Category: Chris Freind

NBA Hypocrisy Reprised

By Chris Freind

He lunged, grabbed his boss and violently choked him. After being restrained and told to leave, the man returned, attacked his victim yet again by punching him in the face, and threatened to kill him. It was just the latest in a string of serious incidents involving the employee.

How much jail time did this violent offender receive? None.

Incomprehensibly, he wasn’t even fired, and for good reason: He played in that bastion of hypocrisy, the NBA.

Let’s get this straight. Latrell Sprewell, who played for the Golden State Warriors at the time of his assault, received a suspension and fine, with the NBA sending the message that a player physically attacking his coach will merely get slapped on the fingers. Compare that with the punishment handed out to Donald Sterling, the race-mongering owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, who gets banned from the NBA for life, fined millions, and may be forced to sell the team — for making incredibly racist comments during a private conversation, which, if Sterling didn’t give his consent to have recorded, may have been illegally obtained.

In handing down Sterling’s harsh sentence, the league has shown its immense hypocrisy, allowing criminal acts, but banning legal — no matter how repugnant — activity. Welcome to Amerika.

The biggest irony is that race relations, not to mention freedom, will take a hit because of the NBA’s actions. Consider:

1. First, let’s state the obvious: In the most elegant parlance, Donald Sterling is a scumbag. He has an unsavory past, possessing what clearly seems to be a discriminatory mindset. As a real estate mogul, he received a record $2.75 million fine for racial discrimination in renting. Sterling could even have faced criminal charges. But harboring racist tendencies, especially in private, isn’t a crime.

2. With such a checkered history, why didn’t the NBA address these issues over the years? It would be one thing if Sterling had been censored repeatedly, and this latest incident was the final straw, but clearly that wasn’t the case. Unfathomably, the NBA claimed it had no real knowledge of Sterling’s past.

3. The spectre of people willfully accepting their privacy rights being violated is terrifying. When commentators and politicians use phrases like, “There is no more privacy,” we might as well hang it up, for if that’s the case, America’s uniqueness is gone. Respect for freedom of speech and privacy rights — even for the most reviled — has set America apart from every other nation in history. If those things dissipate, the world’s last beacon of light will be extinguished. And at that point, we actually become worse than countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia, because we had greatness, but voluntarily gave it away, whereas those places have always been disdainful of individual rights.

4. Or — and this is by far the biggest issue — does an “offending” player or owner, who happens to be a particular ethnicity, get a free pass? If so, the NBA, and those cheering Sterling’s ban, should at least have the guts to state that such a double standard is acceptable.

It’s great for leaders and the media to publicly chastise Sterling — as they should — stating that bigotry and ignorance won’t be tolerated. But how many of these folks are consistent? How many cut off all ties to Jesse Jackson when he disparaged Jews by calling them “Hymies” and referring to New York City as “Hymietown,” or the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the president’s pastor, after his virulent racist and anti-American outbursts? Not many. Both still operate free of protest and condemnation.

Incredibly, one “sports expert” told CBS that even though the “N” word is often used during NBA games (virtually always by black players) the league shouldn’t try to stop such language or levy penalties. “The ‘N’ word is always going to have a negative image associated with it, but it doesn’t compare to the racist remarks by Sterling,” stated Ronald Oswalt, CEO of Sports Marketing Experts, which operates one of the nation’s largest NBA blogs. “Being around NBA players, the ‘N’ word is just second nature and habit for some of them.“

What they’re actually saying is that certain language (the N-word) should be tolerated for a particular group of people.

Sorry. Wrong, wrong, wrong. That apologist mentality is just warped. Sure, there are varying degrees of racism, but ultimately, racism is racism. You can’t excuse and justify it in some cases, but not others. Doing so will never move society ahead. Never.

The quickest way to widen the gulf between races is for leaders on both sides to espouse blatant hypocrisy, picking and choosing which racist comments — and by whom they are said — to criticize. In the same way the “average” American increasingly believes politicians favor the well-connected, resulting in an all-time high mistrust of government, selectively meting out condemnation for racial incidents only builds a powder keg of resentment. People may not agree with how something is done, but if they feel it is done equally and without favoritism, they can live with it. That’s the whole point of the Equal Protection Clause — the law is applied equally. When that concept falters, so do people’s inclination to work together.

5. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is attempting to gain the support of three-quarters of NBA owners to force Sterling to sell the Clippers. Two points:

If the NBA has any guts, every owner voting against Sterling should personally put up a share of the team’s $575 million value, and, upon buying it, donate all the proceeds to nonprofit organizations fighting racism (in all its forms) and advocating fairness in housing, and establish scholarship funds for minority children. Following that, they should sell the team to the highest bidder, with the proceeds again going to charity. Of course, they won’t do that.

» Assuming the NBA gets the votes, and that Sterling fights the decision in court, the NBA will almost certainly settle, for good reason. Sterling’s lawyers will, during the discovery phase of the case, uncover many skeletons in the closets of hypocritical owners. They should be mindful of the proverb, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

This issue is infinitely bigger than Donald Sterling and the NBA. It is about how we view each other as Americans, and more important, as people. It is about how we tackle difficult issues, and how solutions can only be realized if all are treated equally, with special privilege for none. It’s time, once and for all, to stop seeing things in black and white, and start living in a colorblind society, since we are all members of the only “race” that matters — the human race.

 

NBA Hypocrisy Reprised

Penn State Should Fire New President

By Chris Freind

It is a lurid tale.

A prestigious university, and its incredibly storied football program, is caught up in a sexual-abuse scandal. Even worse, an iconic football figure might have been unduly protected to the detriment of the victims.

Despite initial hopes that the situation would resolve itself quickly and quietly — sparing the university from excoriating criticism — the opposite occurred. What began as a trickle of articles snowballed into hard-hitting exposes published by world-renowned media outlets. The floodgates, flung wide open, unleashed a torrent of new stories as previously undisclosed information continued to surface.

Presiding during such a scandal, regardless of culpability, would surely make any university president beleaguered, tarnishing his reputation. So the last place on Earth to expect that president to show up would be the only other university with a bigger sex scandal on its hands, right?

Wrong. Welcome to Penn State.

In competing for the Most Moronic Move Of The Decade award, that’s exactly what Penn State’s Board of Trustees did by hiring Florida State’s Eric Barron as its new president.

It was on Barron’s watch that the controversy currently engulfing Florida State began. In December 2012, an FSU student claimed that she was raped, identifying freshman quarterback sensation Jameis Winston as the perpetrator.

