No Ma'am

Outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, with the full backing and recommendation of the Joint Chiefs, announced that women will soon be allowed to serve in combat arms branches, what the press insists on calling “front line” units.  The combat arms branches are traditionally considered Infantry, Armor and Artillery and typically require a 1 to 10 ratio of combat support units.  As many of you are aware, I consider most officers to be an impediment to getting things done, so the fact that the Joint Chiefs signed off on this doesn’t immediately convince me of anything.  I am, however, the father of a little girl with whom I am constantly striving to imbrue a can do spirit by telling her daily, “Girls can do anything boys can do.  You can be the president, a princess or a pirate.”  I do not believe however, that means my daughter, nor anyone else’s daughter, should now be allowed to serve in the infantry just because the military hierarchy says it is okay.


Men and women are different.  They are not inherently or genetically better or worse.  They are just different.  I cannot give birth, which doesn’t make me better or worse than the women in my life.  I recognize some of the women reading this are mentally inserting inferior into that statement, but that is perfectly fine with me.  Males may be inferior when it comes to the reproductive capabilities of the species, and I stress may be because it still takes two to tango.  Where males are not inferior though is skeletal muscle mass.  According to a perusal of Gray’s Anatomy (the tome not that inane Grey’s Anatomy tv show) the adult male skeletal mass is roughly 42% vs. 36% for adult females.  According to US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, that means women are approximately 52% and 66% as strong as men in the upper and lower body respectively.  In other words, men are generally stronger than women because they typically have larger bodies and a larger proportion of their total body mass is made up of muscle.


Again, that does not make men better, just different and, as anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of biology can tell you, differences in biology have appeared over millions of years specifically so that the species can adapt, survive and flourish.  If we had not done so, the chimp, to paraphrase Charlton Heston, might very well be atop the pony.  According to the book, "Physiology of Sports and Exercise," the women's world weightlifting record is just above 250 kg, (450 lbs) while the men's is almost 450 kg (990lbs).  That is a function of evolution and something that makes males different from females.  “Before puberty, there is no marked difference in muscle mass between males and females, according to the National Strength and Conditioning  Association, or NSCA. Once puberty kicks in, men develop increased levels of testosterone, resulting in broader frames and increased muscle mass. Women, however, experience higher levels of estrogen, which results in more body fat, less muscle and bone mass and lighter total weight than men. Further, women tend to have wider hips. All of these factors equate to slightly less absolute strength and muscle mass for women than men.”


So now that we have, I believe, determined that I am not a misogynist, nor do I believe genetic differences make one sex better than the other, it is time to defend my argument.  Women, as a general rule, are simply not suited to the rigors of life in the infantry.  That does not mean some women aren’t capable of graduating the Army’s Infantry School at Ft. Benning, GA.  As an Irish-Catholic kid I know a few tough Mick Chicks who could probably make the cut, but they are not the norm, nor even an average aspiration.  The day to day life in an infantry unit is simply too onerous and physically wracking for women.  As a 17 year old infantryman, my maximum encumbrance was around 120 pounds, while I myself weighed just under 140 pounds.  It was not until I reached my permanent party that I learned “light infantry’ simple meant there were precious few vehicles to carry anything.  Our leather personnel carriers (speed-lace combat boots) were designed for that task and my back shouldered the burden.  A 17 year old female, even one of roughly the same weight of 140 pounds, would just have been unable to do what I did, for the same time that I did it.



Understand that I am not speaking in absolutes.  I find it somewhat irritating that I must write that sentence, but I am sure someone will give me anecdotal evidence of some female somewhere who could do anything I do better and tell me that, in her day, Brigitte Nielsen could have kicked my ass AND carried my ruck.  For the record, I stipulate to those facts.  What this discussion entails is the average male and female.  I am also quite well aware that the Israel Defense Forces have female infantry.  According to the latest statistics I could find, in October 2011, 27 female combat soldiers completed the IDF Ground Forces Training Course, along with 369 male soldiers and were promoted to the rank of Second Lieutenant.”  That is hardly evidence of anything, much less that the new policy in the US military is behind the times.  According to the Israel Briefing Book: Israel Overview- Israel Defense Forces “90% of all military positions in the IDF are available to women,” including the Caracal Battalion, a mixed gender battalion which patrols the Israel-Egypt border, although most serve in armor and artillery units.”  The results have been mixed at best and simply Googling the battalion will tell you why.


