Eagle Kill

            A 2013 wildlife study estimated that wind turbines killed about 888,000 bats and 573,000 birds in 2012 alone. Since then, wind capacity has grown 24%, not including wind farms being built in Perquimans County, NC, where I live. Should we be concerned?

            One victim in particular that should concern us is our national symbol, the bald eagle. According to Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a proposed rule change by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would extend the length of permits for accidental eagle kills from the current five years to 30 years. This would allow wind energy producers to kill or injure as many as 4,200 bald eagles every year. That’s a lot, considering there are only about 72,000 bald eagles in the continental U.S. Even worse, we won’t know the real number of kills, because the wind industry doesn’t have to report he data.

            When it comes to penalties, the Fish and Wildlife Service is looking the other way; nothing must impede progress in the development of renewable energy sources. Not so when it comes to that nasty black stuff that gets pumped out of the ground. According to Bryce, this same Fish and Wildlife Service not long ago convinced the Justice Department to file criminal indictments against three oil companies working in North Dakota’s Bakken field for inadvertently killing six ducks and one phoebe. If that’s not a double standard, I don’t know what is.

            Which brings up this question: once wind farms go into operation in our county, who will count and report on the dead bats and birds swatted out of the sky by the whirring turbines?

Absurd. Indeed

            There is a method of argumentation dating back to Greek philosophers called reduction ad absurdum. It seeks to deny the truth of an assertion by showing that it leads to an impossible conclusion. Without labelling it as such, it has been used in cartoons appearing in various media to demonstrate the absurdity of protests against North Carolina’s HB2 law. Typically, such a cartoon shows a huge, hairy man dressed in a tutu entering a girls’ locker room. Absurd? Of course it is. 

            A friend of mine asked, ”If notorious cross-dresser Dennis Rodman became the coach of a women’s basketball team, would the opponents of HB2 be right in insisting he be allowed to shower with his players?” Of course not. That’s absurd.

            And that’s just my point.  This whole controversy about HB2 is absurd. It’s absurd for entertainers like Ringo Starr to cancel a concert over it. It’s absurd for a company like Target to hurt its business over it (a boycott of its stores has started).  And it’s really an absurd overreach for our Attorney General to be equating this kerfuffel with African Americans’ struggle for civil rights in the 50s and 60s.

            It’s typical of the Left, the LGBT crowd, and the overly sensitive politically correct to scream BIGOT at every perceived hint of discrimination.  What they lack to go along with their sensitive nature is common sense. Common sense dictates that one’s sex is determined at birth and cannot be altered, short of a sex-change operation, by a desire to identify with another gender. There are ways of protecting transgenders from discrimination, but allowing them to use the bathroom of their choice is not one of them.

            I’m with Governor McCrory on this one. He is right to sue Loretta Lynch to keep her nose out of North Carolina’s business. But now the Obama administration has weighed in by directing public schools to permit transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. What about transgender teachers? Should they be permitted to do the same? What would President Obama say if Sasha came home from school one day and told him that one of her male teachers was using her bathroom?  Absurd indeed.

Sue Those Deniers

  The United States is the most litigious country in the world--by far.  Americans sue for just about any reason and have no problem finding unscrupulous lawyers to abet their greed.  In particular, frivolous suits are filed against deep-pocket companies on the expectation that these firms will settle rather than bear the cost of a lengthy trial. 
   We could greatly reduce the incidence of lawsuits by adopting the English Rule (loser pays) and by adopting award caps, as some states have in malpractice cases.  But let’s not forget that most legislators are also lawyers who are not easily persuaded to shut the spigot of cash flowing into their brethren’s coffers.  But at the very least we should expect our government to respect rights guaranteed by our Constitution.  Since when, for example, can someone be prosecuted for disagreeing with the government?  Yet, it is happening right now.
   Last year Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) called for the Justice Department to investigate climate change deniers under the RICO law written to fight organized crime.  Last month Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted that she had asked the FBI to look into prosecution of climate change deniers for fraud.  Now we learn that prosecutors in New York, California, and the Virgin Islands have opened cases against Exxon-Mobil for just that.  The Obama administration is considering federal action, as well. 
   “Climate change is settled science,” says our President.  Nonsense.  The very nature of science is that it is always searching for greater truth.  Remember Galileo?  In the case of man-caused climate change, the truth is very much debatable.  Thus, prosecuting those whose only crime is disagreeing with the government on this issue is clearly unconstitutional and, even by the standards of the most venal politicians, wildly unethical. 
   President Obama has called climate change the country’s greatest security risk and intends his environmental policies to be his greatest legacy. I predict, rather, that he will be remembered for his assault on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.    

Forgetting History

Last week was Teacher Appreciation Week, a splendid idea to recognize the often life-changing contributions of dedicated classroom mentors.  I haven’t been in a classroom in decades, but I haven’t forgotten a wonderful American History teacher I had in high school.  In this year of electioneering turmoil, I remember especially his series of lectures on the political process.  It is largely because of him that I developed a life-long interest in American history, although I’m sure he never intended for me to become a political junkie. 

It’s a shame that the students of today are rarely taught the relevance of history.  Our average teenager would be hard-pressed to describe the important roles played by the men whose faces appear on our currency, while the wildly enthusiastic young voters supporting Bernie Sanders demonstrate an abysmal ignorance of the dangers of Socialism or the history of its failures.  Didn’t someone say that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it? 

What a pity!  History doesn’t need to be dull or boring.  There are many historians—David McCullough is my favorite-- who can make the past come alive, and skilled filmmakers who bring images of the past to those who prefer the screen to the printed page.  Ken Burns is one filmmaker who has shown an uncanny ability to present captivating historical studies of popular topics (more than two dozen so far).  If necessarily limited by the format, these films can motivate viewers to investigate the subjects further.  But how many do? 