In what had to be one of the worst investigations in history, the Tallahassee police dropped the ball in every way. The lead detective, Scott Angulo, had previously worked for the Seminole Boosters — a nonprofit organization with $150 million in assets that not only helps fund FSU athletics but partially pays the salaries of the football coaching staff and, incredibly, roughly a quarter of Barron’s $602,000 salary. Disturbingly, Angulo waited weeks before interviewing Winston, and it took him two months to file his initial report. Evidence was lost, DNA was never obtained, security video from a bar was never reviewed, witnesses were not aggressively tracked down, and the case was closed without the victim even being notified.

How bad were the police? Prosecutor William Meggs said it best: “They just missed all the basic fundamental stuff that you are supposed to do.”

The bumbling police investigation forced Meggs to close the case for lack of evidence. No charges were filed.

But just as bad was Florida State’s actions, or, more appropriately, lack of action.

According to an investigative report in the New York Times:

“University administrators, in apparent violation of federal law, did not promptly investigate either the rape accusation or (a) witness’s admission that he had videotaped part of the encounter … records show that Florida State’s athletic department knew about the rape accusation early on, in January 2013, when the assistant athletic director called the police to inquire about the case. Even so, the university did nothing about it, allowing Mr. Winston to play the full season without having to answer any questions. After the championship game, in January 2014, university officials asked Mr. Winston to discuss the case, but he declined on advice of his lawyer.”

And now, Florida State is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Education for possible violations in how it handled the situation.

Does any of this stuff sound vaguely familiar?

Let’s review. It took over a year for Florida State to investigate a serious accusation against a star athlete — conveniently after winning the lucrative national championship — and, in doing so, potentially valuable video evidence was lost. Now, the university is under federal investigation. And all of this occurred during the presidency of Eric Barron.

And yet Penn State hired him? Are we missing something here?

Whether Winston committed a crime, or the sex was consensual, as he claims, now can never be proven. Above all, what should have mattered most to the Penn State trustees — acting in the best interests of students, alumni, professors, fans, and, most important, the victims of Jerry Sandusky — was that Eric Barron was the worst choice to lead Penn State, and should never have been in contention for the presidency.

Even assuming that Barron had no knowledge of Florida State’s mistakes, still not in a million years should he have been considered a candidate. To make him one, and hire him after an “exhaustive” search and vetting process, truly ranks as one of the all-time “what were they thinking?” moments.

And by the way, if the New York Times could discover so much information about the university’s handling of the situation, why couldn’t Penn State’s search team do the same? How exhaustive could the vetting have been? Choosing Barron is like nominating Chris Christie to head up a National Bridge Commission. Hello!

But don’t forget how out-of-touch the Penn State Board of Trustees has been, firing Joe Paterno over the phone (no matter how one feels about Paterno, that is not how you treat someone who gave so much over so many decades), and willingly accepting the egregiously unfair NCAA sanctions without even a whimper of protest.

With all of the other college presidents, chief executives, and otherwise baggage-free candidates throughout the country, the only person the trustees could find to lead Penn State out of its horrendous scandal was someone who was in command during a high-profile sex scandal?

Generals, presidents and CEOs are clearly responsible when things go wrong, regardless of their involvement. The buck stops with them. Period. That’s the price of leadership, and all leaders know that when they reach that level.

In hiring Barron, Penn State is risking a monumental backlash should a high-profile sexual abuse scandal occur within the PSU community. What’s fair and accurate is irrelevant; perception is reality, and the perception among many would be that Penn State didn’t do enough to foster an abuse-free environment. And many would blame Barron based on how the events at Florida State were handled.

And God forbid, what happens if federal investigators determine that President Barron or his top executives had knowledge of the Winston affair but buried it? The embarrassment for the Penn State community would be astronomical.

So here’s what Penn State should do: Dump Barron. Immediately. Given that he doesn’t take the reins until May, it wouldn’t be a huge deal. By coming clean that they made a mistake, the trustees would actually earn the admiration and support of millions for their transparency and honesty. And Penn State could finally find the right leader to guide it out of its minefield.

It is imperative that Penn State trustees realize one inarguable principle: the university is now, and will forever be, different. It will always be under the spotlight, scrutinized — sometimes unfairly — more than any other university on the planet. That is not opinion, but a cold, hard fact.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Penn State Should Fire New President
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Penn State Should Fire New President

Crony Capitalism Crushes America

By Chris Freind

“We actually save money by doing this … natural gas is the equivalent of about $1.50 per gallon. The last time I looked, gas was still over $3 per gallon. The payback period on these trucks is going to be three or four years and our trucks usually last 10 years.”

So stated Aqua America Chairman Nick DeBenedictis as he recently touted the company’s planned acquisition of compressed natural gas (CNG)-powered vehicles.

He’s right about saving money, for two reasons:

A. As the math shows, CNG is considerably cheaper than diesel ($4 per gallon) and gasoline ($3.70 per gallon), so switching to CNG vehicles is a sound business decision.

B. More significantly, taxpayers helped foot the bill, to the tune of $225,000. Yep, those Aqua vehicles, as well as 14 vans purchased last year ($86,000 in taxpayer funds), were partially paid for by Other People’s Money. Namely, ours.

Saving money by having a capital investment pay off is one thing, but achieving that “feat” because of an outright gift from taxpayers is quite another. There are many innocuous-sounding terms for this type of government largesse: Grants, economic development, opportunity zones. But let’s call it what it really is: Corporate welfare.

Aqua America is by no means alone. Numerous corporations throughout the state are receiving funds to convert their vehicles. Twenty million dollars are being allocated through the Natural Gas Energy Development Program (funded by the impact fee imposed on natural gas companies), and another $8 million via the Alternative Fuels Incentive Grant Program.

But why? Why are Pennsylvanians forking over millions to profitable, free-market companies?

Consider:

1. This is nothing new. Presidents, governors and legislators, both Republican and Democrat, are complicit in handing massive amounts of money to private businesses. Often, their political coffers swell after doing so — and their post-political careers seem to become instantly brighter. Quid pro quo or not, the appearance of impropriety leaves an indelibly negative impression upon the pubic.

2. The money doled out to corporations, political friends and special interests could, by definition, be used for more productive purposes. We all complain about potholes and deplorable roads, but the government answer is, “There just isn’t enough money to fix all the roads.” Wrong. There is. And plenty would be left over for other projects. But when tax revenue is wasted on propping up businesses, everything else suffers.

