elections creep closer.

Here’s a look at the major developments of Mr. Trump’s first four months in office – and his self-inflicted failures:

1. Obstruction of Justice? In what could prove the most stunning development to date, a memo has surfaced from former FBI Director James Comey, written after a February meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office. In the memo, Director Comey stated that the president asked him to drop the Bureau’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

While more facts will undoubtedly emerge, a president asking the FBI to kill a high-level investigation would seem to fall into the obstruction of justice category. For it that doesn’t meet the definition of obstruction, what does?

2. The classified information giveaway: Was it within Mr. Trump’s purview to share highly-sensitive information with the Russians, obtained from sources close to ISIS? Sure. But his cluelessness to the ramifications was bewildering. The Russians are smart cookies, and will undoubtedly figure out the source. So given that betrayal of trust, and the president adamantly defending his decision, why would other intelligence assets still take America at its word? Why continue to incur grave liability to themselves and their networks after Mr. Trump acted with such recklessness? They won’t – so our fight against terrorists just got that much harder.

Let’s get this straight: You share classified information with the Russians, give them a free pass for meddling in our election, get nothing in return – and somehow that’s a win? Makes you wonder if Putin is really that smart, or if President Trump is just that politically challenged.

3. Firing FBI Director Comey: The decision by President Trump to fire Jim Comey is just as baffling. Should Comey have been canned? Absolutely, as this column pointed out a year ago. By becoming a political pawn and injecting himself into the election, Comey impugned the reputation of the bureau and destroyed his own credibility.

Comey should have been fired on Day One, but instead, the president slapped his back and repeatedly sang his praises, as recently as last month. So what changed? What was the president’s epiphany that made him suddenly realize that Mr. Comey wasn’t up to snuff?

Was it that Comey refused to pledge his loyalty to the president? Or that the director, that very week, had sought additional resources in the FBI’s Russia-Trump collusion investigation? Or was it that “Russia” was on the president’s mind, as he freely admits?

Regardless of the reason, it should’ve been a no-brainer to put away the ax until the Russia investigations were concluded. How did the president not know that firing Comey right in the middle of those investigations would generate comparisons to Nixon firing the special prosecutor investigating Watergate? In politics, perception is reality, and President Trump just cemented the perception that he is trying to quash something ominous. Being identified alongside a crooked president who set the standard for paranoia is not helpful.

But the crème-de-la-crème was the president tweeting a warning to Comey that he not leak “tapes” of their conversations, which immediately prompted members of both parties to state that subpoenas would likely be issued if any such tapes exist.

Firing Jim Comey at the worst possible time: dumb. Canning him in the belief that Democrats would support the decision: really dumb. Not foreseeing that confirmation hearings for the new FBI Director will dredge up every aspect of the Russia investigations Mr. Trump has been desperately trying to avoid? Mindbogglingly obtuse.

But tweeting Nixonian-like statements about secret tapes? Insane.

4. No one home: The Trump Administration has been wholly incompetent in installing a functioning executive branch of the government. The president’s transition – slowest in history – is so inept that GOP senators are begging for nominees. Trump diehards love to say that Democrats are to blame by blocking nominations, but that’s ridiculous for two reasons: A) nominees only need 51 votes, and there are 52 Republican senators, and B) there are virtually no nominees. As of today, no nominees have been submitted for 479 out of 557 “key” administration positions. Since it’s going on seven months, it’s fair to ask what the hell they’ve been doing.

5. Derailed Agenda: Donald Trump has created a vicious circle. He acts like a horse’s patoot, causing his approval rating to sink. Then he tries to achieve policy victories, but fails – due to his low approval rating. Paradoxically, the only way to raise his approval – and thus his effectiveness – is to achieve success on policy initiatives. Yet just when Congress looks amenable to that end, the president exhibits the same reckless behavior that got him into the hole in the first place. And the cycle continues.

The president’s shrinking base correctly points to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch as a victory – and it is – but that was as much the Senate acting in its own self-interest as it was a Trump win. And sure, onerous regulations have been slashed, but they are behind-the-scenes executive orders that win no votes.

So where do all the other big promises stand?

No Obamacare replacement; no border wall; no withdraw of funding from sanctuary cities; no ripped up Iran nuclear deal; no re-vamped “America-first” trade deals; no withdrawing from NAFTA; no hard line with China; no tax reform; no adherence to staying out of Middle Eastern conflicts; no infrastructure package; no reduction in government spending (or size); and no voter fraud investigation.

Bottom line: the “Trump is better than Hillary” line isn’t cutting it anymore, as even some of his most ardent supporters are sounding the alarm. If things are to change, and the trajectory is to be re-directed, the Trump base must stop turning a blind eye, and understand that giving the president a free pass every time he goes off the rails is counter-productive.

No more blaming the Democrats. No more excuses that “Trump is new, so give him a chance.” No more platitudes that he must first drain the swamp. And please, no more insulting arguments that Donald Trump, as master deal maker, is light years ahead of everyone else, every action of his being a carefully orchestrated chess move that will produce incredible results.

“Just wait,” we’re always told.

Well, Mr. President, we’ve been waiting. And we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Donald Trump Can’t Do Right For Some

Re-Testing Is Not A Right

Re-Testing Is Not A Right

By Chris Freind Re-Testing Is Not A Right

Villanova shouldn’t have been crowned National Champions last year. Not because they weren’t the best, but because North Carolina wasn’t given the opportunity for a do-over after Kris Jenkins’ winning shot. And that wasn’t fair.

Maybe the Tar Heels were too euphoric after nailing an incredible game-tying shot with 4.7 seconds left. Maybe they didn’t get back on defense. Or maybe they just assumed that, as the nation’s most storied team, they were predestined to win in overtime.

But whatever the reason, they deserved the chance to correct their mistakes.

Right?

Don’t laugh. That’s becoming the new American reality.

No, we don’t have re-dos in sports. Yet. But they can’t be far off, given that the exact same mentality — getting an automatic do-over whenever a result isn’t to our liking — has been creeping into our schools, including some in Delaware County. Proponents of so-called “request to retest,” where students continually take tests on the same material until they’re satisfied, are warping an entire generation. Instead of teaching our children timeless lessons — life is a series of pass/fail tests, and actions have consequences — we are instead sending them out the door with massively unrealistic expectations and, by extension, dooming them to failure.

Let’s look at retesting’s negative impacts on teachers, parents, and, most of all, students:

1. It seems that small, but vocal, groups of entitled parents are front and center in pushing re-testing, along with school administrators either hell-bent on social engineering, or appeasers trying to placate the loudmouths.

And why? Several reasons, but all rooted in entitlement: “Since I’m paying high school taxes, my kid should damn well be entitled to good grades.” Or, “I pay teachers’ salaries, so that entitles me to not lift a finger. Educating my kid is the teacher’s job, and if Johnnie comes home with a bad grade, it’s the teacher’s fault.” Or even, “This is America, where we’re entitled to have things handed to us — without putting in any blood, sweat and tears to earn it.”

No matter the reason, re-testing sends the unmistakable message that repercussions for not prioritizing school have gone out the window.

2. When school officials implement re-testing, human nature dictates that students will make a mockery of the system.

Hell, there have already been cases where students request re-tests — before the first test has even been given! Talk about a slap in the face to teachers who have invested so much time in planning lessons, instructing the class, and creating tests to measure students’ mastery of material over a given period.