I am also versed in Maria Botchkareva and the Russian “Battalion of Death.”  The battalion was organized as a means to ridicule Russian men into fighting for a cause in which very few believed, and only existed for a few months.  The one battle in which they did fight doesn’t bolster the argument for female infantry any more than the small IDF sample.  In the lead up to the battle, the Battalion of Death’s all female force was augmented with 21 male officers, a “battle adjutant” and eight male machine gun crews.  Immediately before the unit did exit the trenches and “go over the top,” 100 officers and 300 soldiers joined them.  The women behaved well under fire, but suffered about a third of their number in casualties.  After only a few months in existence all the female units were ordered to disband.  The greatest value of these units was propaganda and not any form of military justification.  Had their military effectiveness been such that they could fight in sustained campaigns, whether as all female or mixed units, the concept would have gained traction in the Soviet Union, but did not.


The main reason both the IDF and the Russian Army even considered the use of female infantry can be summed up in one word: need.  Both have/had little to no other options.  Even though the Russian women comported themselves well in battle, it must be noted that their numbers were comprised of above average women, the cream of the crop if you will.  We don’t have a need for more infantry recruits, but that is not the intention of the Department of Defense decree.  An Army study conducted about 20 years ago found that the average female recruit is about 5 inches shorter, 32 pounds lighter, has about 38 fewer pounds of muscle and roughly 6 pounds more fat than her male counterpart.  Women also have significantly less aerobic capability, which means they cannot carry as much, as far and as fast as men and are more susceptible to fatigue.  The only way to bridge those biological gaps is to water down the requirements for service.  As it stands now, women and men in the military have different standards for physical fitness tests, as do different age groups.  Women are required to do push-ups, sit ups and complete a 2 mile run, as are men, but the number required for scoring purposes is less for women.  Why?  Because the maximum number of reps to earn scores are directly tied to the corresponding biology of the soldier.  Just as we wouldn’t expect a 50 year old man to run 2 miles in the same time as a 17 year old, we wouldn’t expect women to do as many push-ups.  That’s not to say there aren’t 50 year olds who couldn’t run the 17 and 18 year olds into the mud.  My Sgt Major, CSM Guzman did so routinely, but that is not the norm.  The fact that some women could do as well as most men is not the norm either.  They are the exceptions that prove the rule.


I distinctly remember an Army study from my days as an infantryman that stated unequivocally that no soldier should ever carry more than 50 pounds for any length of time.  Since the PRC-77 and its accessories pack that I carried inside my ruck, weighed more than 50 pounds by itself, we found no end of amusement in reading that particular study.  I agree with the study that in theory no one should carry excessive weight for long periods of time, but that simply isn’t the way the real world works.  Talk to any man who served in the infantry, in any era, and the complaints will be the same: knees, back and shoulders ache constantly and are more problematic as we age.  If the average male’s body breaks down from the rigors of the infantry, what will happen to women who have less muscle, etc?


Since we have spent so much time in the theoretical world of women in combat, I would like to say I am friends with a number of women who have comported themselves beyond compare in combat.  I even spoke publicly at a 4th of July ceremony a few years ago.  I am completely smitten with the American “Lionesses.”  I know they can and will fight, but believe that they should not be allowed to attempt to earn the Infantry Blue Cord for the reasons I have stated above.  There are other, more pragmatic reasons though.  I can remember being riveted to the television when Brian Nichols escaped from the Atlanta Fulton County Jail and went on a killing spree before being recaptured.  On the day of his retrial on rape charges, he was being escorted to a cell by Sheriff’s Deputy Cynthia Hall, a 51 year old 5 foot tall, self described “grandmother.” Nichols, a former college linebacker, is 6”1” and somewhere around 200 pounds of muscle.  When Hall removed one of Nichols’ handcuffs he suddenly grabbed her, brutally beat her, fracturing her skull and causing brain damage before shooting her with her own weapon.  He then went on to kill 4 people, including a judge and court reporter before calmly exiting the courthouse.  To say that Deputy Hall should never have been allowed to supervise Nichols is an understatement.


Corrections Officer Susan Canfield was a 59 year old grandmother, and 7 year veteran of the Texas Prison System, when she was killed by two male prisoners during an escape.  Officer Canfield was on horseback, supervising a work detail, when she was struck by a vehicle driven by one of the prisoners, dying on the scene from blunt force trauma.  A wise man once said to me, “A small man with a stick is not a match for a big man.”  I would argue that a woman on horseback is no match for a desperate man with nothing to lose.  That’s what this discussion is truly about.  It is not about gender equality.  It is about what works and what doesn’t.  We haven’t even touched on the topic of sexual assault of female infantry, but we all know that women would have to fear that consequence much more so than any male counterpart.  I could go into detail about the hows and whys of that, but I simply don’t have the stomach for it.  Instead, I’ll leave it to your imaginations.