Take the transportation bill passed last year. Despite Pennsylvania already spending $71,000 per road mile (11th highest), and exceeding $660 per person (more than 26 other states), Gov. Corbett and the state Legislature walloped Pennsylvanians with the highest gas taxes in the country to pay for new roads because they chose to keep spending money where it had no place being spent.

Maybe if the government hadn’t bailed out a shipyard to build ships with no buyers, spent taxpayer money to build a baseball stadium for the Yankees’ AAA affiliate, wasted millions on legal fees to stop the NCAA sanctions against Penn State (after the governor had agreed to those sanctions), and dished out huge consulting fees trying to outsource the lottery to a foreign firm, to name a few, there would be enough money to actually fix our roads and bridges without bending citizens over a barrel.

3. Before doling out cash to private sector companies to buy natural gas vehicles, it would have made more sense to put that money toward the massive state fleet, from police cars to dump trucks. But that hasn’t happened at anywhere close to the pace it should have, with Corbett saying it will take seven to 10 years.

4. We have come to expect reckless spending from our elected officials. All talk “fiscal responsibility” on the campaign trail, but the vast majority fall in line once they arrive at the capital. They play the go-along, get-along game and bring home the bacon as a way of ensuring re-election.

But far and away the biggest hypocrites are business leaders. For the most part, they are politically active Republicans, often deriding government interference in the marketplace. “Get government off our backs,” is their constant refrain to the pols. Yet, they seldom practice what they preach.

When there is a bill that could benefit them or their industry, they lobby hard for passage (such as the car dealers’ successful effort getting Chris Christie to derail Tesla Motors). When there is a regulation that would give them a competitive advantage, they advocate for it. And yes, when there is government handout, they are the first in line at the trough.

If a company, or entire industry, cannot make it on its own, that’s life. The strong shall survive and the free market will rid itself of outdated and mismanaged entities unable to do what it takes to be profitable. But government should not be Santa Claus, and has no place interfering in a company’s fortunes — or misfortunes.

Conversely, if a business is well-managed, it has no need for corporate welfare. Sure, business leaders can make justifications about how well the money will be spent or how many jobs it will help create. But as we all know — business leaders included — it’s still just a handout, nothing more.

Where does it end? That’s the problem; it doesn’t, and we are all paying dearly for the “let me get mine” mentality. From the $1.2 trillion annual giveaway to Wall Street firms (“quantitative easing,” whatever that means) that simply help the rich become wealthy (funded by imaginary funny money, to boot) to freely giving taxpayer money to companies buying new trucks, government has become the go-to source for cash.

It’s no coincidence that federal, state and municipal debt levels are at all-time highs, and that basic government services, from trash collection to education, are being curtailed or eliminated. Yet, the connected still have their hand out, always wanting more — and getting it.

The Piper is calling, but business and government keep turning a blind eye and a deaf ear. And when it finally dawns on them that the problem needs to be fixed, it will be akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

As Thomas Jefferson stated, “We have the greatest opportunity the world has ever seen, as long as we remain honest, (but) if (the people) becomes inattentive to public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors would all become wolves.”

Wrong tense, Mr. Jefferson.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Crony Capitalism Crushes America
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Crony Capitalism Crushes America

Unionize College Sports? Strike That!

By Chris Freind

Footballs are leather. Teams play on grass. Pads are made of nonmetallic materials. So why is the United Steelworkers union bankrolling the efforts of the Northwestern University football team to unionize?

Maybe it’s because they play on a grid-iron. But if so, the Ironworkers union must be molten-mad at what would seem a hostile takeover of its natural constituency.

Or maybe it’s because organized labor is desperate in its quest to stay relevant, given that private sector union density is a paltry 7 percent, a level not seen since 1932.

But using a trick play, the Steelworkers and the football team, led by quarterback Kain Colter, are ahead in the first quarter, thanks to a controversial call by the ref — National Labor Relations Board Regional Director Peter Sung Ohr. In his ruling, Ohr decided that Northwestern scholarship players are “employees” of the university, and can therefore unionize. On its face, the argument would seem likely to get sacked. But with the courts, you never know.

But the union issue is a red herring, with the big picture being entirely missed. Instead of discussing whether players should be paid or if they are “student-athletes” or just “athletes,” the situation can never truly improve until the NCAA is either abolished, or at the least, massively reformed.

Let’s review:

The NCAA — officially a nonprofit, which sounds like an April Fool’s joke — has become an authoritarian religion demanding that all who want to play, or administer, college sports must bow to it, strictly adhering to its creed — or risk swift excommunication. It rakes in billions off the backs of football players and their universities while rewarding both with mind-boggling restrictions. No one pays to watch sanctimonious, fat cat hypocrites masquerading as caring NCAA executives. The athletes are the star attraction, yet they get precious little for their efforts, compared to the revenue they generate.

The NCAA monopoly needs to be broken, and reformed from top to bottom. Only government can do it under the auspices of anti-trust violations, but given its complexity, we’ll deal with that in a separate column.

Now let’s look at the lawsuit itself:

1. On a political note, this case illustrates an often-overlooked but extremely important aspect of presidential power. While high-profile nominees generate headlines, those appointed to the obscure National Labor Relations Board make decisions that affect millions of Americans. From its case against Boeing — because that company moved some production facilities to another state — to the Northwestern case, the NLRB, reflecting the philosophy of the president, has made many far-reaching decisions.

2. Are scholarship players employees of the university? Maybe.

There are numerous statutes defining what constitutes an employee, but a general description is one who reports to a boss (in this case, the coach), at a particular place and time (a set schedule), and fulfills agreed upon duties (practice, games and all team-related activities) in exchange for economic compensation (scholarships). From that perspective, it becomes difficult to argue that they are not employees — especially given the benefit received by the employer (millions in revenue).

3. On the other hand, one of the “employee” arguments is that players are sought solely for their playing abilities. Therefore, they are not student-athletes, but just athletes. But if that were the case, the athletes wouldn’t be required to attend class, since the “student” part would no longer be relevant. But they are mandated to go to class and required to maintain certain grades to remain eligible. Tutors travel with the teams, and academics, depending on the school, play an important role in college athletes’ lives. If team members didn’t go to class, they wouldn’t remain on the team.

4. Ohr ruled that Northwestern prioritizes football over academics, since players aren’t permitted to take classes that conflict with practice or leave practice early to make a class. This clearly demonstrates that the director is a Monday morning quarterback who knows nothing about the real world.