And why the need to re-test? Sickness? Extenuating circumstances at home? Nope. It’ll be for much more “important” reasons: The ballgame was on; binge-watching Netflix; had an appointment with my personal sports trainer; got stoned; and, surely, most common: I just didn’t feel like studying. Fact is, students don’t need a reason, because re-testing will soon become second-nature.

3. As part of their job, most teachers must be available to students outside of classroom hours. Truth is, many regularly exceed this requirement because of their innate desire to help children — the very reason they chose teaching. They are voluntarily working overtime for free, but re-testing negatively changes that equation, akin to smashing a gift horse in the mouth.

Instead of spending that extra, personal time with students, teachers would be forced to cut back. Re-test after re-test would have to be created, since offering the same test — where answers from the first go-round could be memorized — would be an insult to a teacher’s dignity. Yet that’s exactly what has occurred, as some students, confident that they aced the re-test, in fact bombed it because the teacher had the “nerve” to change the order of the questions! It’s bad enough that students think they deserve a re-do, but to be so arrogant as to expect the same test shows just how out of touch they are.

Bottom line: Teachers’ time both after school and at home will be consumed with creating and grading countless re-tests, to the detriment of daily lessons and one-on-one interactions, all because some students, and their clueless parents, think they automatically warrant unlimited chances.

4. Re-testing is an innately unfair system, penalizing those who do things the right way. How is it fair to attentive students who do their homework and study for a test, only to see some classmates bomb with a smile? Knowing that others can get unlimited cracks at the material is demoralizing to diligent students, and will ultimately lead them to conclude, “If others aren’t studying but eventually get the same grade, why should I put in all that effort?”

Being just as lazy as the next guy because there’s no incentive to do your best is the quickest way for a society to collapse.

5. And how is it fair when some schools re-test and other don’t? So if two eighth-graders are competing for limited slots at a private high school, and only one enjoyed a re-testing policy, then, by definition, the other is at a distinct disadvantage. Ditto for high school seniors trying to impress colleges. Obviously, those with better grades, courtesy of an “I-can’t-fail” policy, will have a huge leg up. Will they crash and burn upon the realization that their fake education hasn’t prepared them, and that other entities don’t give second chances? Absolutely. But that’s no solace to those who got shafted.

6. Re-testing isn’t limited to those who perform poorly. Grade-grubbers craving the 4.0 can take full advantage, re-testing until they hit the 100 mark. If applied across all subjects, that means that a perfect GPA can be achieved every year. Hyperinflated, artificial (and ultimately meaningless) grades, to be sure, but from the perspective of high schools and colleges, it would be a perfect GPA nonetheless.

7. Fortunately, re-testing is not in every school (yet), so people have an opportunity to demand that such policies be avoided, rescinded, or, at the least, qualified. For example, rules could stipulate one re-test only, and taken within one day of the original test; the final grade would be an average of the two tests (incentivizing against bombing the first one); if the re-test results in a lower grade, that would be the one counted; all classwork and homework must be completed prior to the original test or no re-test is permitted; and parents must be notified that their child is re-testing.

Short of abolishing re-testing, common sense reforms to open-ended testing should be mandated.

We have become a society where “everyone gets a trophy.” Individual achievements are whitewashed so as not to hurt feelings. Everyone and everything must be homogenized, a “spread the wealth” mentality whereby accolades are doled out not by merit, but by who hasn’t won yet. Far be it for a student to be top in the class, as that is deemed “unfair.” There’s a term for mandating equality: communism. And all along I thought we beat the Soviets.

The longer-term effect is more chilling: A dysfunctional generation, expecting everything, yet prepared for nothing. When faced by that thing called The Real World, they respond dismally without the benefit of their crutch. Business suffers as jobs are outsourced to those not expecting entitlements. And college graduates, expecting six-figure salaries, find themselves adrift, lost because of an inability to cope with life’s challenges after discovering that the “trophy days” are over.

Life is a series of tests, passing or failing in your job, sports, marriage, as a parent, and yes, in school. But those lessons are being sidelined in favor of artificial “victories,” without regard for the devastating effect they are having on our children.

Re-testing earns an “A” only in breeding massive resentment and incapacitating our children. It’s time we give re-testing the failing grade it deserves. And on that, we need no re-test.

Re-Testing Is Not A Right

Student Loan Debt $1.5 Trillion

Student Loan Debt $1.5 Trillion

By Chris Freind Student Loan Debt $1.5 Trillion

Ahh … spring. The time of year for renewal, flowers, baseball games – and sheer panic for many parents.

Why? Because May is college-decision month.

Sadly, instead of marveling about the possibilities that lay ahead, parents are left fretting about their children’s future – and their own.

While college has always been sold as a path to success, its staggering costs have resulted in a far different reality.

Truth is, the current system has outlived its usefulness, being directly responsible for increasing despair, destroying the earning capital of young people, and demoralizing an entire generation of college graduates living in their parents’ basements because of insurmountable debt – their liberty and dignity stripped away.

The numbers bear out the crisis:

• Student loan debt now stands at nearly $1.5 trillion (that’s trillion with a “T”). By the end of the next decade, that figure will be almost $3.5 trillion. The amount owed is now more than the total debt on credit cards, auto loans and mortgages.

• The average debt of 2016 graduates exceeds $37,000. And that’s not including graduate/law/medical school debts, which can easily be six figures.

• Not surprisingly, the default rate is skyrocketing. The balance defaulted on exceeds $137 billion – for which the taxpayers are on the hook, since the federal government subsidizes many of those loans. The similarities to the housing crisis are eerie.

Naturally, many are wondering if college is worth the investment. The majority believe otherwise, largely because so many college grads face a significant underemployment problem. Yet parents and students continue taking the plunge. To what end?

All their lives, children are told that they can achieve the American dream, with college playing a big part in that equation. But for so many, the truth crashes down hard after graduation, with massive debt and mediocre job prospects crushing hopes and dreams, often for decades.

It goes something like this: Work hard to impress colleges (get good grades, play three sports per season, pay for individual coaching, volunteer 30 hours a week, join 17 clubs, and open a nonprofit making flipflops for the world’s poor); graduate with a boatload of debt; discover that you need an advanced degree, which incurs more debt; realize that your expensive MBA landed you a job at a 1990s salary level; get married – but no kids until you move out of the 700-square-foot apartment; spend years paying down the debt, then several more building up equity for a house; be cash-poor for years thereafter; and end up having just one child despite wanting more – all while watching your marriage dangle precariously from the cliff (if you’re not already divorced) because of the stress trying to make ends meet.

Welcome to the generation with the dubious distinction of not doing better than their parents. And it’s only getting worse, as incomes are growing more slowly than the rate of tuition increases.

What can be done? Here are some ideas:

1. The college tuition/student debt situation, just like the nation’s $20 trillion debt, is a house of cards that will, with mathematical certainty, collapse. It’s not a question of if, but when, as the system is unsustainable. But since these problems are always pushed off to future generations, that point serves only as a harbinger of what to expect.

2. The problem lies in basic economic theory. The more something is subsidized, the more its price increases. Therefore, until the federal government’s gushing student loan spigot is turned down, colleges have no incentive to hold the line on tuition. And obviously, they haven’t. Since 1978, college tuition costs have risen 12-fold – more than 1,200 percent, compared with just 250 percent for food. Tuition even outpaced medical costs by a factor of two, which is really saying something. Between 2008-2010, public universities jacked up their rates an average of 15 percent, with some private colleges increasing even more. Time to break universities’ addition to the federal trough by restricting how much is loaned.