Social media today is the prime means of communication for our young people.  Unfortunately, tweets and Facebook are not conducive to serious inquiry, just as thumbs cannot compare with a pen as a means of expressing complex ideas.  

Will future generations look back at this era as the one in which the importance of history was irrevocably dismissed?  Worse, will future generations lose their ability to look back at all?  The metaphor that comes to mind is a young man walking briskly along while thumbing his ipad until he steps off a curb and gets hit by a bus. 

Hertford Talent

            Anyone crossing the Perquimans River on Route 17 in Hertford is reminded by signs and by the name of the bridge itself that this little town produced a great baseball talent in Jim “Catfish” Hunter.  The people who knew Jimmy—and never called him Catfish--were proud to see him rise from the high school ballfield directly to the major leagues and eventually to Baseball’s Hall of Fame.  Such a talent is rare and, as some would say, put Hertford on the map.

            But there are other talented people in Hertford.  Some will be seen on the stage of our little theater on Grubb Street on May 6, 7, and 8. “Anybody Out There?” will be the fifth play produced by the Carolina Moon Theater Group, quite an accomplishment for such a small town as Hertford. 

This show’s three performances will likely be sold out, as were the previous four.  Returning in a starring role is Hertford’s own Matthew Johnson who previously starred in “Over the River and Through the Woods” two years ago, as well as in several Perquimans High School plays and musicals.  Also in the cast will be Tom Loughlin who was the director of the two previous plays. This time he turns the direction of the play over to Carly Pastorak of Edenton who is also responsible for bringing three actors from Edenton to join the cast of seven men and three women.

Some of the real talent for this show will be behind the scenes--or I should say behind the scenery.  Lynn Raymond, the play’s producer, is faced with the challenging task of pulling off six scene changes in three distinct sets: a bank, a bedroom, and a doctor’s office. This would not be possible without Steve Burket who designed the scenes and the lights and sound system, Ray Sawyer who built the sets, and Tom Dabolt of Snug Harbor who brought his experience in Elizabeth City theater productions to help with the design.

What we have here is a beneficial symbiotic relationship: What the theater does for the community and what the community does for the theater. It’s a rewarding experience that would not be possible without all the marvelous local talent that will be on display in the little theater on Grubb Street starting May 6.

Where is Truman?

            In the fall of the presidential campaign of 1980 I came within a few feet of Ronald Reagan as he exited the Hearst building in New York where I worked. But the only president I’ve ever seen in person while he was in office was Harry Truman. I was an eight-year old boy riding in a car with my dad when we stopped at a railroad crossing in Framingham, Massachusetts, as a train went by. There, on a platform at the back of the last car was Truman waving to the people lined up at the crossing.

            I was thinking about Harry Truman last week when I wrote about our need to find a statesman like Winston Churchill to lead us out of our current political morass. Why Truman? Because this unprepossessing haberdasher from Missouri rose from relative obscurity to become President of the United States. And he rose to the occasion.

            Upon the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman was faced with enormous challenges. His first major decision was to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a decision he defended, arguing that it ended the war and prevented the potential loss of 100,000 American lives had the war gone on. After dealing face to face with Stalin at Potsdam, he put forth the Truman Doctrine that effectively contained the spread of Soviet Communism, defied the Soviets with the Berlin Airlift, oversaw the creation of NATO, and got the Marshall Plan enacted to help rebuild Western Europe. He helped found the United Nations and obtained its support in defending South Korea in the Korean War.

            At home he successfully guided the domestic economy through its post-war challenges. He also submitted the first comprehensive civil rights legislation and issued executive orders to begin racial integration of the military and the government.

            In spite of his successes he faced severe criticism that brought his popularity down to as low as 22%. But he has been vindicated by history: President Truman is now ranked favorably among the near-greats.

            Last week I asked, “Where is our Churchill?”  Today I ask, “Where is our Truman?”

Where Is Our Churchill ?

            In this period of electioneering frenzy, what we need most of all is a calm reflection on our purpose as a nation. At the same time we need a statesman with the talent to lead us out of this political morass.

            On June 4, 1940, Winston Churchill gave a speech to a nation beaten down by the disaster at Dunkirk and ready to accept inevitable defeat. Churchill was expected to salvage what he could by negotiating with Hitler for the best terms he could get. Instead the people of Great Britain heard Churchill vow never to surrender. And they rallied behind him. Why? Because Churchill, perhaps the greatest statesman in history, was a man of character, courage, and genius--the right man at the right time.

            Where is our Churchill? Who among our national figures has the moral character and bedrock principles to restore our faith in America? Is it our fate to have a presidential campaign pitting a corrupt liar on one side and an unprincipled charlatan on the other?  We must do better than that.

            So what should we look for in a yet undiscovered statesman? Using Winston Churchill as our model, we should look first for a person who embodies the values that made this country great: liberty, free enterprise, individual responsibility, and belief in our constitutional democracy. Second, we should look for a person with a moral compass who would never compromise principle for the sake of ambition or violate his oath of office to advance his ideology. Third, we need a person with a belief in America’s exceptionalism, who will acknowledge our leadership role in this world and never apologize for it. And fourth, we need a strong defender of freedom who will never appease the enemy or abandon our allies.

            Is there such a statesman hiding in the wings, ready and able to respond to the call of duty?  If an ineffective system of primaries and caucuses cannot produce a Churchill of our own, perhaps an open convention—in either party—can.