My God — the horror that one has to schedule classes around practice! Guess what? So does the band, many of whom are also on scholarship. And other athletes. And the student body president. And all those who have jobs on or off campus. Kind of like how people have to schedule their privates lives — from picking up the kids to dropping off the dry cleaning — around their jobs. To claim that players are employees because the team has a dedicated schedule is downright insulting. Maybe if Ohr had a private sector job, he’d understand the concept.

5. Regardless of whether players are employees, where does it end? Can academic scholarship recipients form a union? Surely they would be employees too, since they are being “paid” via their scholarship, and they bring in revenue, even if indirectly, when their high marks and excellent records make the university a more desirable institution — allowing it to charge higher tuition. What about poor, affirmative action students? They add diversity to the school, further enhancing its appeal, which can be a financial windfall, as many state and federal grant programs exist solely for minority and low-income students — money that ends up in university coffers.

So if the criteria for “employees” to unionize are based on revenue generated for the school, it clearly can’t, and won’t, just be for football.

6. The elephant in the room is whether athletes should be paid, receiving some stipend to offset expenses. Sure, a full ride at 50, 60 and even 70 grand per year is fantastic, but to lose it all because a dirt-poor student signs a jersey for pizza money or accepts a bus ticket home to see mom and dad at Thanksgiving is insane.

Paying athletes shouldn’t be for the NLRB to decide. Instead, it should be a decision made at the university or conference level, using the free market as a guide. But the NCAA doesn’t allow it, and things won’t change until the justice department breaks the NCAA’s monopoly on deciding such issues.

Undoubtedly, college football players deserve some level of protection and compensation. But permitting them to unionize isn’t the way to go. Instead, it’s time to strike at the heart of the matter, demanding that the NCAA reform itself, or be locked out. And that would be a touchdown — for everyone.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Unionize College Sports? Strike That!
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Unionize College Sports? Strike That!

 

March Top Stories

By Chris Freind

As the month comes to a close, let’s look at some events so bizarre that you just couldn’t script them:
:

» World Trade Center Security Breach Number Two: Freindly Fire’s last
column detailed how a 16-year old thrill seeker bypassed security at
the new World Trade Center, roaming the building for hours. Turns out
that infiltration wasn’t even the first breach of the Freedom Tower. Six
months ago, a group of parachutists did the same thing before jumping
from the top. In both cases, the trespassers had unfettered access to
what was supposed to be, for obvious reasons, one of the nation’s most
secure structures.

But here’s the best part. Despite all the reports this week
highlighting the inexcusable security lapses, yet another guard was
caught sleeping on the job. Even more bizarre, he was the only guard at
the ground floor security desk, yet he “could barely see half the lobby”
(his own words) because he is blind in one eye and has limited vision
in the other. And to top it off, ABC News reported that he was named
Security Officer Of The Year.

So that we don’t have to revisit this, is there anyone out there who hasn’t sneaked into the Freedom Tower?

» TSA “Theatre” Now Playing — again: The Transportation Security
Administration just released a report recommending that armed police be
present at security checkpoints and ticket counters, as well as in
places where many people gather. Gee, that narrows it down. Well, except
for anyone watching a 76ers game.

They’re good ideas. But it begs the question: Why aren’t police there
now? That’s easy. Because we A) much prefer window dressings to real
solutions, have extremely short memories, C) don’t want to “offend”
anyone by instituting policies that would actually make flying safer,
and D) lack even basic common sense.

The debate, like always, will revolve around either irrelevant issues
or no-brainer solutions that could be implemented in five minutes, yet
the government still refuses to do its job of actually protecting us.
Consider:

1. A frequent traveler with no criminal record can be granted TSA
PreCheck status, a screening initiative that supposedly enhances
aviation security and expedites the process. There’s another, much more
apt label: American stupidity.

Once enrolled, you breeze through your own airport security line
while enjoying benefits of not removing shoes, belts or jackets. And
neither laptops nor clear bags holding liquids are required to be
removed from carry-ons.

Which means one of two things. Either the
show-us-your-shoes/belts/laptops mandate for all other security lines is
completely bogus, since TSA machines are capable of scanning those
items whether or not they are removed, or, more likely and much more
terrifying, the TSA is admitting it isn’t screening PreCheck travelers
with the scrutiny employed on everyone else. There is no third option.

Are they serious? Do they not think a terrorist, especially a
homegrown one, isn’t smart enough to game the system? Keep a clean
record, become a member of TSA PreCheck, and then — showtime. Oklahoma
City bomber Tim McVeigh is a prime example: U.S. citizen, Bronze medal
winner, Gulf War veteran — yet still a murderous terrorist. Time to end
all special privileges for flyers. If they don’t like it — take the bus
to Europe.

2. A passenger flying on America’s biggest airline recently went
through security (TSA PreCheck, of course), and, upon arriving at his
gate, was informed that his meeting had been canceled in his destination
city. Informing airline personnel that he had canceled his flight, he
asked where he could retrieve his checked bags. Their response? They
don’t take bags off domestic flights.

Isn’t that a big no-no? Most terrorists aren’t suicidal, preferring
to watch their target explode while sipping a latte instead of going
down with the ship — or plane. Since a passenger checking in but not
flying is rare, it should be standard procedure to get his bags off the
plane ASAP. No exceptions. Yet complacency still rules the day at our
airports.

» Boston bomber should never have bombed: Once again, a simple lack
of common sense came back to haunt us. A report being released by the
House Homeland Security Committee documents the missed opportunities to
detain Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev before he acted.

Russian intelligence, starting in March 2011 (more than two years
prior to the bombing), warned both the FBI and CIA that Tsarnaev had
ties to violent Muslim militants. The CIA in turn notified the National
Counterterrorism Center, Homeland Security, and the State Department.
Yet Tsarnaev passed right through our grasp at JFK Airport twice — first
flying to Russia, and then returning six months later after his
terrorist training.

The reason for this foul-up? His name was spelled “Tsarnayev,” with
an extra “y,” in a database. Honestly, you can’t make this stuff up.

Google any subject and the computer knows what you are trying to
find, even if you are misspelling the word or phrase. Yet the most
powerful, and certainly the most important, computers in our government
can’t figure out whom we are attempting to access in a database, or at
least bring up a list of people with similar names?