3. Since most colleges are nonprofit, and thus tax exempt, their lavish endowments should lose tax-free status unless two provisions are met: A) tuition costs do not increase by more than 2 percent per year, and B) the endowment does NOT grow by more than 6 percent in a given year. If either requirement is not met for that specific year, they would pay taxes on all gains and income – thereby creating an incentive to use such funds to control costs.

4. If colleges banded together to lower tuition, it would be illegal, with administrators likely prosecuted. Time to revisit that law so that collusion doesn’t apply to price reductions.

Without that reform, almost no school will reduce tuition for fear of being labeled “inferior.” Sure, applications would surge in the first year or two, but would decrease soon thereafter. How ironic. Despite our anger about college costs, we would feel that a lower-priced college wouldn’t be up to snuff. Don’t believe it? Gauge people’s reactions to the lowest-priced Mercedes or Porsche – right or wrong, many sneer (even if they can’t afford one), viewing them as a diluted “poor man’s” luxury car.

5. More college-level courses, both online and in high schools, should be offered, and colleges should be pressured to more readily accept the results. Yes, many high schools offer AP courses, but colleges, fully aware that they reduce a student’s tuition, often create needless obstacles for students to gain credit. And colleges should offer more competency tests to incoming freshmen so that they can “test out” of courses not related to their field, such as math courses for English majors. Striving for well-roundedness is one thing, but mandating pointless standards as a thinly-disguised money grab is unacceptable.

6. How about making highly compensated professors teach more than just a few hours per week? Seriously, how much “research” can they possibly be doing? It’s salt in the wound for parents paying $45,000 per year to learn that their child is being taught by a boring teaching assistant simply regurgitating slides, with students learning nothing except how to best sleep in classroom chairs.

7. Time to control the purse strings. This author is not a big advocate of federal mandates, but since virtually every college in the country accepts federal aid – in addition to federal student loans – there should be common sense stipulations. No federal loan should be used for a university’s capital projects. Dorms and salaries are one thing, but unlimited taxpayer money should not be spent on lavish, and often unnecessary, pet projects – costs that are then passed on to future students. Colleges must always improve to compete, but making them do so with non-federal money would generate a heretofore nonexistent accountability.

8. Tax breaks should be offered to companies sponsoring students specializing in fields beneficial to that business; in turn, students would commit to working for that company for a pre-determined time. Everyone wins: company, university, economy, and most of all, student.

Numerous other areas should be explored: Tuition-free community college; public universities selling assets not related to their core business; outsourcing services to the more efficient private sector; capping salaries and administrative costs; and employing graduates in public service programs to forgive debt. We could even consider a program where universities that fund students’ education would be entitled to a future cut of a graduate’s earnings – thus motivating the school to produce a superior product.

Congress has thus far earned an “F” when it comes to reining in exorbitant college tuitions. If our children, indeed our future, are going to have any shot at realizing the American dream, reforms must be implemented. And you don’t need a college degree to understand that.

Student Loan Debt $1.5 Trillion

Philly Taxed City And Why Can’t We Save The SS United States?

Philly Taxed City And Why Can’t We Save The SS United States?

By Chris Freind Philly Taxed City

In 1979, Chicago’s streets weren’t adequately plowed after a snowstorm. As a result, Mayor Michael Bilandic lost his bid for re-election. After similar snowstorms in Philadelphia, where the streets were deplorable for days, almost 80 percent of voters said “job well done” to then-Mayor Michael Nutter, and rewarded him with another term.

That type of passive neglect has been pervasive in Philadelphia for decades, cementing the city’s reputation as one with virtually no promise of a renaissance-like turnaround. And the numbers bear that out.

A study by the Pew Charitable Trust found that many with the means to leave the city do, as almost 300,000 white residents (one-third of that population) have fled over the last 25 years. Another Pew study showed that, by a large margin, more families with children are leaving the city than coming in. Those who can’t flee get further crushed by an incompetent government.

This is Philadelphia, birthplace of America. It doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have to be this way.

An acquaintance from London recently arrived in Philadelphia for the first time. Like any good tour guide, this author whisked him off for cheesesteaks at both Pat’s and Geno’s in South Philadelphia. They did not disappoint.

But so much else did.

Since it’s human nature to gloss over that which has become all too familiar, it often takes someone else’s perspective to “see” what’s really there. And after driving around the city, what’s “there” was, on the whole, undesirable. Graffiti. Homelessness. Unkempt houses. A dearth of green space. Malfunctioning parking meters. Trash. Poverty. Incompetence. And trash.

It’s downright embarrassing. And quite frankly, people should be sick of it.

Try talking about how “great” Philadelphia is, and truth be told, it feels more like we’re convincing ourselves rather than impressing guests. This isn’t a new phenomenon, but one that has plagued us for years.

We should have boldly emerged from the shadow of our big brother to the north and the nation’s capital to the south to become a unique destination in our own right, not an also-ran town that serves merely as a pit stop on the way to “better” places.

We should be a world-class city. But we’re not.

Will things ever change? Can people jettison their inferiority complex born of perpetual malaise, and replace it with bona fide pride? Hopefully, but not likely, because Philadelphia has, for so long, been victimized by a toxic disease that destroys the very essence of its people: Impotent leadership.

Since London is in a class by itself, let’s look at Boston – another older, East Coast city – to see why it’s a thriving, vibrant metropolis, while Philly remains stagnant. And for the record, you know things are bad when you’re getting whipped by a city that happens to be in the most liberal state in the country.

Above all, Philadelphia kills itself by being the highest-taxed city in America (cumulatively), levying taxes on sales (2 percent higher than the rest of Pennsylvania), amusements, parking, business income and receipts, hotel rooms, cigarettes, liquor, use and occupancy, net profits, vehicle rental, outdoor advertising, trash, real estate, and, of course, the city wage tax. And let’s not forget the new soda tax. It’s already cost hundreds of jobs, with thousands more to follow, because people are now shopping outside the city – not just for soda, but for all their food needs, decimating the city’s mom-and-pop grocery stores.

Higher taxes result in fewer residents, businesses, and jobs, and, therefore, produce less revenue. In turn, that leads to diminished city services, including an underfunded fire department – which, we just learned, was the primary reason why a firefighter tragically died.

Philadelphia owns the highest or near-highest rates of poverty, homelessness, violence and murder; its education system produces abysmal results; its city pension is catastrophically underfunded; and opening a business is fraught with bureaucracy, and, some say, extortion – both “legal” and otherwise.

Philadelphia doesn’t have the luxury of being Washington or New York, where being downtown is a necessity, so the margin of error for Philly’s leaders is extremely small. And for those empty nesters and white-collar types who enjoy living in Center City, they are one mugging away from packing it up and moving back to the suburbs.

But rather than embarking on a course that would revive the city, Mayor Jim Kenney and City Council have done what the politicians always do: Put the screws to the residents who can’t afford to vote with their feet.

Compare that to Beantown. Sure, it has its share of taxes, but it educational product is significantly better, and its crime rate lower. Granted, it’s a smaller city, but comparatively, the rates are light years apart.

Boston has made huge strides in preserving green space and cleaning up pollution (such as the now-pristine Boston Harbor), with parks throughout the city. Its public transportation is top notch, and its infrastructure is being improved at an aggressive pace. And the entire downtown area is remarkably clean.