One part of sexual misconduct I will touch on in a little more depth though relates to an Associated Press article that I read on Military.com a few days ago.  It was titled, “Sex is Major Reason Military Commanders are Fired.”  I’ll post the link below for anyone who is interested, but the gist of the article is that, “At least 30 percent of military commanders fired over the past eight years lost their jobs because of sexually related offenses.”  Am I supposed to believe that more interaction, in more confined spaces, under higher levels of stress will lessen the instances of sexual impropriety?  In my less than humble opinion, I would say anyone who believes that is simply delusional, misguided and/or has no understanding of the workings of combat units.


Something I have to discuss, albeit briefly, is the notion that this policy is just another attempt to use the military in social engineering to achieve some sort of diversity for purely political ends.  I have to disagree with people who say the military is no place for social engineering.  In fact, I would offer that it is exactly the place for it.  Desegregation, women on ships and in fighter planes have had helped civilian society down the path of acceptance, when no other path could have done it as smoothly.  I fervently hope that allowing openly gay members to serve will have similar results on society as a whole.  The reasons those examples worked in the military was because there was simply no, good, scientific reason why they shouldn’t.  The myth of black male intelligence or dexterity of female pilots was dispelled, not because society wanted them dispelled, but because First Sgts, Sgts Major, Gunnys and Sr Chiefs told everyone that they would accept those changes, whether they liked them or not.  Anyone who has ever been on the bad side of one of those ranks can tell you just how quickly prejudices and myths can be dispatched by a foot to your ass from a guy/or gal who walks on water.


Social engineering works in the military because we have to follow orders.  Since there is no warrior caste in the United States, we take the lessons learned back into the civilian world when we leave the service.  No one cares if the guy who guarded his six was white, black, brown or yellow when the shit hit the fan.  They just cared that he wouldn’t break down and would shoot straight when the time came.  This social experiment is grounded in a myth though.  As I have shown with numerous examples above, men and women are different physiologically and those differences precludes women from becoming members of the Infantry.  It doesn’t make women less than in any way.  It just is.  No woman could be expected to endure the daily rigors of an NFL franchise, at any position, because of the constant brutality.  The same is true of the Infantry.  I desire total equality for my daughter and would be beyond proud to see her in Army blue one day, but not in the sky blue of the Infantry.  That is a “boy’s club” and no females need apply.


Chris Hill
Proudly Served 1986-1990
HHC 2/256th Infantry 5th Infantry Division
B Co. 1/9th Infantry Reg. 7th Infantry Division (light)


Article I referenced in the body of my post:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/01/21/sex-is-major-reason-military-commanders-are-fired.html?col=7000023435630&comp=7000023435630&rank=8

Football First

At a State College hotel on last Wednesday, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, flanked by 40 supporters, including lawmakers, local businessmen, student leaders, and former Penn State football players, announced that he had filed a federal antitrust lawsuit to overturn the penalties imposed by the NCAA in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal. The NCAA sanctions, which were agreed to by Penn State’s president and board of trustees, came after former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh presented a 267 page report, which detailed the actions of not only Jerry Sandusky, but also the university’s hierarchy. Gov. Corbett though, has decided that the NCAA had no authority to punish Penn State in what was a “strictly criminal matter” and is seemingly concerned with the impact the sanctions will have on the State College business community. I would say he has forgotten what the impact was for the young victims of Penn State’s systemic treachery, but it is nearly time for him to begin campaigning and getting re-elected is what truly matters.


The Freeh report concluded that the “most senior leaders” at Penn State had known about allegations of child sexual abuse against Sandusky as far back as 1998, were complicit in failing to disclose them, showed a "total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims for 14 years” and "empowered" Sandusky to continue his abuse. When the NCAA announced sanctions, after the report was released, Corbett, who is a member of the university’s board of trustees, expressed relief that Penn State had escaped the "death penalty", while asserting that part of the "corrective process is to accept the serious penalties." He also wanted guarantees that no tax money would be part of the $60 million settlement. Since most of Corbett’s public proclamations on the scandal seem to be concerned with Penn State football, and the money it generates, it should not come as a surprise that he could file such a vicious, vile, repugnant lawsuit. To claim though, that he filed the suit because the NCAA seized on the publicity of the Sandusky case "to make a showing of aggressive discipline on the backs of the citizens of the commonwealth," is simply sociopathic and totally devoid of any measure of compassion for the children who suffered the worst possible fates for so long.