The president just stated his fear of a nuclear bomb exploding in New
York. Based on the above, he, and we, should be afraid. Very afraid.

» Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett’s unpopularity goes global: It’s bad
enough Corbett’s popularity is in the toilet at home, but he just
suffered a blow of global proportions, this time courtesy of Pope
Francis. Corbett’s much-ballyhooed trip to Rome — together with
Archbishop Chaput and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter — had made big
headlines, since the purpose was to convince the pontiff to attend World
Conference on Families in Philadelphia next year. All that was needed
was the guv to work his oratory magic and seal the deal during a private
audience with the Holy Father in his papal apartment.

One small problem: The pope changed the plans, opting instead to meet
Corbett and the Pennsylvania delegation in public after his weekly
general audience in St. Peter’s Square instead. All involved insist it
was not a snub, merely a change of schedule.

While atoning for his sins might’ve actually done the governor some good, why the last-minute change of plans?

Did the world’s most popular man simply not want to break bread with
America’s least popular governor? Or did the pope become wise to
Corbett’s Jerry Sandusky Sins — an issue that hits close to home for the
church?

Whatever the reason, Corbett’s response that “with the church, you
never know what’s going to happen” probably didn’t endear him to the
pontiff. Given the pope’s change of plans, Corbett is now the Rodney
Dangerfield of politics — he truly gets “no respect.”

With all these sins of commission and omission, maybe we should call
the pope and beg for absolution to get America back on track.

Since Tom Corbett will soon have a lot of time on his hands, maybe we
could ask him to ring Pope Francis for us. On second thought, maybe
not.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for March Top Stories
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for March Top Stories

Christie Vs Tesla

By Chris Freind

Well, it’s official. Chris Christie has lost it.

No, not his weight. And not the widespread notion of his involvement in the Bridgegate scandal.

It’s much worse. He’s lost his mind.

In an act that defies comprehension, Christie veered off the road of common sense when his Motor Vehicle Commission barred auto manufacturers from selling directly to the public. Christie’s “fiat” mandating that all cars be sold through dealers has kept the special interests’ status quo alive and well, and amounts to a hit-and-run on that thing called the free market.

In hitching his trailer to New Jersey’s car dealer lobby, Christie
has shown his true colors as an elitist country club Republican firmly
in the backseat of big business — will of the people be damned.
Ironically, this is a U-turn in the perception of Christie, whose
brusque, tell-it-like-it-is style had earned him a rare “man of the
people” status.

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but it is
hard to see any good intent in Christie’s latest dictate. Which leads
one to ask if Chris Christie really is who his critics claim him to be —
just another good ol’ boy who talks a great game but is no different
than the typical Jersey pol. How many times can you give Christie the benefit of the doubt? And on this one, there’s no he-said, she-said. The decision to jump in bed with the car dealers has Christie’s hood emblem all over it. And it’s really tough to stomach.

The center of the storm involves upstart electric carmaker
Tesla Motors, whose innovative business model cuts out the middleman, with the company selling directly to the public through storefront offices and the Internet. As a result of the rule change, Tesla’s two successful retail New Jersey locations, as well as two planned service centers, will close. Isn’t this the same Chris Christie who said he wanted to create jobs, not eliminate them?

Several points come to mind regarding this car-wreck policy:

1. Is this really the image the Republican Party wants or needs?
Being in bed with business plays right into the stereotype of who is
controlling the GOP. And being nakedly anti-competition rankles
conservatives to such an extent that even more will abandon the Party and bolt to the Libertarian ranks. Strong-arming such rule changes also alienates good-government types, many of whom are swing voters. Given that the Republicans have been looking at the Democrats’ taillights for quite awhile, this unpopular policy is the last thing with which the party’s leaders should be associated.

2. Tesla, which had been selling cars in New Jersey for over a year,
said the Christie administration went back on its word by unilaterally deciding on the matter. Previously, the arrangement had been to allow the Legislature to handle it in a fair, public manner. Given Christie’s track record of late, the benefit of the doubt has to go to Tesla.

The Legislature has every reason to be upset by Christie’s bypassing
that body, calling into question the governor’s respect for the
separation of powers. Enacting such a far-reaching rule change should be the domain of elected lawmakers, not bureaucrats in vehicle commissions.

3. The rule is a kick in the teeth to competition and fair play, not
to mention the innovation that Tesla has brought to the industry. Will
automakers selling directly to the public be a winning business
strategy? No one knows, but that’s what the free market is all about:
Coming up with bold ideas, takings risks and seeing if the public likes
what is offered. The Tesla business model should rise or fall on
people’s choices — not government intervention based on the deep pockets
of special interest groups.

The new rule, in addition to mandating new cars be sold by
franchisees, requires a dealer’s facility to have 1,000 square feet of
display area, with showroom space for at least two cars, and equipment
to service vehicles — none of which fits into Tesla’s business model.
Who is the government to tell a company how to market and sell its
products? Seems like the car dealer lobby just got a ticket on the
government gravy train, courtesy of hundreds of thousands in campaign
contributions to the governor.

4. New Jersey is not alone enacting these laws. Texas and Arizona —
both Republican-dominated states — have anti-Tesla regulations on the
books, and a number of other states controlled by both parties are
considering them. Why? No idea.

So perhaps someone smarter could decipher the words of Jim Appleton,
president of the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers, when he
chided, “What is it about Tesla that makes them immune from the concerns
of zero price competition and a monopoly market, or not fully and
fairly administering safety and recall services?”

He lost me at immune.

If incoherent babblings about recalls,
service and price controls are the best arguments proponents have, this
will be an easy victory lap through the courts for Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
And make no mistake. This rule is clearly unconstitutional on a number
of fronts, such as the Interstate Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses.

There is much more at stake here than how cars are sold. It
is an issue that deals with the environment (electric cars generate no
carbon emissions), honest competition, government interference in the
marketplace, the need for term limits and the role of deep-pocketed
special interests in shaping policies for the benefit of a few, to the
detriment of many. Allowing such a rule to stand would send a message
that America is a nation where the rights of the individual are trumped
by big business and corrupt government. And at that point, we will have
lost our uniqueness.

As the race to the White House begins, the call is going out for
candidates to start their engines. For Chris Christie, this latest
head-on collision will ensure that he won’t be in the driver’s seat.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Christie Vs Tesla
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Christie Vs Tesla

 

Befriend Cuba Already

By Chris Freind

In 1961, an American-backed, CIA-trained paramilitary force stormed Cuba in the hopes of deposing Fidel Castro. After an initial victory, the counter-revolutionaries were routed, proving a major embarrassment to the United States and reinforcing the notion throughout Central America that the U.S. was a nation hellbent on imperialism. That ill-fated operation came to be known as the Bay of Pigs.

