*********************************************************************

As with Arthur Andersen, the NCAA punishes the many for the sins of the few

*********************************************************************

Today, the NCAA imposed sanctions on Penn State University for its scandal regarding child abuse by one of its coaches. Such included fines of $60 million, an order for Penn State to sit out the postseason for four years, capped scholarships below the normal limit for four years and the football program on five years’ probation.

At first blush, most people would think this as justice done and get a feeling of satisfaction. But the reality is that perhaps tens of thousands of innocent people, from stadium vendors to college students, are being punished for the wrongs of a small handful of people. Specifically, former and now deceased head coach Joe Paterno, then university president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley and now-retired vice-president Gary Schultz, covered up the sexual abuse of children by assistant coach Jerry Sandusky. They have all left Penn State, one way or another, and face the prospect of criminal charges, except for Mr. Paterno who is facing the ultimate judge in the Great Beyond.

Above: In the Clint Eastwood movie “Hang ‘em High,” hanging innocent people was recognized as a mistake. Why doesn’t the NCAA recognize such error?

Yet somehow the NCAA, perhaps in a rare fit of introspection that has not existed to date, decided to come down hard on the institution as a whole. For anyone who thinks this will achieve the goal of deterrence, they are sorely mistaken. Few leaders of any institution will tailor their actions in the future based upon what will happen to the organization they are working for. They might, however, make their actions comport to a level of acceptability if they had their own interests at stake.

Which takes us to the NCAA’s Arthur Andersen treatment of Penn State. With Andersen, the Department of Justice filed charges against the former public accounting firm because a relatively small group of people committed crimes. The DOJ’s actions ended the existence of the firm and put tens of thousands of honest, hard-working people out of work, as well as reduced the pool of large accounting firms that large audit clients could go to, thus ultimately hurting the consumer.

Perhaps such treatment is congruent with the prevailing mindset of sharing the pain. After all, the government uses the taxpayer to underwrite many of the industries that belly-flop, resulting in what has been the privatization of profit and the socialization of risk. ObamaCare is also such spreading of the pain to unrelated parties that underwrite the costs of others, whether they want to or not.

But in the end, punishing innocent bystanders can only dilute what the perpetrators of wrong deserve, which does not serve as the deterrent that is trying to be achieved.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

Seeking statutes that prevent sick minds from committing violence

*********************************************************************

On Thursday night in Aurora, Colorado, a 24-year old graduate student walked into a movie theatre and killed 12 people and injured many others. Today, FBI explosive experts held controlled explosions of the killer’s apartment which was reported to be ridden with explosives and trip-wires designed to maim if not kill anyone who entered.

Needless to say, this was not the work of a normal person or even a person who was angry or had a bad grudge. This person was, and is, deranged in his thought-process.

Perhaps in any given time prior to the last few decades, everyone would have noticed and acknowledged this as the work of a sick person and not the fault of the weaponry he used. But not with the modern Liberal.

Above: Tim McVeigh committed the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11, 2011 terrorist attacks using fertilizer and race-car fuel; should those be outlawed?

No sooner than the killer’s gun-barrels had cooled, Liberals were using this unfortunate incident as justification for gun-control. If only they called for the reform of government programs when such were abused by participants the way this individual abused guns.

Amongst the usual suspects was Gail Collins of The New York Times. She informed those of us who may have not known that “in our country, the mass shootings come so frequently that most of them go by virtually unnoticed.” Yes, they must be unnoticed as I did not notice or know that most of my countrymen have been blown away in massacres.

The reality is that mass killings of this sort are relatively rare in the United States. It should be noted, though, that the atrocities that occur overseas that Liberals don’t wish to prevent and instead allow the U.N. to acquiesce to (think: Libya, Iraq under Saddam, Afghanistan) are far more prevalant and destructive. Such inconsistent response contradicts Liberals’ assertion that the U.S., and by extension its citizens, is an equal member of the world community in which there should be a homogeneous treatment and standard applied.

The harsh truth of the matter is that humanity, at its present stage, will produce unhinged people who will commit barbaric acts, regardless of whether gun (or explosive) control exists. If there is an effective “maniac-control” statute that could be enacted, I’d be all for it.