Knowing that quality of life is critical to maintaining a productive workforce, Boston has made its waterfronts safe meccas for entertainment, dining, shopping, and a host of outdoor activities. Contrast that to Fairmount Park, which while beautiful, is shady in many parts – and not from the trees. And for decades, we’ve heard nothing but empty promises from Philadelphia’s leaders about how both the Schuylkill and Delaware rivers – Penn’s Landing in particular – would be fully developed. The failure to do this has resulted in a colossal waste of prime space. And the bike/walking path that was finally constructed along a stretch of the Schuylkill? Plagued by muggings and violence.

So how is it that so many other cities successfully develop much smaller waterways, making them fantastic tourist magnets, such as in Cincinnati and San Antonio, yet Philadelphia, with not one but two major river systems, hasn’t done squat with either one?

Philadelphia obviously isn’t going to bulldoze skyscrapers to make way for green space and riverwalks. But in areas where its leaders could have exercised bold vision, they failed. One of their biggest blunders was ignoring the immensely successful model of “neighborhood” ballparks, where fans stream into local pubs and shops before and after games, creating a lucrative spinoff effect – such as Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, and newer ones in Baltimore, Cincinnati and Denver. Instead, Philly’s leaders chose to build in the middle of nowhere. As a result, the majority of fans never spend a dime outside the ballpark. A new baseball stadium near 30th Street should have been the goose that laid the golden egg, but leaders were too chicken to do the right thing.

Same for the Navy Yard, which, with its vast acreage, could be developed into a world-class entertainment facility, connected to Center City by monorail or ferry. Yet it sits unused, just another dream floating away while the competition gets it right.

Another missed opportunity is the brimming-with-potential S.S. United States – once the fastest ocean liner in the world. Other cities’ leaders would have done whatever was necessary to make her a first-class attraction, such as the Queen Mary in Long Beach, Calif. She could be a mega casino hotel, or filled with museums, shops and restaurants. But instead, she rusts away on the Delaware, seemingly destined for the junkyard while political leaders do nothing.

It is beyond frustrating to visit other cities that have their act together, knowing that Philadelphia’s potential outranks damn near all of them. But potential doesn’t get the job done. Rolling up the sleeves and putting in the hard work does. Contrary to the fairy-tale fluff spewed at press conferences, Philadelphia is not on a path to prosperity. And because of its failed leadership – and a population that no longer demands greatness – more folks will leave, and Philadelphia will continue its sad decline.

Philadelphia is better than that, and Philadelphians deserve more. It’s time to demand backbone from our leaders so that Philly can be the world-class city it was born to be.

As Benjamin Franklin so presciently said: “Without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning.”

Hey City Hall – anyone listening?

Philly Taxed City And Why Can’t We Save The SS United States?

Trump Syria Concerns Expressed

Trump Syria Concerns Expressed

By Chris Freind Trump Syria Concerns Expressed

Dear President Trump:

On behalf of many Americans, I am passing along my hope that you make America’s economy great again – really quickly. Otherwise, the Treasury will have to print trillions more in “funny money” to fund your surprising new interventionism – a “quantitative easing” for foreign policy.

After all, it appears that you, in direct contradiction of your crystal-clear campaign promise, are hell-bent on playing policeman to the world. Given what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson just said – “We rededicate ourselves to holding to account any and all who commit crimes against the innocents anywhere in the world” – that’s going to be an expensive proposition, and an unprecedented political quagmire.

But before America’s global gun-slinging commences, I respectfully ask that you consider the following:

1. Where will you start? So you aren’t accused of “continent-bias,” I suggest simultaneously tackling Venezuela, Myanmar, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Chad, Nigeria, Qatar, and Libya. France, too – just because it’s France.

And that’s just on Day One.

Given that around, oh … 80 percent of the world’s nations have people committing crimes against innocents – including not-so-insignificant China and Russia – the initial engagements against those abusers should be wrapped up by June. That’s the “easy” part. It’s American troops being stationed indefinitely “in-country” for nation-building and regime change where things get really complicated.

Caveat: I often implore people to “look in the mirror.” So, in truth, that list of offenders also applies to us. One look at our cities – Chicago, Philadelphia, even your hometowns of New York and Washington – shows the staggering number of innocents slaughtered daily in what are, without question, war zones. The atrocities, including the murder of babies and young children, continue unabated, leading to unimaginable suffering.

Tomahawks won’t work. However, Americans just voted for “regime change,” believing you to be the leader who instills order. Perhaps the president’s time would be better spent solving those escalating domestic problems, rather than creating more quandaries overseas.

2. We’ll have to build a lot more Tomahawk cruise missiles. But at nearly $2 million a pop, they get very expensive. Here’s something to consider: The Syrian attack was more than 1 percent of the cost to build your border wall, so your funding dilemma on that initiative will likely get even dicier.

But when the bombs don’t achieve the objective – actually, what is the objective? – we’ll send military “advisers” into Syria. And of course, troops to defend them. But it won’t end there, because it never does. Never. That’s not speculation, but hard fact. Then come bases, deployed troops, and air wings. (Even more concerning, what happens when we engage the Ruskies in a firefight, shoot down one of their aircraft, or vice versa?)

Mr. President, that strategy hasn’t worked too well for us. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly yet expecting a different result.

Further intervention in the world’s most ignitable powder keg, where Mother Russia is firmly entrenched and standing opposed, is insanity.

3. After we further destabilize Syria, culminating in regime change by toppling President Bashar Assad (as some in your administration are advocating), is that when we “declare victory?” And what will that mean? If it’s anything like Iraq and Libya, when America deposed two secular dictators, only to see massive instability and new governments comprised of even worse people, there will be a lot of scratching our derrieres. Being clueless about next steps after creating a dangerous power vacuum is not the path to the presidential Hall of Fame. Just ask W.

4. When will we learn that interventionism and regime change, especially in the Middle East, always produces catastrophic results?

Saddam Hussein was no angel, but an iron-fisted secular leader. He kept extremists at bay; maintained a regional balance of power; was an American ally during the Iran-Iraq war; and, most noteworthy, was a bitter enemy of Osama bin Laden. But we took him out anyway.

Since ousting Hussein, there have been thousands of car bombs in Iraq; yet while he was leader, there were none. Deposing Hussein, the only man capable of maintaining order, was possibly the greatest blunder in a very long list of American mistakes in the Middle East.

Then America took out the non-fundamentalist Moammar Gadhafi, who had been working with U.S. intelligence against terrorists. Alarmingly, it didn’t dawn on us that the rebels we assisted were the same folks who comprised the largest foreign fighting force battling Americans in Iraq. Libya devolved into chaos (remember Benghazi?) after America’s handiwork allowed thugs to gain power.

And now, we are blindly supporting rebels in Syria. True, Assad is a ruthless dictator, but as an avowed secularist, he provided stability by keeping fundamentalists in check. His drawn-out battle with the rebels has provided a safe haven for terrorists in areas captured from the Syrian government. The biggest irony: ISIS fighters in Syria (and Iraq) are using American weapons.

The United States keeps trying to impose its will in the Middle East, and it keeps blowing up in our faces, literally.

5. Not to appear conspiratorial, but what do we really know about the chemical attack? Could a conventional bomb have hit a rebel chemical weapons factory? Definitely plausible. Was it your “Deep State” nemesis, where agents arranged for the attack as a way to drive a wedge between yourself and Vladimir Putin? Or was it Occam’s Razor – the simplest explanation? Were chemical weapons loaded by accident?

Who knows? But clearly, the deliberate use of chemical weapons makes no sense from Assad’s perspective. Just days after the U.S. said it wouldn’t hold him accountable for war crimes, and that the Syrian people would determine their own fate, Assad is then going to gas people and incur the wrath of the world, with amplified calls for his ouster? Seems highly unlikely.