Over the last 53 years, America’s policy has been, and continues to be, isolating Cuba through a strict embargo in the hope that its socialist government collapses. Given that a half-century has gone by with no results, it’s safe to say that the policy is flawed, and the leaders who refuse to change it are pigheaded.

But what else is new dealing with our own hemisphere?

America freely gave away one its most strategic assets, the Panama Canal, while gaining nothing. It is continually at odds with Venezuela, which happens to have the world’s largest proven oil reserves. And it can’t gain Mexico’s good-faith cooperation to control drugs and illegal immigration. Rectifying any of those, let alone all three, is an extremely tall order, no matter what party controls Washington.

That’s not exactly a stellar track record. But with bold leadership and foresight (along with a little humility), we can change direction and gain huge victories for freedom and free enterprise right in our backyard.

It’s called befriending Cuba.

To be fair, enacting the embargo on and restricting Americans’ access to Cuba during the height of the Cold War, when Castro cozied up to the Soviet Union, was reasonable. Common sense should have told us that if it didn’t produce the desired results in five or even 10 years, it was never going to work. But since political common sense is an oxymoron, the sanctions continue to this day.

As a result, Americans and American products are denied a huge market within close proximity. We lose access to cheap Cuban goods, and perhaps most important, the relatives of Cuban-Americans continue to suffer under authoritarian rule in a stagnant economy, while U.S. law makes family reunions in Cuba all but illegal.

Since it would be a win for everyone to lift the embargo and improve relations, it’s a fair question to ask why we aren’t doing so. Consider:

1. Too many presidential candidates (along with Florida’s congressional delegation) still bow to the demands of an increasingly small but highly vocal minority of Cuban Americans who detest the notion of “helping” a Cuba ruled by anyone named Castro. Given Florida’s paramount importance in electoral politics, it’s understandable for candidates to think that opposing this lobby could lose them the state (much like opposing ethanol subsidies in Iowa).

But they have failed to see that the Cuban voting bloc is no longer tied to the embargo issue as it had been decades ago. The number of first-wave Cuban refugees with the strongest passion are dwindling, and each successive generation not only places less importance on the sanctions, but view closer ties as the path to prosperity.

Being beholden to a special interest is never good, but placating one that doesn’t exist is stupidity.

2. Despite the embargo, development in Cuba is on the upswing, fueled by European businesses that are snatching up the prime real estate and business opportunities — an easy task when American competitors are nonexistent. American jobs take a hit, and economic growth lags when it should be booming. If the embargo’s objective was (and is) to collapse the Cuban economy, and it didn’t work before, it certainly can’t be successful now that numerous other countries are stepping up Cuban involvement. It’s time for us to get in the game.

3. No one likes to admit they were wrong, but 53 years of isolation with nothing to show? We can’t wait for three minutes at the drive-thru without complaining, yet, we patiently adhere to a woefully ineffective law that will soon approach six decades of failure. What exactly do we think will miraculously change?

4. The embargo hurts the very people we purport to be helping: The Cubans themselves. By denying them economic opportunities, we keep them in poverty with no chance at prosperity. The way to win people’s hearts is through their wallets, as a growing middle class produces stability and respect for law — a rising tide that floats all boats. Yet, that unique American lesson is not being taught.

5. Defenders of the embargo love to rattle off conditions Cuba needs to meet: institute human rights; hold fair elections; free political prisoners; embrace democratic ideals; and compensate families of the oppressed. Gee, that’s nice. And it would be great if the world were filled with rainbows and lollipops! Except that it’s not. To make those demands shows a naivete at best, and hypocrisy at worst.

If those are prerequisites for doing business with other nations, our list of trading partners would shrink to Antarctica and Santa’s workshop.

Out-of-touch politicians aside, there is a growing call to lift the embargo and increase diplomatic, economic and cultural ties with Cuba.

In doing so, America would get back to what it does best: Be a beacon of hope to the world, showcasing that freedom and capitalism are its biggest exports. China still has a long way to go, but America, not through force but by its values, has transformed that nation in a revolutionary way, guiding it toward liberalism (small “l”). A vibrant middle-class has been born and they are starting to taste the good life as more freedoms are earned and opportunities realized.

If we can accomplish that with China, doing the same with Cuba, with its dynamic people and incredible cultural heritage, would be a walk in the park.

So let’s build a bridge to our neighbor just 90 miles from our shores, and tear down that wall.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Befriend Cuba Already
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Befriend Cuba Already

 

Panama Lessons Must Be Remembered

By Chris Freind

The great ship moved silently through the water, knifing the
jet-black Caribbean Sea as it approached Panama. As dawn broke and the
fog lifted, it finally appeared, in all its glory: The massive Gatun
locks of the Panama Canal, lifting ships 1,000 feet long and 90,000 tons
85 feet above sea level to a water bridge crossing the Continental
Divide and connecting the Pacific. The 50-mile canal, separating two
continents but uniting the world, shaves a whopping 8,000 miles off a
run from New York to San Francisco. A dream that goes as far back as
Columbus undisputedly stands as one of the greatest achievements of in
all of human history.

Yet it almost never came to be, as centuries’ worth of attempts to
construct a path between the seas all resulted in disaster due to
ineptitude, disease and the deaths of more than 30,000 workers.

So what changed? Who found success where others had failed? How were
seemingly impossible obstacles, literal and otherwise, bulldozed on the
path to victory?

Easy. The United States got involved.

As we look back from this 100th year anniversary of the canal, it’s
abundantly clear that “America” was synonymous with “greatness” at that
point in history. The country was alive and vibrant, forging ahead with
bold ideas carried to fruition by bold leaders. Men like Teddy
Roosevelt, who innately understood what was in America’s strategic
interests and pursued those initiatives with a gusto that made success a
foregone conclusion. Failure simply wasn’t in the lexicon.

How things have changed. The nation that once valued decisiveness
over impotence, and risk over fear, somehow morphed into a timid,
risk-averse politically correct shell of its former glory that too often
tries to be all things to all people — so long as those people aren’t
its own citizens.

And there is no better example of that warped mindset than the
giveaway of the Panama Canal. While seeing the canal makes one gape in
sheer awe, it also evokes a fury, a constant “what were we thinking?”
refrain, reinforcing a notion that our nation is in decline, entirely of
our own making.

