Stop the whining! We have met the enemy, and he is us!

Stop the whining! We have met the enemy, and he is us!

As Pogo, a cartoon character of my youth, once said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Despite all the criticism of the way Congress works or doesn’t work, all the blaming for current and potential future disasters, the actual enemies in our political system may well be us, its citizen voters.

We prod our representatives relentlessly to direct federal dollars our way, any way possible, but to do so without increasing our tax burden. We support candidates whom we feel will bring us financial benefit, but also demand they start eliminating the federal deficit.

If we don’t get more for our state or district, we get mad, and if it is ever hinted we should pay (via taxes) for what we want, we get even madder.

Most importantly, if our representatives don’t make the people in our chosen trade richer, then they must be replaced. We donate to them so they will donate more to us. We also allow ourselves to become righteously indignant and totally inflexible on issues such as gun control, abortion, gay rights, global warming, etc. We use all our money, emotion, polemics, and political clout to make these issues more important than all others.

At times this stymies and clogs the legislative process, but then, that’s exactly what we want. Right? If we can’t have it our way, then make it so nobody gets anything. Drag everyone down if we can’t have everything we want. At least, that is the way we behave.

We make statements that make no sense, but then act like our own words contain the ultimate truth. We demand the government provide solutions for nearly every problem the nation faces beyond the institutions such as the U.S. Armed Forces, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Medicare, the FBI, the National Institutes of Health, our Head Start programs, NASA, the U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Park Service. People then get up in arms about the failure of the government; claiming, “the federal government can’t run anything right.”

No matter the questions asked, answers seem to contain targeted words and ideas intended to persuade us that the speaker’s opponents are either ignorant or un-American. Members of various political camps express such dire predictions and extreme vitriol that their goal must be to stun the rest of us into abandoning reason for emotion.

This reliance on hysteria needs to change. Being reasonable means that when an opponent makes a good point, you change your position to accept that point. Facts are more important than opinions no matter who holds the opinions. If you and your opposition do not agree what the facts are, then you have not gathered enough facts and you are not ready to argue anything. Don’t debate until you know where you and your opponent’s agree, then start from there. Discuss everything with a willingness to learn something new. If you don’t, you are asserting you know everything.

When we voters change how we think and then say, changes will begin to occur in the attitudes of our representatives in what we like to call our “Washington mess.” After all, one way or another, that mess is there because of us.

Electoral College makes all states relevant

Electoral College makes all states relevant

I would like to respond to Steve Rawlins’ letter on Dec.6 (“Along with presidential win comes work, blame”), particularly to the comment about the popular vote. Isn’t it amazing how our Founding Fathers knew that the Electoral College was the way to go?

Even back then, they realized that if a candidate were to win Philadelphia and New York, he or she would always win the popular vote and the other 11 states or colonies would have no say. The same is true today.

If a candidate wins California, New York, Illinois and maybe one other state, they would pretty much sew up the popular vote. Those four states represent only 8 percent of our states. Even less if you count Washington, D.C., and the territories.

That leaves out 92 percent of the country. Votes in the less-populated areas of the West and Midwest would never have any clout in a national election. The Democrats even admit they are a “coastal” party, representing only the east and west coast (Pelosi in San Francisco and Schumer in NYC). You and I are fortunate that we live in Ohio. Our state is a “swing” state in almost all national elections (and we swing both ways, Obama and Trump), but if we lived in say Utah, our vote would mean nothing in a popular vote election.

Walt Hughes, Delhi Township

Snowflakes versus Real Men!

Snowflakes versus Real Men!

For all the interest group pandering that shapes modern American politics, the group that may well have decided the election recently might have come down to the demographic of “Real Men.”

The Real Men is difficult to stereotype. He comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from sophisticated urbanite to rural redneck, Deep South to Yankee North, Left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

No matter where he’s from, Real Men share many common traits; they aren’t asking for anything from anyone other than the promise to be able to make their own way on a level playing field. In many cases, they are independent businessmen and employ several people. They pay more than their share of taxes and they work hard. Damn hard, for what they have and intend to keep.

He’s used to picking up the tab, … Not because he was forced to, but because it’s the right thing to do.

The Real Men believes the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written. …

The Real Men owns firearms… in defense of his home, his country and his family. … is willing to lay down his life to defend … others…

The Real Men is not, and never will be, a victim. … Victimhood syndrome buzzwords; “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” don’t resonate with The Real Men. …

His last name, his race and his religion don’t matter. His ancestry might be … any of a hundred … What does matter is that he considers himself in every way to be an American. He is proud of this country and thinks that if you aren’t, you are whole-heartedly encouraged to find one that suits you and move there.