In the lawsuit, Corbett asserted that the $60 million fine and other sanctions levied against Penn State only harmed innocent people. Hell, we can’t have pubs and inns in and around State College going unfilled on game day is what he really meant to say. He seems to have forgotten that the only truly innocent people in all of this are the 8 children (at least) who were subjected to repeated violations at the hands of a serial pederast, Jerry Sandusky, who was then repeatedly protected by a) the head football coach, b) the school’s athletic director, c) the school’s vice president and d) the school’s president. All of whom were more concerned with the impact a scandal would have on the football program and the money it generates for the university, than they were for the lives of children. The Freeh report makes it explicitly clear that all four of these men engaged in “an active agreement of concealment.” Emails and confidential notes acquired by Freeh prove that. Corbett, in defending his lawsuit said “These sanctions did not punish Sandusky or the others who were criminally charged. They punished past, present and future students.” Guv’nah I beg to differ. The sanctions punished an institution that prized football, the second most lucrative national program by some accounts, more than it prized children. This was not just about Jerry Sandusky raping little boys, but that the entire hierarchy from head football coach to school president decided to cover it up rather than risk any public relations damage to the brand that is PSU.


Does anyone believe that if Joe Pa, the most powerful man in Pennsylvania before the scandal, had wanted something done about Sandusky that it wouldn’t have been done? Consider what the response by Penn State higher ups would have been if some first year head football coach had decided to cover up allegations of sexual abuse against one of his assistant coaches. They would have demanded he be tried criminally too, but instead, a coach who raked in tens of millions for the school and who won two national championships passed along allegations of child rape to his superiors and that’s supposed to be enough? The Freeh report makes clear that from 2001 on Paterno knew Sandusky was molesting children. If he passed that information upward, as he claimed and as he is mandated by law to do, than ALL of the hierarchy knew for a decade that Sandusky was molesting children and chose to do nothing about it. The only way to make certain that never happens again anywhere in the NCAA realm is to impose the sanctions they did. I am still of the belief that they did not go far enough. I would have shuttered the football program for a minimum of four years.


Gov. Corbett’s “innocent people” who were harmed by the NCAA penalties are the same ones that gave Paterno et al their power. By making Saturdays in the fall all about the Nittany Lions, they created a cult of personality around the football team and its head coach. Paterno could simply do no wrong. In this case though, Paterno not only did wrong, he allowed it to continue on his watch, as did Spanier, Schultz, and Curley. If the manager of a business conspired to fix prices, with the full knowledge of not only his immediate superior, but also the top two officers of the corporation, the business would be torn asunder by criminal proceedings and crippling fines for illegal activity. It would just be too bad that Dolores in the mail room, Todd the executive assistant and the other 2,000 employees now had to look for work Does the name Enron ring any bells in that cobwebbed head of yours governor? Because it was Division I football though, and a boon for the state tax coffers, and shhh… political contributions, we are supposed to consider the poor students who will be deprived of the chance to win a bowl game or compete for the national championship. If memory serves universities are institutions of learning of the highest level, and not vehicles for football teams, or does the win-loss record of your alma mater matter more than your GPA in job interviews? The hot dog bun may be the vehicle for the dog, chili, mustard, and onions, but it is still the thing that makes it a hot dog. Penn State is a university that has a football team, not a football team that happens to have a college or two.


The penalties were supposed to be a blueprint for suffering. They were designed to be a reminder to Penn State, and all big name football schools, that winning football games at all costs is not what a university, any university, is supposed to consider first. The sanctions were conceived to change the religious fervor and hero worship for the football program, at least as it was practiced under Paterno and Spanier, and to force a transformation of its identity. As part of the penalties, the NCAA vacated 111 of Joe Paterno victories costing him the record of winningest coach in NCAA history. Paterno’s image as an angel of steadfast honor and integrity was vacated too as an artist removed the halo from his head in the State College mural “Inspiration” and the university removed the statue of him outside Beaver Stadium. The pain was not intended to be solely for those who had stood silently as children were sacrificed on the altar of Big Ten Football. Those men should and will receive their legal due. The pain was intended to be of such a magnitude that no one would ever forget the lesson they imparted. They were designed as a reminder that future transgressions, of any nature, would be dealt with swiftly and severely.