An outline of the canal’s history seems too far-fetched to be true,
as it defies the common sense expected of the world’s most powerful
nation:

» Thousands die trying to connect the oceans. Project declared impossible.

» America defies the odds by constructing canal ahead of schedule and under budget.

» America saves countless lives by eradicating yellow fever and
discovering the cause of, and thus controlling, the region’s ultimate
killer: Malaria.

» America operates canal not for profit but to facilitate
international commerce, even for those not trading with the United
States.

» America, despite its 85 years of flawless operation, freely gives
the canal to Panama in exchange for absolutely nothing, netting a zero
return on investment.

» American ships now pay massively increased fees (passed on to
American consumers) while Panama laughs all the way to the bank.

» Despite the giveaway, America continues to guarantee Panama’s security in perpetuity, with no benefit to the U.S.

If this story weren’t so tragic, it would be a comic, because giving
away the canal made America’s strategic vision a complete joke.

President Jimmy Carter negotiated and signed the 1977 treaty giving
away the canal (which took effect in 1999). The list of American
giveaways is substantial: The canal itself, the huge Gatun Lakes dam,
the hydroelectric plant, the isthmus-wide railroad, and the 10-mile wide
Panama Canal zone, with all its infrastructure. Rubbing salt in the
wound, even Titan, one of America’s largest cranes (war booty from
Hitler’s Germany) was given to the Panamanians in 1999 after 50 years of
operation in Long Beach, Calif. All invalidate the blood, sweat and
yes, deaths, of the Americans who worked so proudly on the canal.

Perhaps most startling, no consideration was given to America for all
it had done, despite it being the largest user, by far, of the canal.
Virtually all the new equipment, from the “mule” trains that guide the
ships to the massive steel doors going into the enlarged locks now under
construction, is made everywhere but America.

Five other nations are involved in the construction of the new locks,
but America is not one of them. And yet that consortium has already
experienced money problems, labor disputes and cost overruns for the $5
billion project, whereas we spend that amount every 12 hours. Nor does
America manage the large ports on either side of the canal. Instead,
that honor goes to China. Naturally.

Not only does Panama rake in $2 billion annually from its fees, but
it doesn’t spend a penny on an army, because thanks to Uncle Sam, it
doesn’t have one. So if Nicaragua becomes belligerent, American men and
women will fight and die solely for Panama’s sake. Help me out on that
one.

Some may ask, “Nice history lesson, but why bring it up now? What’s done is done.”

Wrong, for two reasons:

1. While the treaty won’t be scrapped,
America could clearly exact concessions from Panama to benefit American
shippers and consumers. Our ships, at a minimum, should receive a
substantial discount for passage (the Colombian Navy passes for free. Go
figure). Those savings would make our products and companies more
competitive, and keep jobs in America. If Panama resists, the protection
deal could be immediately revoked along with all other foreign aid to
Panama. No third-world country should be dictating to America,
especially one in our own backyard.

2. Infinitely more important, it should be a wake-up call to stop
engaging in one-sided deals that only hurt America. The Panama giveaway
is not an isolated incident, but a mindset that persists to this day.

Both parties are complicit, but it is we the people who are
ultimately to blame, as we no longer demand excellence and strategic
vision from our leaders. Instead, mediocrity with no eye to the future
rules the day, and with it, a lingering pessimism that seems destined to
be with us until a leader like Teddy Roosevelt emerges. Someone who, in
Teddy’s words, “is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust
and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly … who spends himself in a
worthy cause … so that his place shall never be with those cold and
timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Let’s re-read our history, learn from our mistakes and regain the greatness that is uniquely American.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Panama Lessons Must Be Remembered
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Panama Lessons Must Be Remembered

Fear Takes Over

By Chris Freind

If running scared was an Olympic sport, America would get the gold. Hands down.

In stark contrast to the pioneering spirit that built this country — taking risk and enduring danger — living in fear has now become our nation’s favorite pastime.

Nowhere was that on bigger display than leading up to the Olympics in Sochi. From the government to the media, the fear-mongers were out in force, many of whom urged Americans to stay home from Games — with some all but guaranteeing catastrophic terrorist attacks.

Congressman Peter King, R-N.Y., relying on the ever-so-convenient “I can’t tell you what I know” line thrown out whenever a claim can’t be substantiated, stated, “I would not go myself. If I were an athlete, that’s one thing, but just as a spectator, I don’t think it’s worth the risk.” Incomprehensibly, though, he then said, “Odds are nothing is going to happen.”

Well, if odds are nothing will happen, why shoot your mouth off at all? It instills fear needlessly — and angers a powerful nation.

Likewise, U.S. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, stated, “I would not go, and I don’t think I would send my family.”

Really? When did we become such wimps? It’s bad enough that some leaders are afraid to live, but to broadcast their fears is inexcusable. Without question, doing so handed every terrorist in the world a huge moral victory. The message? Make threats and watch America flee with its tail between its legs.

There would be nothing better than to see the ultimate cold warrior Vladimir Putin pull off an attack-free Olympics to show the world that the way to defeat terrorism is to take the fight right to them. Never back down, and never live in fear.

And so long as we’re keeping score in the other “metal” count — Olympic bombings — Russia still has zero, one fewer than America. And in that game, low score wins.

Kind of ironic that, despite the immense doom-and-gloom heaped upon the supposedly unsafe confines of Sochi, the only bombing deliberately targeting the Olympics occurred at the Atlanta Games in 1996, killing one and injuring more than 100.

So much for being “risk-free” in America, a point sorely lost on our leaders. Despite their attempt to sanitize everything, pretending that we can be 100 percent safe, there is, and always will be, risk. From walking out the front door to attending Olympic Games, risk goes with the territory as an everyday part of life. We can mitigate it to the best of our ability, but risk, in its infinite forms, is our lifelong companion.

It’s how we deal with risk that defines our courage and character.

?

Let’s look at several points regarding the Sochi fear factor:

1. Has the region around Sochi seen its share of terrorism? Yes, but there have been plenty of Olympic venues where terrorism was a potential threat. The separatist group ETA had a history of bombings in Spain, yet Barcelona hosted in 1992. China clearly had issues with terrorism, yet the 2008 Games were played. And who could forget the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes and a German police officer during the 1972 Olympics in Munich?