The Real Men is usually a man’s man. The kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, go hunting, play golf, maintain his own vehicles and build things. He coaches kid’s baseball, soccer and football and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, design a factory or work the land. … The Real Men is the backbone of this country.

He’s not racist … He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they’re willing to work hard and play by the rules. He expects other people to do the same. Above all, he has integrity in everything he does.

The Real Men votes, and he loathes the dysfunction now rampant in government. … Mostly, … the blatantly arrogant attitude displayed implying that we are too stupid to run our own lives and only people in government are smart enough to do that.

The Real Men has reached his limit. When a social justice agitator goes on TV, leading some rally for Black Lives Matter, safe spaces or other such nonsense, he may bite his tongue but, he remembers. …

But when government officials are repeatedly caught red-handed breaking the law and getting off scot-free, The Real Men balls up his fists and readies himself for the coming fight. He knows that this fight, will be a live-or-die situation, so he prepares fully. Make no mistake, this is a fight in which he is not willing to lose and he will never give up. 

Most of all Snowflakes melt in the presence of Real Men!

Dakota Access Pipeline: Mob rule or Legitimate Protest?

The Protests Over the Dakota Access Pipeline Explained

What you are seeing in the news and in the print media is an example of mob rule and not what it appears to be. Anti-fracking activists are using the public’s misunderstandings of the Dakota Access Pipeline to paint the multi-state project as a blight against American Indians and the environment. But some details about the hotly contested project might dispel some of those misconceptions.

Protesters and members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe have relentlessly blasted the $3.8 billion pipeline, arguing the DAPL’s construction would trample on tribal lands and destroy ancient tribal artifacts. They also argue it could potentially poison waterways, including rivers such as the Missouri River and Lake Oahe.

Here are a few pieces of information to keep in mind when considering what to make of the pipeline’s construction.

The Tribe Never Took Part In The Initial Consulting Process

The Army Corps of Engineers attempted more than a dozen times between 2014 and 2016, according to court documents, to discuss the DAPL route with the Standing Rock. The tribe either failed to respond to requests for consultation or dragged its feet during the process. The Corps sent a letter to the tribe in October of 2014 with information about the proposed pipeline routes as well as maps documenting the known cultural sites the Corps had identified.

“In addition, the letter requested that any party interested in consulting on the matter reply within thirty days,” the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in August. “No response was received from the Tribe.”

The head of the North Dakota Public Service Commission mirrored the judge’s decision earlier, telling reporters that the tribe had plenty of time to voice concerns before the pipeline’s construction.

Julie Fedorchak, who serves as the chairman of the commission, told National Public Radio in an interview Wednesday that Standing Rock Sioux did not participate in the nearly 30 hours of meetings held to determine the pipeline’s southern route.

The tribe’s decision to drag its feet on the issue is odd considering it usually does engage with the commission on other issues, Fedorchak added. It’s also strange based on the sheer amount of angst the project has received in recent months.

The DAPL Runs Parallel to An Already Existing Pipeline 

The DAPL runs parallel to an already existing pipeline built back in 1982 called the Northern Border Pipeline, which already runs through the areas currently being disputed by Standing Rock.

The Northern Border line never received any protests or complaints from demonstrators associated with Standing Rock, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Environmental Impact Statement for the pipeline.

The Government Rerouted DAPL Several Times To Avoid Tribal Lands

Cultural surveys conducted prior to the pipeline receiving the approval show 91 of the 149 eligible sites contained stone features considered sacred American Indian tribes.

The pipeline, which is expected to shuttle more than 500,000 barrels of Bakken oil from North Dakota to Illinois, was rerouted and modified to avoid all 91 of those areas, and all but nine of the other potentially eligible sites.

The modifications convinced the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to deny a motion for a preliminary injunction in September by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, citing the inability of the tribe to show how the pipeline would damage the group’s sacred ground.

The Pipeline Does Not Cut Through Standing Rock’s Reservation 

The DAPL route does not cut through Standing Rock’s reservation — in fact, the entire area is privately owned, meaning the route is located several miles North of the tribe’s ancestral land.

One of the prevailing lies: “This demolition is devastating,” Standing Rock Chairman David Archambault II told reporters in October. “These grounds are the resting places of our ancestors. The ancient cairns and stone prayer rings there cannot be replaced. In one day, our sacred land has been turned into hollow ground.”