The names have changed throughout the Administration of Penn State. Director of Athletics Dr. David Joyner pledged, “Penn State will become a national model for compliance, ethics, and embodiment of the student athlete credo.” New head football coach Bill O’Brien pledged similar designs and may very well deign to run the cleanest program in Division I football, but it is now, always has been, and apparently always will be, a cathedral to a football team that has a university program. Big Ten Football is God in many, many college towns, but in few places with more fervor than in State College, PA. Within days of finishing his first season honchoing the Nittany Lions, O’Brien’s agent was contacted by NFL teams and ESPN reported he interviewed with the Cleveland Browns. O’Brien had previously said, "I'm not a one-and-done guy. I made a commitment to these players at Penn State and that's what I am going to do. I'm not gonna cut and run after one year. That's for sure.” Billionaire booster Terrence Pegula decided to make sure by offering to add $1.3 million to O’Brien’s current $2.3 million dollar salary. That would have made O’Brien among the highest paid coaches in college football. This at a university which is banned for 4 years from bowl appearances, a reduction by half for football scholarships during those four years, the aforementioned vacated wins and a $60 million fine, which is roughly equivalent to the average annual revenue of the football program. The NCAA probably envisioned these punishments as a Samson type dis-tressing, but among the We Are Penn State crowd it is still apparently Football First.


The PSU website proclaims that 1 out of every 117 Americans with a college degree are Penn State grads. That's a lot of votes, and, as witnessed by the proposed $1.3 million gift above, a lot more money. Corbett, like all powerful politicians, CEOs and Wall Street traders is a sociopath when it comes to career advancement. Wondering how he can sleep at night after an action such as this mostly misses the point. It was a Machiavellian tactic of the purest kind by a man who desires a particular political power. The lawsuit plays to a demographic that feels itself wronged and is cunning in its simplicity. From the typical blue collar Penn State fan who feels the NCAA punished those who had committed no crime, Corbett stands to gain some traditional democrat party votes whether he wins the lawsuit or not. From big time alumni like Pegula who can drop $1.3 million without batting an eye, Corbett stands to receive an infusion of much needed cash for what is sure to be an expensive race for governor. All he has to do to tap into that powerful structure is stand up to an organization that no one likes anyway and play the downtrodden soul. Corbett raised around $28 million for his election in 2010. With the election ground game already afoot, money needs to enter his campaign coffers now if he is to continue sleeping in the Governor’s Mansion in Harrisburg. So what if this lawsuit Sandusky’s makes victims relive their abuse? So what that Penn State agreed to the NCAA sanctions? So what that his position as a university trustee makes his lawsuit a conflict of interest? No matter what you or I think, the sanctions were hugely unpopular with fans, students and those numerous alumni. Corbett knows that too and, by filing his lawsuit, has decided that his re-election is the true “moral” victory. In the Corbett camp, whatever has to be done to secure re-election simply must be done. Depravity has found a new home.

Keystone Cops Wanted

Back in the old days of my elementary school attendance, which was a mix of parochial and public schools, Officer Friendly would make annual visits to foster a relationship between kids and cops.  Later, the D.A.R.E. Program sought to do likewise.  In fact, when I was a very young lad my uncle would frequently drop me off at school on his way to work as an officer with NOPD.  Police, while not permanently stationed at any school I attended, were a fixture in the curriculum.  Why then, in light of the horrific event at Sandy Hook Elementary, is the idea of an armed police officer at schools being so vigorously attacked?  Why is this idea so inane and, therefore, completely off the table?  What, exactly, am I missing? 

Sidwell Friends Select in Washington, D.C., educates the children of D.C. area power brokers for an annual pittance of $38,000.  Sasha and Malia Obama made news when they were initially enrolled there and we have once again seen them on front pages of newspapers because their school employs 11 armed guards as a matter of course.  It should be noted that these are NOT guards hired since the two young ladies enrolled.  Nope, Sasha and Malia have their own Secret Service detail, as they should.  The 11 armed guards are there permanently to protect the students and staff.