6. Not to insinuate that your military hierarchy and intelligence “experts” are off-target, but A) you have made criticizing them an art form, and B) their trustworthiness leave much to be desired. Many experts think that we actually sunk the USS Maine to spark hostilities with Spain (which in fact led to the Spanish-American War). The Gulf of Tonkin incident, the catalyst for our engagement in Vietnam, was faked. And more recently, the guaranteed claims of yellowcake uranium and WMDs in Iraq – our “justification” for invasion – were totally bogus.

The American people’s healthy skepticism of the intel community’s “findings” is well justified, especially since America has not won a war since 1945.

Minding our own business and not engaging in regime change is not isolationist. It’s common sense.

Americans don’t want another war. Sure, chemical weapons killing 70 are horrifying, but is that worse than conventional bombs killing thousands? Are we, already perceived as “crusaders,” really engaging yet another Middle Eastern country? And after the fact, just as in Iraq and Afghanistan, will we build state-of-the-art infrastructure for another country, while Americans continue to see their bridges collapse, roads crumble and water mains break?

Mr. President, it would be wise to heed the words of Sir Edmund Burke in formulating an exit strategy for Syria before ever entering it: “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”

Trump Syria Concerns Expressed

Fatties Must Bear Cost For Health Care Reform

Fatties Must Bear Cost For Health Care Reform

By Chris Freind Fatties Must Bear Cost

Three things about health care are universally true:

• It ranks near the top of “important” issues.

• It’s really expensive.

• Damn near no one understands it.

The combination of ignorance and health care’s ever-expanding complexities has resulted in a history of bad policy, where premiums have skyrocketed and coverage has declined. Obamacare, passed in 2009 and upheld by the Supreme Court, was supposed to change that by providing affordable care to every American.

It didn’t.

Despite promises to the contrary, many were unable to retain their preferred physician, experienced unacceptable wait times, and often did not receive the medical care to which they had been accustomed. And instead of physicians primarily focusing on patients – the very reason they chose the medical profession – too many were forced to deal with mountains of bureaucratic paperwork, decimating the personal doctor-patient relationship. Salt in the wound was watching premiums and deductibles continue to climb while health care became ever more labyrinthine.

Despite the broken system, Obamacare ruled the day and reform wasn’t an option. But all that changed with Donald Trump’s surprise victory. Now, repealing Obamacare is legitimately on the table. Or is it?

So as to not put this column’s readers to sleep more than normal, we won’t delve into the technical minutiae of health-care legislation, but instead look at the major areas where reform can, and must, be achieved.

But first, let’s address the white elephant that no one else is: There is no true solution to reforming health care so that it’s affordable for all Americans. None. There are many reasons for this, from our entitlement mentality to costs that simply cannot be controlled. But like our nation’s $20 trillion debt, it is a house of cards that will eventually implode. The best we can hope to achieve is slowing the inevitable and preparing a better system for when the current one collapses.

Two plus two always equals four – whether people choose to believe it. And the hard truth is that America simply cannot afford its astronomical health care costs. Most tragic is that, while everyone talks a great game about “protecting future generations,” so few walk the walk, preferring to “get theirs” as much as possible, to the detriment of our children and grandchildren.

For the last seven years, Republican leaders vowed, above all, to “repeal and replace Obamacare.” When the opportunity finally presented itself, the GOP found itself in complete disarray, with nothing to show but contentiousness within its ranks. Leaders somehow caught off-guard were forced to cobble together legislation that has unflatteringly been labeled “Obamacare-lite,” and which the Congressional Budget Office stated will cost significantly more than Obamacare.

One would have thought that, with so much time, the Republican Party’s best and brightest would have already crafted a bill of common-sense reforms that the whole caucus supported. But they didn’t, and, frankly, still don’t, as the current bill faces stiff opposition on several fronts. And it doesn’t help that President Trump is saddled with an approval rating of just 37 percent – a situation entirely of his own making. Squandering so much political capital in the first 60 days is not a recipe for success.

That said, here are several reforms that would inject market forces into the system to improve care and slow the meteoric rise in costs.

By far, the number one issue that must be on the table is addressing the obesity epidemic. And “epidemic” is exactly what it is, as 36 percent of Americans are obese, and an additional 34 percent are categorized as overweight. It is the largest factor in the spiraling costs that continue to devour ever larger slices of the health care pie. To get our arms around this, consider that more than $200 billion per year – yes, staggeringly, that’s per year – is spent on obesity-related, preventable chronic diseases. In other words, by the next presidential election, we will have spent a trillion dollars just on obesity costs alone. Chew the fat on that, because not even America’s economy can absorb such a monstrosity. And it will get considerably worse as more Baby Boomers – the most overweight generation on record – enters the period where health issues are most prevalent.

Obesity has already caused a massive upswing in cancers, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, high blood pressure, bone issues and arthritis, just to name a few. Vaccines are not as effective in the obese, which compounds health care costs and increases risk to the general population. And obesity results in not just high rates of job absenteeism, but “presenteeism” – lower work productivity when employees do show up. In just a decade, the cost for this decreased and lost productivity is estimated to be upwards of $500 billion annually.

There are a host of other negative effects costing billions more – wider seats and doors in stadiums, amusement parks, and public transportation; larger and stronger toilets in hospitals and buildings; airline lawsuits and countersuits over whether the obese should be required to purchase two seats; and yes, even costs associated with building larger coffins. Perhaps most startling, a study found that one billion gallons of fuel are wasted every year (1 percent of the nation’s total) just to haul Americans’ extra pounds. Given that the average American weighs 24 more pounds than in 1960, airlines are using roughly 175 million more gallons of jet fuel per year just to accommodate our mass. From creating more carbon emissions, which in turn causes more health problems, to increasing business costs, the price of obesity is simply unacceptable.

Taxing foods and sugary drinks is not the answer, as that hurts manufacturers, businesses and employees, while penalizing healthy consumers.

So how do we cut the fat from these massive obesity outlays? For starters, since obese individuals incur 42 percent more health care costs than healthier people, they should bear the bulk of those costs.

This author does not typically favor government mandates, since they often lead to a “government-knows-best” nanny state.

However, a mandate that insurers must screen every individual, every year, to gain health assessments and establish baselines, makes sense. With that information, premiums can be adjusted so that those with self-induced obesity conditions pay more. And that is only fair, since healthier Americans are now mandated to subsidize the unhealthy behavior of the obese. Without incentives to become healthier, the problem will continue to expand faster than America’s waistline.

Some will call this a bigoted “fat tax,” while accusing this author of fat shaming. Wrong.

The obese can have their cake and eat it, too. They’d just pay more to do so. In reality, this wouldn’t be a tax at all, but a reduction in the taxpayer subsidy that they currently receive. How is that any different from life insurers making smokers pay more? Or auto insurers charging young drivers higher rates? Higher risk behavior begets higher premiums.

Those who become healthier by hitting reasonable benchmarks would earn a premium decrease, while those who choose to continue an obese lifestyle would be forced to put more skin in the game. No one is mandating what they can and can’t do, but no longer would their lifestyle choices – notwithstanding the “99 percent” who claim it’s a “thyroid problem” – be swallowed by taxpayers hungry for health care premium relief.

Take a bite out of the trillion-dollar obesity epidemic, and the rest is gravy.