The Pipeline Was Moved Over Environmental Concerns

Energy Transfer Partners moved the project South near the Standing Rock reservation because it was 11 miles shorter and considered less damaging to the environment, according to a report the Army Corps of Engineers. The new pipeline also cost $23 million less than the initial route.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluated the Bismarck route, eventually concluding it was not a viable option because of the project’s close proximity to the capital’s municipal water supply wells. The department also determined the northern route would have made it difficult to stay 500 or more feet away from homes, a policy required in North Dakota.

Army Corps of Engineers, in fact, would later deem the new pipeline route crossing Lake Ohae safe in an environmental assessment, arguing that the ETP has “developed response and action plans, and will include several monitoring systems, shut-off valves, and other safety features to minimize the risk of spills and reduce…any potential damages.”

Eminent Domain Was Never Used On The North Dakota Route 

Energy Transfer Partners relied on voluntary easements, which are non-possessory rights to use the property of a landowner without owning the land itself, to construct the pipeline’s southern route near Standing Rock Sioux’s reservation. Much of the land that protesters are occupying during their demonstrations is private property owned by farmers.

Still, federal officials are refusing to evict those hunkered down at makeshift campsites along the DAPL route. Officials believe booting the protesters would harm free speech rights, despite the fact that the land is privately owned.

Here we are with intentional misleading coverage about what should be a non-issue. Yet, a mob has encroached on private property because they are not getting their way. All based on bogus claims.

Police convictions prove elusive

Police convictions prove elusive

By CAMERON KNIGHT

Two shootings, two dead black men, two white officers charged with murder, and in the past month two mistrials resulting from hung juries.

On Monday, after deliberating 22 hours over four days, a jury of 11 white people and one black person declared they were hopelessly deadlocked in the trial of former North Charleston, South Carolina, Police Officer Michael Slager, who shot and killed Walter Scott.

That came just three weeks after a Hamilton County jury reached a similar impasse after 25 hours of deliberation over four days in the trial of former University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing. That jury, with two black members, could not reach a unanimous verdict. Tensing is free on bond awaiting retrial.

To Philip Stinson, an associate professor of criminology at Bowling Green State University, the cases verify what his research has shown: It’s extremely unlikely for an officer to be convicted of murder or manslaughter.

“Jurors do not like to believe that a police officer could be a murderer,” Stinson said. “When you have these on-duty violent encounters, they just are not willing to second-guess the split-second life or death decisions that officers make.”

In the last decade, he said only one police officer in the nation has been convicted of murder in on-duty fatal shootings of civilians.

“If there was any case where a prosecutor would be able to get a conviction, you would think it was this case,” Stinson said of the South Carolina case. “The video evidence was damning. We saw a police officer execute a man who was running away from him ... then the officer’s first thought was to plant evidence.”

Donyetta Bailey, president of the Black Lawyers Association of Cincinnati, said the latest mistrial reveals racial bias in juries.

“I feel like the Walter Scott situation is more clear cut,” Bailey said, referring to the man Officer Slager shot and killed in North Charleston. “For me, in a situation like that, I can’t fathom anything other than race or their belief that cops can do no wrong under any circumstances.”

Bailey also worried the result of the Slager case might also mean Prosecutor Joe Deters request for a change of venue in the Tensing case might be useless. That trial could take place in either the Columbus or Cleveland areas if a judge grants the request.

“It makes you wonder is there any place where we can go where this case can be tried fairly, where people leave bias at the door and just evaluate the case based on the evidence as opposed to preconceived notions about officers,” Bailey said.

While there are many similarities between the cases, including the existence of video and the fact both former officers took the stand in their own defense, there is one major difference: Slager is also facing federal criminal charges, whereas Tensing does not.

“That’s the whole purpose of the federal criminal deprivation of civil rights statute – to deal with situations where the state fails to prosecute or fails to successfully prosecute,” Stinson said. He explained that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in many jurisdictions has been stepping into cases involving officer-involved shooting earlier in recent years.

Federal charges against Tensing have not been ruled out, but Stinson said the standards for bringing federal civil rights charges are very high. The U.S. Attorney’s Office would have to be confident that race was a factor in the incident.

“Before the Tensing trial, I wouldn’t have been sure if that was suitable,” Stinson said. “Now that we know he was wearing a Confederate flag T-shirt, I don’t know if they are going to revisit...I don’t know if the Confederate flag is enough.”