Until the Nirvanac day that people don’t misuse guns or any other instruments that can inflict death or destruction, we would better use our time trying to identify and prevent such maladjusted individuals from committing such heinous acts, to the extent such is even possible.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

The latest revelations in the Penn State mess is merely an example of the human urge towards false idolatry; questions must always be asked especially as absolute power corrupts absolutely

*********************************************************************

Above: “The Star Chamber” was an English court of law whose sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Modern institutions like organized religion and universities also have tried to enjoy such unchallenged power

And such insulation from accountability occurs amongst many august universities as well as in organized religion, to name a few institutions. The Catholic church’s leadership when confronting its sex scandals displayed the same mentality of characterizing any investigation into pedophile priests as an attack on the institution (and its fundraising) and not an attempt to bring miscreants to justice. This fits in line with the church’s rigid (to put it charitably) defense of its policies over the years: “the church is not a democracy!” we would hear thundered from the pulpit. Translated: the church is above reproach and no one should question it.

Such exemption from scrutiny is fine for any institution or endeavor that is not run by humans. But for those that have the “human touch,” expecting perfection from such leaders is not only unrealistic, but can prove dangerous, especially to the vulnerable like children. A healthy scrutiny of leaders’ actions also complies with the church’s own teachings that only God is perfect and no one else. Why should government and corporate America be the only ones under the glaring lights of public scrutiny?

There is nothing that can be done to change the past but at the very least, the future certainly can be molded for the better, by taking the proper lessons from these scandals. To wit, no institution can ever be run without some reasonable level of review to ensure that the people running it do not crash through the guardrails of acceptable behavior.

After all, unfettered power can be intoxicating and lead people to misuse it. As Lord Acton reminded us over 100 years ago, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

-I.M. Windee

**********************************************************

As the Democrats peddle silliness with things like Romney’s Swiss bank accounts (while unemployed Americans wish they had any bank account at all), Mr. Romney needs to get into his stride by speaking like a capitalist who knows the system benefits all

**********************************************************

In an ongoing campaign to change the subject from the lackluster recovery that has resulted from the social engineering that President Obama has inflicted on this economy, Democrats are now attacking Mitt Romney for his “offshore financial arrangements,” after a Vanity Fair story revealing the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s Swiss bank account and various holdings in the Caribbean. Since then, Romney said that he has closed the Swiss bank account and insists he paid all U.S. taxes due and owed.

“He is the first and only candidate for U.S. president with a Swiss bank account, with tax shelters,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) thundered on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “There is just no way to explain it.” (Credit goes to Bob Schieffer for not playing organ music after the good Senator stated such).

Putting aside the irony that Mssr. Durbin and his Liberal ilk push policies that make taxpayers want to shift money overseas, there is nothing wrong with having a Swiss bank account, although Mr. Durbin seems to imply that such is on a plain with Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme.

While Democrats want to talk about anything but the lousy economy, even they have to realize that ultimately such is an unavoidable subject.

Except perhaps if their opponent is Mitt Romney who is, to put it charitably, flat-footed when discussing and defending his business career at Bain Capital, at least what his company did and how much money he made. He is, though, more than happy to espouse his success as a manager at Bain, which is similar to the contortions he does when he doesn’t want to admit that RomneyCare was wrong but that the very similar ObamaCare is the wrong answer for this country.

And such ineptitude has spilled over to how he has communicated his vision for this country’s economy. Almost as if he is afraid to wade too far into the topic that is foremost on most voters’ minds, the economy and jobs, he has receded into the tall weeds of a 59-point plan. One must wonder if Mr. Romney, with such white paper, is running for U.S. President or Paul Krugman’s chair in the Princeton Economics Department. The last person running for the Oval Office to get caught in such minutiae and detail was (sic) President Dukakis. And even he would likely now tell you to keep campaign economic platforms to under 20 bullet points (alright, maybe 30).

All of this led up to this week’s flub when he had his top advisers say that the ObamaCare mandate penalty was not a tax but a penalty. Most voters, and non-voters too, will tell you that when they are paying money to the government, it doesn’t matter what it is called as the economic pain is still the same. But since government is so notorious at taxing so much, it will almost always feel like a tax, no matter what kind of free pass Mr. Romney wishes to give President Obama.