Fatties Must Bear Cost For Health Care Reform

Unity Good, Division Bad

Unity Good, Division Bad

By Chris Freind Unity Good, Division Bad

“Oh, that’s madness. The pusillanimity and vindictiveness know no limits. Shouldn’t bygones be bygones? Surely the sophistication of a society can be measured by its tolerance and ability to forgive.”

– Former King of England Edward VIII in “The Crown,” after being informed that, despite abdicating 17 years prior, his wife still would not be invited to Queen Elizabeth’s coronation, purely out of spite.

Have we learned nothing over the years? Where are we, as a people, going? And not just any people, mind you, but Americans – the most benevolent and progressive (small “p”) people the world has ever known.

Yet we must ask if those accolades still apply. It seems inarguable that we deviated from our path of righteousness some time ago, willfully allowing that which sets us apart – civility and respect for the rule of law – to disappear from the American landscape. If we are to ever excise the cancerous cynicism now so pervasive, we must honestly ask ourselves, “Who are we?”

This author implores readers to avoid knee-jerk partisan responses that have become an ingrained part of our fabric, and instead pause to think. If we are sincere about self-reflection, we must seek answers in the one place that never lies: The mirror. Only then can we begin to figure out what we have become.

Lamentably, many Americans have become tolerant in name only, projecting an attitude of “sure, I’ll respect your opinion – so long as it’s mine.” Gone are the days when we would disagree civilly, and use that dissent not as a venue for antagonism, but as the building block to solutions.

And quite frankly, it’s never been this bad.

We arrived at our current state in many ways: Looking at the past through rose-colored glasses; playing the blame game; fearing a future where the gulf between haves and have-nots continues to grow; being afraid of change; and harboring an entitled attitude of “let me get mine.” Combine those proclivities with full-blown social media whipping the masses into a fury, where outright falsehoods are routinely claimed as irrefutable fact, and you have a powder keg ready to blow. Not since the Civil War has America seen citizen poised so stridently against fellow citizen.

The road to unity – not the trite sound bite so many mindlessly invoke, but true unity as one America – can only start when people step back and take stock of why we are so “valiantly” demonizing each other.

And yes, while that begins with the president, it certainly does not end with him, for we’ve been on this path long before Donald Trump came onto the scene. Failure to see that we are all at fault will only accelerate our decline as the world’s beacon of light. Consider:

• Longtime friendships have completely dissolved over the election, replaced by total silence or acrimonious battling. That’s insane. And we’re not just talking about amorphous Facebook friends, but people with whom we grew up — colleagues, neighbors, family members. What political disagreement can possibly be worth that price?

• Constructive dialogue has been replaced with nonstop protests, bans and boycotts. But to what end? Sure, those things are our right to do. But that doesn’t make them the “right” thing to do.

So Nordstrom dropped Ivanka Trump’s fashion line. Maybe they did it because sales were declining. Or because its leaders don’t like Donald Trump. So what? If you like Ivanka’s brand, buy it somewhere else. If you want to “punish” Nordstrom, don’t shop there. But why the furious push to boycott? Don’t we have bigger problems to solve than worrying about a billionaire’s daughter? Has it become standard practice to protest and boycott everyone with whom we disagree? Why can’t we just move on with our lives to make America even greater?

Nope. Instead, many Trump supporters are calling for more boycotts, including Coca-Cola and Budweiser because of “diversity” content in their Super Bowl ads. Time to get a life.

And then we have Under Armour models and spokesmen who took issue with the CEO’s statement that President Trump was a “real asset” for American business, leading to the CNN headline: “Under Armour tries to recover from Trump compliment.” Have we stooped so low that companies now have to “recover” from an innocuous comment? Since when do employees call the shots about what their boss can and cannot say?

Not to be outdone, anti-Trumpers felt compelled to burn their New Balance sneakers in a display of solidarity after an executive made a positive statement about the president. Let’s get this straight: Millions around the world have no shoes, but these protesters think it’s morally acceptable to burn shoes costing more than many families make in a year?

• Hillary Clinton called upon all Americans to respect the election results. Yet millions still refuse, setting the horrendous example to our children that we should only respect rules so long as they’re favorable to us.

No one is obligated to support the president, but as Americans, we should respect him and the office he holds – not shout obscenities and give him the middle finger. That is unacceptable. As is the action of the New England Patriots’ players refusing to attend the White House ceremony honoring the Super Bowl champs – because they don’t like Mr. Trump. Get over yourselves. He’s the president. Boycotting such an amazing opportunity shows their total lack of class.

• There is a movement to boycott and even cancel the annual White House Correspondents Dinner – a lighthearted affair dating back to 1921. To have such disregard for tradition, and to create animosity where there needn’t be, sets a horrible tone. How will children learn to interact together at school, play, work and on the ballfield when adults act so childishly? And that admonishment also applies to President Trump. He absolutely should attend.

• Our behavior has not been lost on our youth. They’ve become more emboldened to talk back to their elders and disrespect authority.

• And we are hearing talk about impeaching President Trump. So now, when we don’t like a president, we should call for impeachment, despite zero justification? Where did our common sense go, and why are we so hellbent on destroying ourselves and our children like this?

Our culture of disrespect is dividing us like never before. If our children are ever to have a peaceful and prosperous life, we must demand that civility and tolerance once again become the cornerstones of our society.

And that’s worth tweeting.

Unity Good, Division Bad

Trump Makes Missteps

Trump Makes Missteps

By Chris Freind Trump Makes Missteps

The heavy favorite sauntered in with a swagger that only comes from being on top. They had won the ultimate prize before, but this would be even better, as winning would shatter records and set new precedents. With the caliber of team the leader had assembled, victory seemed inevitable.

But a funny thing happened.

In a shock to the nation, the vaunted Alabama Crimson Tide – national champions riding a whopping 26-game winning streak – fell to underdog Clemson at the very end, a stinging loss that no one saw coming. Sound familiar?

Sure, there were some questionable calls that hurt the favorite in the razor-thin contest. But that’s part of the game, so no excuses. Bottom line: On the only day that mattered, the Clemson Tigers were better.

Many disappointed Tide fans are still scratching their heads, wondering how their destiny was ripped away. But none is crying foul, nor are any protesting the outcome, since Clemson won fair and square. Doing so would be the sour grapes behavior of spoiled brats.

So how is it then, that if we can accept the results of a sporting event, we still have people rejecting the legitimacy of President Trump? And why all the protest marches now? The time to protest Donald Trump was Nov. 8, so it remains unclear what these people are protesting.

Since it’s been an unusually eventful inaugural week, here are some of the more interesting developments:

1. We’ll start with the administration. Self-inflicted errors, exacerbated by ego and inexperience, got the Trump team off on the wrong foot. The administration, already at war with the media, began by admonishing the press for its “incorrect” reporting of the inauguration crowd size – despite tweeting a photo that just happened to be from President Obama’s 2009 inauguration. How that mistake was made, if it was a mistake at all, is incomprehensible.

The president’s spokesman berated the press for not reporting that the inauguration was the most attended in history. Despite facts showing it was not (comparative photos, ridership on the Metro, etc.), the administration doubled down, and looked more foolish by the minute. The icing on the cake was when another spokesman stated that their position was based on “alternative facts.”

Too bad they haven’t yet realized that living in an alternative universe isn’t the best way to get a new administration rolling.

Most important, who cares how many people attended the inauguration? It is absolutely meaningless. OK, so fewer people attended this one than the last. Does that somehow make President Trump less of a president? Does that delegitimize his win, or at least knock it down a few pegs?

Maybe some didn’t attend because of weather, or watched on their smartphones, or just didn’t feel like going. Who cares?