The Friends Select website proudly states: Members of the Friends Select community believe in the Quaker values of respect for all, simplicity, “the peaceful resolution to conflict” (my emphasis), and a constant search for truth.  Umm, peaceful resolution versus 11 armed guards?  Doesn’t that seem excessive, even histrionic, despite the fact that these are the children of the rich and famous?  I would suggest that it is even more than that.  It is completely and utterly hypocritical for an organization that preaches “War Is Not the Answer,” while making money on t-shirts and bumper stickers emblazoned with that creed.  Those bumper stickers mostly festoon Volvo station wagons and Subaru Outbacks and the t-shirts are most often worn by Birkenstock clad hippie re-enactors, but nonetheless that IS the Quakers publicly stated position, which is undeniably at odds with 11 armed guards roaming their hallowed halls.  

I am completely comfortable suggesting that no matter what political view the parents of Sandy Hook Elementary previously held concerning guns, they now ALL wish there had been someone, anyone, armed and trained in the use of a firearm when evil incarnate broke a window and rained death and destruction onto the innocent boys and girls in school that day, as do I.  I also have no doubt that more than a few of those parent’s cars had those blue and white, War Is Not the Answer bumper stickers.  War may not ALWAYS be the answer, but when evil intrudes upon the safety of children it is, in my view, most definitely the answer.  If you disagree with my assertion, then let me ask: if not war, what IS the answer?  Please stick to real world solutions and pragmatic responses and not some juvenile, kumbaya version of how you wish life would shake out. 

On a recent front page of The Philadelphia Inquirer is a story wherein our potty-mouthed mayor, Michael Nutter, went on national television last week, looked into the camera and said the NRA's proposal to staff schools with armed guards was "a completely dumbass idea from the start.”   He has used various versions of ass profanity to hammer home points in the past.  I am not against anyone cursing, including public servants, but our august mayor uses tame profanity to appear tougher and more inner city than his lily background would suggest.  It is part of his “I’m a tough guy when it come to this stuff” persona, which, as any Philly resident will tell you, is absolutely ridiculous. 

The commercials of Mayor Nutter and his daughter Olivia are credited with swaying the electorate in his first run for mayor.  I admit that I found those commercials heart-warming, but did not vote for him for reasons that matter not here.  There was much fanfare when Mayor Nutter and his security entourage, (two cars and three uniformed cops according toPhilly.com) dropped Olivia off at Masterman School, which is the top ranked public school in Philadelphia. There is, of course, a uniformed member of the Philadelphia School Police stationed there now.  Unlike when Olivia attended though, the officer at Masterman, like all other Philadelphia school cops, is unarmed. Why Sasha and Malia Obama and Olivia Nutter are possible targets I understand.  Why they are more precious than my princess I do not know.

At the beginning of this school year I noticed my daughter’s school officer was not on duty.  When I questioned the principal, an educator par excellence whom I absolutely adore, I was told, “City Council removed the officers from ‘some’ schools due to budget cuts.”  A subsequent call to a councilman found me hearing that my daughter’s school was deemed less at risk than others, so another school would have the protection afforded by an unarmed cop.  An unarmed cop is better than no cop, but not by a huge amount.  An unarmed cop breaks up a schoolyard fracas. An “armed” cop is a deterrent, which says to any, would be evil doer, “at this school you WILL be met with force and you WILL have to take a defensive posture.  The loathsome bastard at Sandy Hook had to contend with neither of those things, as we all too well know. 

The School District of Philadelphia’s Office of School Safety oversees the school police who, according to the district website, must complete 4 weeks of initial training and 24 hours of staff development annually, but they carry no firearms.  For that, each school in Philadelphia has a Law Enforcement Liaison with the Philadelphia Police Department.  This provides for 2-3 uniformed PPD who are tasked with responding to emergencies at assigned schools.  Unfortunately, as the saying goes, when seconds count those assigned cops are only minutes away.   

All of this leads me back to my thesis statement.  Why is the idea of schools having armed officers, private or public, uniformed or not, so abhorrent to the same people who consistently make use of such guards?  The day after the Newtown shooting, I offered to teach the principal I so adamantly support, to shoot and was told no thanks.  She was concerned about the” message” it would send to her kids if she was packing, even though she stated unequivocally that she would have done as the principal in Sandy Hook did and run to the guns.  I also unequivocally believe that she would seek to protect all her kids, but unfortunately an unarmed Good Samaritan versus a maniac intent on mayhem rarely winds up with a W in the good guy’s column.