Above: In the movie “Full Metal Jacket,” the flaccid “Private Pyle” had to be held up by his comrades; does Mitt Romney need similar ideological support?

After such flub, Conservative precincts rightfully took Governor Romney to the woodshed. A Wall Street Journal editorial admonished his campaign by saying that “what [Americans] want to hear from the challenger [Romney] is some understanding of why the President’s policies aren’t working and how Mr. Romney’s policies will do better.”

Mr. Romney is now in a full retreat not just from RomneyCare he enacted in Massachusetts but also from his highly successful career as a capitalist at Bain. Such would be fine if he were just a private citizen who is having late-life crisis and decided to give everything away and join the Peace Corps. But Mr. Romney is running for President of the only super-power whose success is based upon free markets and capitalism. He’s also running in the Republican party that is natively more capitalist-friendly than its rival, the Democrats. So this is no time for Mr. Romney to get weak at the knees; he can wait until the day after the election (win or lose) to repent for any sins he thinks he made while working at Bain and contributing to the success story otherwise known as the U.S.

And while it’s nice to have allies in the media and elsewhere refine and clarify (if not correct) his message, the voters will go into the ballot-booth and be voting for either him or Mr. Obama based upon their stated positions, with little regard for what their surrogates or allies said or did.

Mr. Romney needs to sharpen his free-market, minimal government, pro-jobs message immediately and get it out there before the Obama camp muddies the campaign environment to the point of no return for Republicans.

-I.M. Windee

**********************************************************

Taking on jellyfish, one stinger at a time

**********************************************************

While people-watching or just experiencing people (myself or others) can be entertaining no matter where it is done, somehow the beach provides the richest vein of human fabric. Thus, some more ocean-side observations:

• I saw some stunningly attractive blondes in (barely) swim wear and I will never understand why they choose to dye their roots dark.
• When I was in college, sitting on the beach meant drinking beers, thinking about where I would eat for dinner, and perhaps try to meet someone of the female gland. Now married with kids, sitting on the beach means chasing my kids to make sure they’re safe, praying I will survive the indigestion festival known as the “family dinner,” and hoping I can slip away to bed before my familial captors find out.
• My 7 year old son was going to place a jelly-fish back into the water when the impassioned pleas from a lady stopped him. After all, she argued, being stung by such was worse than the worst sunburn. Fair enough. But I couldn’t help but thinking as we walked away: 1 down, 999,999 to go for this beach. While the longest journey does begin with a single step (or in this case, jellyfish), not only do I think this woman’s journey will not end but I don’t think it will even effectively begin.
• I truly believe that most lifeguards become drill-sergeants.
• Thanks to my wife, my family will likely not die from skin disease because of her diligent application of suntan lotion. However, we will likely succumb to aerosol vapor disease and blindness as she saturates us with the stuff to the point we are gasping and it is pouring from our faces.
• 2 beers and the sun is bliss; 6 beers and the sun is a coma.

• My 7 year old son picks up small crabs in the jetties on the beach with utterly no fear of being pinched by their claws, as he was. If I had one placed in my hand, as he wanted to do, I would be screaming hysterically and pass out like Pee Wee Herman carrying the snakes out of the pet store on fire in his first movie.
• This year’s Asbury Park July 4 fireworks show was on the beach with its end seeming like the universe was exploding. Yes, the several beers I had may have pronounced their effect, but it was still an incredibly well done job.
• A silhouette of me trekking across the beach carrying coolers, chairs, umbrellas and towels (while the family is skipping care-free with nothing) gives an aura of both the majesty and moral imperative of Moses along with the servitude of a Grand Canyon pack mule.
• Yes kids, I’m a “bad daddy”: I won’t be your human surfboard.
• 10 beers and the sun is the morgue (from what I can guess, of course).

Perhaps it’s best that the beach season is only 3 months a year: at middle-age with a family, I don’t think I could handle any longer.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

Mr. Baldwin would be more credible in his demands for respecting people’s right to privacy if he respected people’s right to work

*********************************************************************

Last month, a newspaper photographer accused actor Alec Baldwin of punching him during an encounter outside the marriage-license bureau in Manhattan. Mr. Baldwin said the  photographer assaulted him with his camera during the  incident.