Those making it an issue are grasping at straws, attempting to undermine the president’s credibility. Newsflash: It won’t work. People are concerned about their health care, Social Security and jobs – not crowd size.

That said, when will the president learn? Mr. Trump will never be the most popular figure, nor the world’s richest man. But he needs to understand that what he does have – and indeed, who he now is – trumps everything else. Donald Trump, as president of the United States, is the most powerful man on earth. Given the Republican Congress, he is poised to effect more change than perhaps any leader in American history. It is time, once and for all, for him to rise above the pettiness by not acknowledging irrelevant issues that can derail him.

For President Trump to be successful, he must start acting, well … presidential. Instead of worrying about crowd sizes or “Saturday Night Live” or any other extraneous topics, the president should heed the words of Martin Sheen’s character in “The American President:” “You fight the fights that need fighting.”

2. Since when did President Obama become the yardstick for everything? From the number of votes to inauguration crowd sizes to the pace of cabinet confirmations, the media seems obsessed with comparing the two men. Why? They, and the political environment in which they governed, are apples and oranges. No offense to President Obama, but it’s time to look ahead, not back.

3. Speaking of not looking back, it is astounding how many Republicans continue to blame President Obama and Hillary Clinton for so many things. Three points: A) President Obama accomplished virtually nothing over the last six years because the Republicans dominated Congress; therefore, much of that GOP blame is misallocated; 2. Republicans justifiably criticized President Obama for his near-constant blaming of George W. Bush; it is hypocritical for them to now do the same; and 3. the past is just that: The past. It is time to forge ahead with bold new ideas to jumpstart America. Those mired in the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

And, while admittedly a generalization, the only people who seem angrier than the Clinton losers are the Trump winners. As victims of discriminatory, double-standard policies, many have justifiable reasons to feel that way. However, they must understand that arguing with logic and compassion will always trump anger and vindictiveness. If the country is to ever unify, all sides need to grasp that lesson.

4. The fact that 66 congressmen boycotted the inauguration, social media backlash caused entertainer Jennifer Holliday to withdraw from festivities, and vile comments were directed toward a 16-year-old girl over her decision to sing the National Anthem at the inauguration, illustrates why our society is so divisive. Shame on them and their horrendous message that boycotts, threats and insults, even toward the young and innocent, are acceptable when things don’t go your way.

5. And then we have the protests. To quote former Eagles running back Ricky Watters: “For who? For what?”

From the anti-capitalists who smashed their way into a Starbucks (no doubt to grab a smoked butterscotch latte to fuel their violence), to the Women’s March organizers, none has yet provided clarity on what they were protesting. And when liberal feminist commentator Cokie Roberts agrees with that point, you know it’s bad.

Was it to protest the election result? Sorry, but that ship sailed, especially since many more of them could have voted, but didn’t. Was it rebelling against the electoral college and Hillary winning the popular vote? Ditto. How about Donald Trump’s sexist and insulting comments? Yeah, that was hashed out over the last 18 months in that thing called a presidential campaign. So, what then? Was it to send Mr. Trump a message that woman cannot be ignored? Try again, since many women were unwelcome on the march because they were pro-life. Inclusive, the march was not. Or was it the stagnant economy? Gee, that’s great. Blame the guy who’s been on the job for one day.

The real reason for the protests is what this column has frequently discussed: Protesting has become America’s new pastime. The “coddled generation,” which has been raised to believe it’s entitled to everything, sprang into action because it felt “offended” that Trump won, facts be damned.

Bingo.

Sure, protesting is the people’s right. So is stupidity. When the two go hand in hand, the result isn’t pretty.

If America is to move forward, it’s time for the grown-ups – on both sides, starting with the president himself – to take charge. Because as Michael Douglas’ presidential character says, also in “The American President:” “We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them.”

Time to get cracking. Together.

Trump Makes Missteps

Harambe Death Was Necessary

Harambe Death Was Necessary

By Chris Freind Harambe Death Was Necessary

Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if we ever discuss the issues that actually matter, such as skyrocketing college tuition, a broken health care system and illegal immigration.

But we don’t. Instead, we get sucked into vitriolic national debates on preposterous issues (i.e.: transgender bathrooms).

In that regard, the latest firestorm dominating headlines is animal rights extremists going ape because a gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo was killed in order to rescue a human being.

After a 4-year old boy fell into the primate enclosure, Harambe, a 17-year old, 450-pound male silverback gorilla, hovered over the toddler – at times appearing threatening – and dragged him like a rag doll through the water-filled moat. Zoo Director Thane Maynard, fearing for the boy’s life, ordered the special response team to shoot the animal.

This should have been a one-day story about the heroic efforts of zoo officials, the tragic loss of Harambe notwithstanding. But since “rationality” and “animal rights extremists” are mutually-exclusive, the airwaves have been filled with loudmouths throwing a monkey wrench into what should have been a celebration of common sense.

Since we can’t let the loudest voice win, here is a sober look at the situation:

1. Above all, innocent human life comes first. Always. Humans clawed their way to the top of the animal kingdom, and deserve first priority. Is it sad that Harambe died? Absolutely. Is it doubly tragic that Western lowland silverbacks are highly endangered in the wild, and there are relatively few in captivity? No question. But when you cut through the fur, Harambe is still an animal. And when human is pitted against animal, there are no points for second place.

Caveat: the key word is “innocent” human life. If an adult decides to be a moron and voluntarily jumps into an animal exhibit, all bets are off. Sure, efforts should be made to save him, but killing the animal should be off the table. Actions have consequences, and animals should not be penalized for someone’s idiocy.

In the same vein, too many animals, from alligators to bears to mountain lions, are hunted and killed after attacking a human in the wild. No healthy animal should be killed in its natural domain for behaving as nature intended. Again, actions have consequences, and if people want to swim and hike in areas known to harbor dangerous animals, they should be willing to take the risks – or stay home.

2. Many extremists are busy protesting the killing, creating online petitions and memorializing Harambe. But what’s not clear is what they’re actually protesting.

For those outraged that the gorilla was shot, here’s a simple question: if officials didn’t act quickly by shooting Harambe, what was the alternative?

Should they have sung Kumbaya with him in the hope that he would join them and forget about the child? Strike one.

How about sending a team in to distract Harambe? Sorry, but that didn’t work. Officials used special calls to successfully remove other gorillas from the exhibit. But Harambe, who was “clearly disoriented” and “acting erratically,” according to Director Maynard, didn’t respond. Any attempt by humans to approach Harambe could have, and likely would have, been perceived as a threat by the behemoth, who, as a reaction, could have deliberately or inadvertently hurt or killed the boy. Remember, this is an animal so immensely strong that it can crush a coconut with one hand. Strike two.

Then why not tranquilize him? Because, as primate experts pointed out, A) it would have taken time to take effect – time zoo officials didn’t have, and B) because Harambe was already stimulated, any tranquilizer likely would have made him more agitated. Combined with the screams of onlookers, some of whom were on the wall seemingly ready to jump into the exhibit, a tranquilized gorilla may well have lashed out violently, killing the boy. Strike three.

So the question stands: if shooting the gorilla was wrong, then what was the viable alternative? Anyone?

Admittedly, there is one more option that was not utilized: tasering the gorilla. Likely, the taser operator would have had to get uncomfortably close for an effective shot, and in doing so, would have jeopardized the boy’s safety. Nonetheless, that is a question that deserves an answer.