What I simply do not understand is why this is an either or proposition.  Why CAN’T someone trained to shoot dead any threat to our children be part of our school’s operations?  All we very smart people can find a way to make him/her unobtrusive and indeed un-noticed by the children if we wish, or part of the larger program like Officer Friendly if we prefer.  Even if we were to completely outlaw ALL firearms tomorrow, something I do not support, there would still be hundreds of millions of weapons available to those bent on evil.  Were it a utopian society where none of our children need fear any harm in their day to day lives, this would all be moot.  It’s not a utopian society, though it is an exceptional one, and evil men (it’s mostly men who do these vile things) will commit evil acts.  Shouldn’t the angel on the shoulder have 15 rounds of S&W .40 or 10 rounds of .45 ACP with which to defend the position of spirit and light?  Or is that just not worth the cost to the world view of those wherein Peace Is the Answer?

Of Cliffs and Cartoons

My email inbox is a mix of electronic versions of newspapers, newsletters (Drudge and Huffington), and amalgamations of news stories such as The Daily Beast’s “Cheat Sheet”, as well as The Atlantic’s “Long Reads”. With no exceptions, each one of those email’s lead story was something concerning how we as a country have managed to avoid the looming “fiscal cliff”. Apparently, enough of our lawmakers cut short their ridiculously long Christmas breaks in order to prevent taxes from rising on every single American who takes home a paycheck. As it stands now, only individuals making more than $400,000 and couples making more than $450,000 will see their tax rates rise from 35% to 39.6%. The rest of us have dodged the label of nouveau pauvre once again, or have we? I would submit that the “Fiscal Cliff” debate is nonsense of the sort only Wile E. Coyote and the Acme Corporation can provide. The problem with government is spending beyond its means, and that is as it always has been.


The federal government has almost always spent more than it took in. In 1914, the first full year after ratification of the 16th Amendment, (which authorized Congress to tax both individuals and businesses), government revenue was $725,000,000 and spending was $726,000,000. There was a period from 1920 through 1930 during which we actually spent less than we took in, but that is decidedly not the norm. Other than the surplus years 1998 through 2001, there has never been more than a year here and a year there where the government spent less money than it actually had in the coffers. If you or I spent more than 50% above our income for years on end we would have been arrested, tried and convicted for fraud by now. In Washington, D.C. that’s just called deficit spending.

I may be in the minority here, but I don’t want taxes to be raised on anyone. A check of the White House website http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals shows tables relating to what the government takes in and what it lays out. In a preposterously government-ese link named SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS the money which comes in, and almost immediately goes out, is broken down from 1789 through projections for 2017. In 2009 we took in $2,104,900,000,000 and spent $3,517,600,000,000. In 2010 the numbers were $2,162,700,000,000 and $3,456,200,000,000 respectively and the numbers for 2011 are $2,303,500,000,000 and $3,603,100,000,000. Once the final numbers for the just ended 2012 are released, there is simply no reason to believe we will not continue the trend of ever higher spending, no matter what revenue is generated. In fact, we should all expect the deficits to continue their historical march onward and upwards.


A couple of the lesser mentioned aspects of the deal are that the debt ceiling will not be addressed and the federal payroll tax holiday will be allowed to expire. The former is attached to the $110,000,000,000 in automatic spending cuts which have been delayed for two months. As for the latter, well you didn’t actually think that the only tax which truly affects everyone who works could be rescinded did you? After all, that pesky 47% of people that Mitt Romney referenced can’t be allowed to get off scott free, not now that the election is done. Somehow our government has become addicted to spending and, even with Scrooge McDuck-like buckets of money in play nothing appears to be able to stem the tide of red ink. No matter how much money the politicians in Washington have in which to swim, they will always find ways to spend that and lots more.


Government has always been too big and just keeps getting bigger. Check out any two subsequent years of the federal budget and you will see that it never goes down. Each and every year someone else in Congress adds a pet project or 6 into the document and we get bridges to nowhere, swine odor and manure management research, water taxi service to places with zero residents, and multiple millions of dollars for an indoor rain forest in Iowa. Therein lays the actual problem. As long as the august men and women in Congress are allowed to add earmarks, without repercussion, they will, because it benefits them come election time. How else can a body politic with single digit approval ratings see 90% of incumbents re-elected? I have personally seen and heard politicians of both parties say things like, “Well, Congress may only have an 18% approval rating, but polls show my ratings are 45% favorable.” Why the seeming disconnect? Because millions of dollars for the World Toilet Summit benefit the voters in his or her district of course and jobs back home equal votes.