**********************************************************

John Roberts’ moment in the sun with Liberals will last only until his next decision they disagree with

**********************************************************

Perhaps one of the best things that came out of today’s Supreme Court ObamaCare affirmation by an unlikely coalition is that we won’t hear Liberals winnow (for now) over an “activist conservative court.”

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who Liberals have been catcalling for several years as a pro-business ideologue, especially after the Citizens United ruling that recognized the right of free speech for corporations and unions.

So much for that claim as Justice Roberts was the deciding vote which held that the law was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax. It will be interesting to see Mr. Obama defend such position in the months to come as it implicitly shows that Mr. Obama broke his pledge during the 2008 campaign not to raise taxes for those making less than $200,000 annually.

It’s impossible to get into Mr. Roberts head to try and understand his thinking on this and a seeming diversion from his jurisprudence, regardless of what the written opinion states. But unlike Liberals with decisions they don’t like, it should be assumed that he used his best and honest jurisprudential thinking on this and was not swayed by the shrill voices coming from all sides. For the time being, Mr. Roberts will enjoy a reprieve from the rhetorical pistol-whippings that Liberals like the MSNBC carnival barkers have inflicted on him. But such will be fleeting as the next decision he makes that the Liberal mob doesn’t like will renew his caricature as a mid-19th century Roger Taney who, as Supreme Court Chief Justice, upheld matters like slavery.

And perhaps one of the biggest losers from this decision is Justice Kennedy, who will be verbally flogged for not seeing the light that even Mr. Roberts could see. Is there a Justice protection program to shield Mr. Kennedy from the un-tender mercies that Liberals will unleash on him?

**********************************

As the weeks and months unfold, it will be entertaining to see how Liberals have no problem with the fact that this was a 5-4 decision. When Bush v. Gore was decided, the seminal decision in the multi-issue case came down as 5-4 and Liberals thereafter outwardly said that such a split decision is tainted, if not illegitimate, even though there is nowhere in the Constitution that even implies such. Will Liberals see the same split-decision taint in this decision as in ones that go against Liberals?

What about accusations of “ideologue” that are often bantered about when Conservatives and Republicans, whether congressmen or judges, take positions that are native to them instead of appeasing Liberals? In this case, the usual Liberal suspects stayed squarely in their camp, as they always do, while a Conservative came over and helped push them into the judicial end-zone. May we infer that Liberals are the unbending ideologues and Conservatives more open-minded?

**********************************

In a sense, today’s ruling may have strengthened Mitt Romney’s argument to elect him and fire President Obama this November. By keeping ObamaCare on the books, the only way now to rid this country of ObamaCare is to elect Romney as President and give Republicans majorities in both houses of congress.

It’s now up to Republicans, and their standard-bearer Mitt Romney, to make the case that only they stand between allowing sweeping and permanent changes to a major part of our economy, or replacing ObamaCare with something that this country can live with.

-I.M. Windee

**********************************************************

Do Liberals think Roe v. Wade or U.S. v. Nixon was judicial activism?

**********************************************************

The U.S. Supreme Court will hand down its decision on ObamaCare this week and if even part of it is overturned, look for rhetorical blood in the streets by Liberals who think the Court should give the U.S. Congress complete deference and affirm it in whole.

To get some idea of the verbal bows and arrows that will be used, a good start is a March 28, 2012 interview, on New York City public radio’s The Brian Lehrer Show, of New York State Attorney General (and presumed future New York gubernatorial candidate) Eric Scheiderman, who filed an amicus curiae brief with the court in the case.

Mr. Schneiderman invoked the commerce clause and Alexander Hamilton, who Mr. Schneiderman said would approve of such government intervention. He went on to say that he “had a very hard time, other than in a very theoretical, academic, abstract way, seeing how this argument, this law violates the commerce clause could possibly prevail.” So if the Court decides that some of ObamaCare does not meet constitutional muster, they were clearly star-gazing and reached the wrong conclusion when trying to attain their jurisprudential zen. Nice.