Bottom line: We would all be a lot better off protesting the things that truly matter, such as the senseless violence wreaking havoc in our cities (more than 40 shootings occurred in President Obama’s hometown of Chicago over the holiday weekend).

The justified killing of an animal to save an innocent child is protested, but the silence is deafening when countless young Americans die on our streets. Go figure.

3. The mother should not face criminal charges, as many are demanding. What parents haven’t lost momentary sight of their child, especially when caring for several children? Four-year olds are naturally curious, and have no fear climbing barriers. That’s called “being four.” Is the mother ultimately responsible? Yes. But having almost lost her son right before her eyes is punishment enough. Criminal charges would solve nothing.

By the same token, she should not sue. The barrier was reportedly up to code, and met safety guidelines of both the federal government and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. The mother’s mistake – one which could happen to anyone – nonetheless occurred on her watch; therefore, the zoo, and by extension its patrons, should not be penalized because of an individual’s momentary lack of responsibility.

On a related note, several media publications have detailed the father’s criminal past (even though it appears he has turned his life around). That’s disgraceful, since it has absolutely no relevance to the situation. Dragging someone through the mud illustrates why the media is regarded with such disdain.

4. Extremists are criticizing the zoo for not having a second barrier between people and gorillas. But under that rationale, why not have three or four? And while we’re at it, let’s keep all animals at least 500 feet from zoo-goers. Of course, if that happens, people will no longer go to the zoo, forcing closures.

And that’s precisely their goal, as they believe zoos to be evil incarnate.

Of course, the extremists conveniently duck the fact that zoos keep animals healthy; conduct valuable, lifesaving research; and actively breed, keeping bloodlines alive. The last thing officials would want is for one their family members, especially an endangered gorilla and star attraction, to be harmed.

Every year, someone falls from a stadium’s upper deck, almost always the result of irresponsibility. In the aftermath, there is a deluge of nonstop coverage about how stadium officials will reevaluate their railings to make them “safer.” But that’s the wrong answer, as we shouldn’t be changing things that work solely because of a freak accident or acts of monumental stupidity.

It’s the same with the Cincinnati Zoo. Its officials acted responsibly in an extremely rare situation, and saved a human life, for which they should be commended. So without further delay, let’s end this ridiculous debate, reopen the exhibit, get another gorilla in there, and keep alive the wonderment of seeing animals up close and personal.

After all, this isn’t Planet of the Apes. At least not yet.

Harambe Death Was Necessary

They Did Not Fight For Political Correctness

They Did Not Fight For Political Correctness

By Chris Freind They Did Not Fight For Political Correctness

I’m the ‘enemy’ because I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech, freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who would sit in a greasy restaurant and wonder, ‘Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?’ I want high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, OK? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in a non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because maybe I feel the need to, OK?

– Denis Leary’s character in the movie ‘Demolition Man’

Another Memorial Day is here, and with it the requisite cookouts, flags, and all things red, white and blue. What’s not to love?

Two things, actually.

Not to rain on the parade, but why does it seem that fewer and fewer Americans (especially the younger generations) have even the slightest clue as to what they are supposed to be celebrating? To them, Memorial Day is solely about going to the shore and living it up, to the point where “Memorial Day” are just words associated with partying.

They shouldn’t be.

Here’s a refresher: Memorial Day is the special observance where we honor those who fought to achieve – and later preserve – the unique freedoms that have made America the envy of the world for 250 years.

But even more disturbing is that America has turned into a nanny state at every level, an ever-restrictive society where we are voluntarily allowing our rights to be eroded.

And that is a stinging slap in the face to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in defense of liberty. Translation: that’s not what people fought – and died – to protect.

Rather than embrace our pioneering heritage predicated on pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps, with the innate understanding that we the people – not government – know best, we have morphed into a citizenry wholly accepting of being told what to do, and how and when to do it – or else. What’s not yet clear is if a majority agrees with nanny state orders, or if the silent masses oppose them, but are paralyzed to act due to complacency or fear of being labeled offensive, insensitive – or, God forbid, a Free Thinker.

Just look at where things stand:

• We can’t even get into our cars without being told what to do. Don’t buckle up, and you’re greeted with the non-stop beeping demanding you comply – or face insanity, as the alarm never stops. If you own a vehicle that doesn’t have a God complex, you still face significant fines if you choose not to wear your restraint. And ignorance isn’t an excuse, as we are threatened with punishment via multi-million dollar government-sponsored commercials – courtesy of the forgotten taxpayers.

Mandating seatbelts for children is one thing – they are too young to make an informed decision. Fine. But in the same way that not wearing a motorcycle helmet should be a rider’s choice, not buckling up should be the driver’s decision, as any adverse consequences will be limited to that person.

And no, we shouldn’t favor mandates under the false premise that they save on insurance premiums, as A) insurance companies can charge more for higher-risk behavior, and B) at the risk of appearing callous, unprotected driving leads to higher death rates, thereby reducing costly long-term medical care. Bottom line: adult drivers should be able to make their own decisions without Big Brother constantly looking over their shoulders.

• Helicopter parents have taken the nanny state mentality to a new level, corrupting our youth in the process. Instead of fostering an atmosphere of discovery, too many are hell-bent on hovering over their kids’ every action – and our children are losing their childhoods because of it.

The result? We have warped a generation, producing manic children conditioned to fear everything, from walking to the bus, to playing cops-and-robbers, to banning tag and kickball. Everything is so precisely orchestrated that creativity and curiosity has been erased, replaced with a structure so unnatural that social skills are nonexistent.

Worse, under the pretense of avoiding “hurt feelings,” nanny state coaches and league officials often don’t keep score, and standings are frequently taken off-line so as to not offend the lower-ranked teams. Instead, everyone gets a trophy because we have mandated a homogenous society, and individual achievement is all too often frowned upon.

Our attempt to whitewash all that is “bad and unfair” – things that often teach children about life – has produced a generation that naively floats through life believing everything must be guaranteed “safe,” labeling anything not to their liking “offensive.” The result? A sense of entitlement so warped that it may never be brought in line with reality.

• Banning smoking in public buildings is one thing. But when government bans people from engaging in a legal activity in private restaurants (if you don’t like the smoke, patronize another establishment) and in outdoor public places (Times Square, beaches, parks, etc.), it’s clear government is out of control. Many people don’t realize it, but these laws hurt everyone, because they are never rescinded, and almost always lead to more regulations – such as how many ounces of soda can be dispensed at restaurants. Once the nanny door is opened, it never shuts.

• Perhaps most unfathomable is New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s recent edict that, should an employer or landlord not use preferred gender-neutral pronouns and titles – ze/hir instead of he/her, whatever that means – they can be fined $250,000. No, that’s not $250 bucks, but a quarter mil forked over to the city. Beyond the fact that this law absolutely incinerates freedom of speech, the practical aspects are sheer lunacy.

So if Caitlyn Jenner lives in the Big Apple, and someone addresses him/her with a non gender-neutral pronoun, they could be subject to a gargantuan fine, despite there being no way to verify what gender he/she is – and no way to know what identify is “preferred” on any given day. When is enough enough?

When did we go so astray of common sense? How did we devolve to such a low point that our national debates are about transgender bathrooms and “misgendering” people? What the hell is wrong with people who feel entitled to their “right” to do and say whatever they want – so long as it’s a one-way street?

Things have become so utterly exasperating that it’s all too easy to just give up. But in remembrance of those who battled for the “Land of the free and home of the brave,” we owe it to them to keep fighting the good fight so that the wings of liberty stop losing feathers.

They Did Not Fight For Political Correctness