America endured bombings in Oklahoma City (1995) and Atlanta, got walloped on 9/11, and has seen countless other attacks, from the Times Square bomber to mall and school shootings — despite the best intelligence in the world. Does that mean we should never host again? Of course not. But the constant fear-hyping — especially by those who live in glass houses — takes the magic out of the Games.

2. Let’s be honest: Much of the government’s fear-mongering was politically motivated. It was payback to make Russia look bad due to major policy differences, such as its alliance with Syria, its stance on gay rights, and, most significantly, its harboring of Edward Snowden, who leaked the NSA’s spying secrets — an extreme embarrassment to the United States.

The U.S. also overstepped its bounds in criticizing Russia over its preparedness, even questioning whether it would be ready to host the Games. Well guess what? It’s been flawless. Too bad we didn’t learn from former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s major gaffe four years ago when he criticized the Brits in exactly the same way and was roundly chastised on both sides of the Atlantic. No wonder he had trouble getting foreign policy photo-ops for his campaign.

Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games, followed by the Soviets’ embargo of L.A. four years later (encompassing 15 nations), were horrendous decisions. They accomplished nothing except to showcase the stupidity of shortsighted leaders while victimizing their own athletes (many of whom missed their only Olympic opportunity) and millions of fans. You want to be at odds with your adversaries? Fine. That’s life. But leave the purity of sport out of it. Stop politicizing Sochi.

3. The best security plan is the one you don’t broadcast. So, was it really necessary to tell the world (and the terrorists themselves) that our Navy moved ships into the Black Sea to help evacuate athletes and spectators in case of an attack? It has a counter-productive effect, as people start believing that an attack must be imminent given the immense preparations. The security freaks love showing off their toys, but our leaders should know better. They’d be a whole lot better off adopting former Republican President Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick” approach rather than scaring the bejesus out of people.

?

Americans’ history of courage has been exceptional. Our Founding Fathers risked (and many lost) everything, when they could have done nothing. Americans engaged in wars to save the world from tyranny, yet never flinched. Civil rights leaders, at risk to life and limb, overcame unimaginable hurdles to achieve freedom and justice.

How have we lost such a legacy?

The real world doesn’t change. It’s always been, and always will be, filled with risk and danger. Coping with this without being a prisoner of fear is the only way for a nation, and a people, to prosper.

With the only vision that matters, Helen Keller said, “Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. The fearful are caught as often as the bold.”

In that spirit, let’s leave our fears behind and return to what made America great — always going for the gold.

 

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Fear Takes Over
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Fear Takes Over

Tech Addiction Stronger Than Storm

By Chris Freind

Thank God for Starbucks. Or, more accurately, their Wi-Fi. Because of that “gift,” many who lose power during storms don’t miss a beat being themselves, otherwise known as anti-social, bratty, and downright rude behavior caused by an acute obsession with iPads and smartphones.

Hey, I love technology as much as the next guy. Lost? Activate GPS. Need to check on the kids while stuck for hours because you’re behind all the idiots who crashed their 4-wheels thinking they could do 65 in snow and ice? Call home.

But one of the saddest commentaries on society is our ridiculous addiction to technology. Go to any coffee house, restaurant or family dinner table, and you will hear very few words spoken, and see even fewer eyes, both kids’ and adults’, looking at someone else. Instead, they gaze at their phones.

I know we’re all extremely important people, but for once, couldn’t we delay text messages and Facebook updates — you know, the ones with fantastically stupid inspirational quotes and postings fishing for “Likes” and “you look awesome” comments? (Reality check: you don’t look awesome. We’re lying. Get a nose job, and please, go see a dentist.)

God forbid that in a power outage, families actually talk, play board games, or read books — real books, with real pages.

People have become so fixated with their phones that they can no longer communicate like humans, and it shows. Person-to-person conversations are becoming archaic, writing is appalling (in schools and the business world) and public speaking is abysmal.

Before this technology, surveys showed that people feared making a speech worse than dying. Since we have devolved from that point, where are we now? Do we fear it more than watching Denver in another Super Bowl?

Call me a dinosaur, but living in the ’80s, before things became so impersonal, wasn’t such a bad thing. And living for a few days like they did in the 1880s isn’t so horrible either. It builds character. Even better, when families put down the phones and actually do things together, some kids might find out they have siblings. And that there are things called sleds and snowballs and, the biggest shocker, shovels to clear neighbors’ sidewalks for money. Which is also known as “work.”

And can we stop bashing power companies, at least for now? Many East Coasters who lost power were up in arms within the first 24 hours, clearly part of the “entitlement class” who think they have the “right” to never lose power. Heavy snow, followed by ice? So what? How dare I be in the dark without heat!

To those, a simple message: shut up and buy a generator. I know. Everybody’s going to get one now because they’re fed up. Except that they won’t. They’ll talk it about ad nauseam, but once the winter ends, they’ll forget about it. Until it snows again next winter (and the cycle of complaining continues).

It is routine procedure for power companies to be audited after every large outage to gauge how well they well prepared for, and responded to, large storms. Since millions of Americans don’t yet know how their respective providers performed, let’s give those companies the benefit of the doubt and applaud the guys working 16-hour shifts in frigid weather, braving many dangers, including generators that can backfeed the lines and kill the workers.

And let’s not forget how quickly huge work forces were mobilized, as linemen typically come from far and wide. In fact, after this latest storm, crews came from two other countries: Canada and Arkansas.

Meanwhile, the debate du jour is whether we should be placing power lines underground. Great idea, but there’s nowhere near enough money to do it, as it’s ungodly expensive (estimates are a million dollars per mile).

Could we get that cost down? Probably. And, most certainly, communities should explore a 10- or 15-year underground program for the most sensitive or loss-prone areas. Power providers’ revenue comes from its customers, so there would be a rate increase, but some of the cost could also be borne by local and state governments allocating our taxpayer money (it’s ours, not theirs) to such an important initiative.

If a local utility could place between 500 to 1000 miles of wires underground per year, outages would decrease, maintenance costs would go down, and businesses would stay open — producing more tax revenue and keeping people’s paychecks rolling. It would be a win for everyone.

Government wastes billions a year (and trillions when you throw in the federal stimulus program that produced zero return on investment). So for a change, maybe we could allocate those funds more intelligently, such as securing our highly vulnerable electrical infrastructure.

But of course, that would be a common sense solution, so expect to see it when hell freezes over.

 

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Tech Addiction Stronger Than Storm
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Tech Addiction Stronger Than Storm