Mr. Schneiderman then went on to argue that by virtue of the fact that the federal government regulates all of the healthcare industry, it then achieves powers (although he doesn’t refer where this comes from in the Constitution) to force people to buy health insurance. If this isn’t an inadvertent argument for doing away with all government regulation, nothing is.

Mssr. Schneiderman then submitted that by the court merely hearing this case, and picking issues that it deems important to whether ObamaCare is constitutional, is indicative of a very activist Court. It is hard to imagine that the Attorney General ever thought such when he came out on the winning side of appealed decisions. In all likelihood, he probably has given teary-eyed thanks to a system that allows such thoughtful and level-headed outcomes.

Liberals want the Supreme Court to defer to Congress on ObamaCare

Nina Totenberg, today on NPR’s Weekend Edition Sunday, also carried the activism spear by saying “the case has exposed a major shift in conservative legal thinking. For the last half-century, conservatives, and particularly congressional Republicans, have championed the idea of judicial restraint, arguing that the courts should usually defer to the elected branches. But now, conservatives are explicitly calling for judicial activism.” Either Ms. Totenberg does not understand judicial activism, or she is clearly trying to muddy the waters and hope for the best (like the Democrats did when hurriedly passing ObamaCare). To be clear, Conservatives have generally said that when courts create rights out of the vaporous penumbras of implicit constitutional rights which they have dreamed up, such is judicial activism and should be rejected. Roe v. Wade is such example where state legislatures addressed abortion rights but then lost such power when the Supremes determined in Roe that abortion was an unenumerated constitutional right that legislatures could not address. So judicial activism is the Supremes affirmatively making up law (via rights, etc) where such do not exist. But it does not mean that the Court should sit on its hands and rubber-stamp every law that congress or legislatures pass. There would be no need for the court if they did such.

And regarding judicial activism, which Liberals claim to have a new-found aversion to, do they think Roe v. Wade was judicial activism? How about U.S. v. Nixon where the Court ordered President Nixon to hand over Watergate-related tapes? I doubt Liberals would think that was judicial activism. And they would be right as it was just interpreting the limits of executive power as granted under the constitution. What about Brown v. Board of Education where the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional? I’ve never heard a Liberal claim that was judicial activism.

What this landmark case comes down to is whether with ObamaCare, the government may compel people to enter healthcare markets at which point government can regulate, under the commerce clause, how they consume health care and health insurance. By any reasonable reading of the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions since the Civil War ended, government cannot force people to do anything they do not wish to do (except perhaps serve in the military).

The High Court will hopefully acknowledge this and not worry about all of the catcalling that Liberals will do if upholding the Constitution goes against their jurisprudence.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

Greece staying in the EU is like the drunk deciding to continue to attend AA meetings inebriated; is this the company Germany wishes to keep?

*********************************************************************

On Sunday, Greek voters narrowly voted for pro-bailout forces. The election, however, while allowing the pro-austerity conservative and socialist parties enough votes to form a tenuous ruling coalition, doesn’t eliminate the huge problems that face Greece and the club it’s in, the European Union.

While this is clearly a reprieve from a day of fiscal reckoning, it is very hard to imagine that Greece will change its profligate ways that have created the mess that it is in (huge deficits caused by excess government spending). Thus, this vote can best be seen as postponing the inevitable: a Greek exit from the EU.

From the beginning, Greece’s membership in the EU has been problematic. Early on, the Greek government gave the EU false and misleading financial information that masked the dire straits that the country was in. Then, as things went down hill, calls for “austerity” by politicians both within and outside Greece,  which is anything but such given the rich benefits that Greek government workers receive and the fact that there is an enormous amount of government workers relative to the population, were rebuffed by riots by the Greek communitarian.

Can the Greeks go on the wagon from their spending benders?

But the Greeks were more than happy to take loans (“bailouts”) from the Germans and other EU countries. Of course, the loan requirements requested reasonable conditions that included, amongst other things, that the Greek government spend somewhere within the neighborhood of what it receives in revenues. This left many Greeks unhinged and out on the streets hysterically protesting an alleged conquest by those benevolent enough (the more honest and accurate word is “foolish”) to extend such credit to the heirs of Zeus. Given such history, it is hard to believe that there will be any strong-willed politicians who will lead the Greek masses to the path of fiscal responsibility given that they helped drive the country into such ditch.