The theatrical façade of doomsday predictions concerning this cliff or that precipice will continue unabated until we quite literally break the bank and riots of the current Greek variety consume the streets of American cities. As long as politicians can write bigger checks for pet projects than their checking account would seem to allow, they will. That’s where true leadership and legislation should be found. Instead of squabbling over how much the wealthy will, or should pay, we should all be discussing how to stop spending money we simply do not have. It should be the type of discussion that goes on over my coffee table or your couch. How many of us have had the conversation with the spouse concerning just what we won’t buy this month? All of you reading this I would bet.


So, what to do you ask? Should we all become doomsday preppers and stock up on food, water and ammunition for our self sustaining bunkers? That’s one idea I guess, but I am of the belief that if enough of us make time to let our Senators and representatives know what we want, we can change the course of the nation and right the ship. We need an immediate freeze on discretionary spending, actual reform on entitlement spending, some sort of balanced budget spending legislation, the termination of redundant and/or un-necessary programs, and serious, grown up talk on the privatization of other programs.


But wait! I can hear you yelling. That means talks about the sacred cows of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as well as the political death knells of unemployment compensation, food stamps and agricultural price support programs. Any politician who even suggests cuts to these third rail programs is assured of a landslide defeat in his next election. Unfortunately for whomever that may be, that is precisely what some brave politicians, who never saw Congress as a lifetime gig anyway, need to do. Serious discussions on allowing me and those behind me in the retirement queue to have some say in our retirement need to take place. At roughly 21% of the federal budget, Social Security is the single largest slice in the budget pie. Since there is not now, nor has there ever been a “lock box” for Social Security, funding that slice takes actual money, but the Social Security trust fund only consists of Treasury securities. This means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax, which since 1969 have been designated as part of the unified budget, are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires


It is in those “present purposes” wherein the problem exists. Since, by law, monies collected through taxes cannot be separated from the budget, Social Security is only adequately funded through 2026. What happens after that? Nobody actually knows for certain. It just depends upon what Congress is doing concerning the red and black ink of outlays and revenues. What is for certain is that kicking the can down the road continuously will eventually yield unpleasant results. Whether that is the emergence of a third political party, some form of isolationism, outright anarchy in the streets, some combination of all three, or none of them remains to be seen. All that is for certain is that the results will eventually be, at the least, unpleasant for many and, at the worst, painful for us all.


I am fairly certain that, after 1,200 words give or take, my thesis statement for this piece is sound. I am also fairly certain that most of you believe government spends too much money on frivolous and inane things. The sticking point lies in what each of us consider frivolous and/or inane and what we think should be done. I am most fond of my Super Genius tattoo, which resides directly beneath an image of old Wile E. Coyote falling through space. I am that type of Super Genius. The Rube Goldberg complex contraptions which I construct, usually in my mind, never seem to work as well in practice as they did in theory. Being that old Wile E. and I are kindred souls, I do not truly have a cut and dried answer to what needs to be eliminated and what should stay, but some projects and even departments need to go.


Unfortunately, Congress is currently awash in Acme mail order contraptions like Bat Suits, exploding tennis balls, Do-it-Yourself Tornado kits, rocket skates and the ubiquitous Acme American Anvil. While Wile E. can drop an order form into a mailbox, or enter an order into a website, and have the requested items delivered from Acme’s headquarters in Fairfield, NJ in seconds, Congress cannot expect any such miracles in unraveling the Gordian Knot of their own making. They can however, employ an Alexander the Great type solution and cut through it now. If history is any indicator though, that will not happen.


I am more expectant that one by one our elected officials will don the Acme Bat Suit, leap from the cliff and, after one or two swipes of the outfit’s wings, plummet straight into the ground, after which, as they unsteadily regain their feet, an anvil will promptly appear from the heavens and squash them into the dirt. The failures of the Acme products always leave old Wile E. more humiliated than harmed. Failures in Congress, as we all know though, leave the politicians neither humiliated, nor harmed and the Coyote’s greatest enemy, gravity, seems to have no effect on politicians at all. Congress is a body of true fanatics with whom only Wile E. can compare because both continue to, in the words of George Santayana, redouble their efforts when they have forgotten their aim.


That attitude has gotten us where we are now and one of these public servants needs to put on their big boy or girl panties, throw off the Acme Corporation livery and read the fine print on the order forms. For there, as any Looney Tunes aficionado can tell you, are the words that could finally cause our friend the Coyote to expire: Acme is A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Roadrunner Corporation and a more apt analogy for the current financial morass one simply will not find.