Which leads to the inevitable outcome: a Greek withdrawal from the EU because of its unwillingness to be a responsible member.

The Germans (and others) have learned the hard lesson of taking a member into their club who is not prepared to act by the rules of such club. In the euphoric drive to consolidate Europe and show trans-Atlantic upstart America that Old Europe had some punch left to it, they cobbled together a highly disparate group of countries that, while on the same continent, really had only that commonality to show. All countries are not created, nor are, equal. Just look at the United States and the varied group of states within its federation. Thus, Germany and its other more responsible brethren need to start thinking about splitting with Greece (and likely Italy, Spain and Portugal), even if family breakups are painful. It may initially hurt but prolonging a bad situation is worse.

And finally, a word for those sages in the United Kingdom who decided not to join the EU common currency. Boy, they were right! Anyone who can claim to have been part of such decision will, at least for now, have a larger jubilee than Queen Elizabtheth’s 60th.

In the end, if Greece and similar EU members are unwilling to follow the  fiscal “12-step program” that the EU rightfully imposes, they might as well stop feigning budgetary sobriety and go on their own, wherever their benders take them. The sooner the non-dues-paying members are booted out, the better the club and the world will be as a whole.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

Michael Lewis reminds Princeton graduates, and all of us, about that indispensable ingredient to success: luck

*********************************************************************

Recently, best-selling author Michael Lewis delivered the commencement speech at the Princeton University commencement ceremonies. The theme of his oratory was that the graduates he was speaking to are part of a “lucky few” and that they shouldn’t let it go their heads. Mr. Lewis went on to explain how he got a job at Salomon Brothers by a chance dinner with an executive at Salomon. This resulted in his first book, “Liar’s Poker,” which sold a million copies. He stated that luck was a major part of how he got there. He pointed out that success is always rationalized and that successful people feel their success was somehow inevitable. He went on to say that “life’s outcomes, while not entirely random, have a huge amount of luck baked into them. Above all, recognize that if you have had success, you have also had luck — and with luck comes obligation. You owe a debt, and not just to your Gods. You owe a debt to the unlucky.”

Of course, this caused somewhat of a ruckus amongst many, including the newly minted Princeton grads that the gods have bestowed upon the world.

Graduation speeches can be, for those giving them, one or more of the following things (amongst others): a tool of self-promotion, a chance at sticking it to those in the speaker’s past who never thought the speaker would find his way out of bed let alone be worthy enough to give a graduation speech, or an informal and very large group therapy session where the speaker tries to forensically explain his/her own life-path taken (or not) and then shoe-horn it into advice for the young chargers about to hit the beaches of the real world. It would seem that Mr. Lewis was probably doing much of the latter, and whether most successful people or the young Princeton Tigers want to accept it, he was right.

Above: TYKHE, the Greek goddess of fortune, chance, providence and fate

The harsh truth of the matter is, this world is not a meritocracy. There are many examples through history of those less-credentialed individuals who, whether by the virtue of strong elbows (a corporate executive must) or just good fortune (luck), have moved ahead of those who are more worthy, based on their merits (if you doubt such, look at our elected politicians, and those who do not hold office).

This is not to say that one should sit back and just ride the wave of luck. Anyone can be handed a great hand via good luck and not use it. And even when opportunities seemingly fall into one’s lap, such can be misplayed and squandered. It requires a talent to both appreciate the good luck one has and use it to one’s advantage. But without luck and the opportunities it creates, all the talent in the world means nothing.

And Mr. Lewis’ digression that luck, and a consequent feeling of entitlement, that allegedly exists with Wall Street CEOs only fits the inflammatory Liberal narrative these days but is a different subject and one best settled between such CEOs and the shareholders they serve.

Still, Mr. Lewis put it well in spinning the biblical and Kennedyesque theme that “to whom much is given, much is expected.” The ball is now in the court of the Class of 2012…….along with (hopefully) some luck.

-I.M.Windee