Congressional campaigns two years after a new president is elected tend to be tough on the party holding the White House. This history, when combined with Donald Trump’s unpopularity, should provide motivation enough for Republicans in the House and Senate to push tax reform over the goal line. But the legislative details also matter, because Americans have a particular problem and the GOP needs to solve it.
In 1982, during President Ronald Reagan’s second year in office, Republicans lost 26 seats in the House. In 1994, Bill Clinton watched his Democratic colleagues lose 52 House seats. In 2010, during year two of Barack Obama’s tenure, the Democrats lost 63 seats.
Among recent presidents the only one who didn’t watch his party lose seats in the first off-year election after he moved into the White House was George W. Bush. Republicans actually added to their House majority by picking up eight seats in 2002, but perhaps this one should come with an asterisk. A little more than a year after the 9/11 attacks, congressional candidates faced an electorate that had rallied behind the wartime President.
To maintain their current House majority Republicans can afford to lose no more than 23 seats in next year’s contests, including the March special election to fill the seat of former Rep. Tim Murphy (R., Pa.).
The history is daunting and the current occupant of the White House presents unique challenges. A conservative political operative who conducted extensive private polling in Virginia right after this month’s gubernatorial election sought to understand the stunningly large Democratic turnout. The source says that sending a message to President Trump was the top reason cited by Democratic voters who normally don’t vote as the reason they showed up this year. This research found that just two days after the election roughly a third of these occasional Democratic voters could not even name their winning candidate, Governor-elect Ralph Northam.
Mr. Trump is not popular in Virginia, nor in many other parts of the country. But voters tend to give him higher marks on the economy. Voters who are consumers and investors have clearly been expressing optimism about his program and business executives are enthusiastic enough that they have been building more new factories and buying more new equipment.
But surveys still show a high level of anxiety about our economic future and worries about the lack of opportunity for younger generations of our citizens. If Republicans can reduce this anxiety, they have a chance to buck history. And they can only solve it by allowing more growth in the private economy, not by creating new government benefits routed through the tax code.
The United States just spent a decade testing the proposition that the government can solve our economic challenges by expanding the social safety net. But record enrollments in government health, disability and food-stamp programs did not make us happy. It’s time to give liberty and opportunity a try.
Main street businesses are the true victims of the strains of the current tax code. At the moment, nearly 95 percent of small businesses are taxed as “pass-through entities,” which means a business’s income is taxed at the owners’ top marginal individual rate. On the federal level, that rate reaches almost 40 percent, and once state and local taxes are added in, small businesses can be forced to relinquish almost half of their income to the government – far above the international norm.
Proposed tax legislation would fix this uncompetitive status quo. The tax proposals from both the House and the Senate contain promising provisions for our nation’s leading job creators, and are a step towards creating an equal playing field for small businesses across the county.
In the version the House of Representatives just passed, a separate small business tax structure is created. For starters, a new top marginal rate is established at 25 percent, which is nearly 15 percentage points lower than the old rate. Earnings below this rate are taxed at an expanded 12 percent bracket. (The 15 and 28 percent brackets are eliminated completely.) Perhaps most excitingly, the bill also creates a new nine percent rate on the first $75,000 of taxable income for businesses that make less than $150,000.
The current version of the bill the in the Senate does not create a separate small business rate. Instead, it creates a 20 percent deduction for all small businesses earning less than $500,000 a year, and for non-professional services businesses above that threshold. According to the Tax Foundation, 97 percent of small business pass-throughs earn $500,000 or less, meaning nearly every small business in the country will earn this substantial and long-overdue relief.
Small businesses have waited over 30 years for Congress to fix the current tax code. But the plan would help far more than just them.
In a score by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, they estimate the Senate bill will create 925,000 jobs and increase average after-tax income by over $2,500 for middle-income families. The same study finds Wisconsin would see the creation of almost 19,000 jobs and an income increase of over $2,600, which is higher than the national average.
Most small business owners would use a tax cut to expand their business, create jobs, and increase employee wages, helping local economies and their residents across the state and country.
Small businesses are currently facing one of the most stressful times of the year: Holiday shopping. The excitement of the Christmas season is coupled with the anxiety of finishing the year strong, jumpstarting growth for 2018.
Passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would be an incredible early Christmas present for Wisconsin’s main street businesses. Congress should make good on their promise and pass it now.
Imagine being a fly on the wall at Sun Studios in Memphis today in 1956, and listening to the Million Dollar Jam Session with Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash and Carl Perkins.
The number one single today in 1965:
The number one British album today in 1971 was Led Zeppelin’s ” “, alternatively known as “Four Symbols” or “IV” …
(I am curious about what year this was recorded. The fanfare sounds like one we played in 1984–85, which would mean I’m playing in this. We recorded an album — remember those? — at the Stock Pavilion that year.)
(If I was starting a new high school this would be my choice of fight song. It was written by John Philip Sousa. How many
Wisconsin plays Ohio State in the Big Ten football championship in Indianapolis Saturday night. The Badgers have played in more Big Ten championship games than any other team. Ponder that for a moment.
The storyline for this game, I predict, will be big Bucky against Ohio State’s superior speed and athleticism. But is that accurate? Adam Rittenberg suggests otherwise:
If the favored Buckeyes win, the script goes, it’ll be because they have more speed and more explosive players who were once much higher-rated recruits than the Badgers. Similar things were written after Wisconsin fell to Penn State in last year’s Big Ten title game.
But there’s a twist with this Wisconsin team. The Badgers are fast and furious. Their top-ranked defense has enough speed, especially at linebacker, to track down anyone, including the Buckeyes. Wisconsin’s offense also can make explosive plays, and not just Jonathan Taylor, who, fairly or unfairly, gets grouped with previous Badger backs who were celebrated more for their power than their speed. A young group of receivers recently emerged to stretch defenses and provide chunk plays to help a run-heavy offense.
Wisconsin has had speedy players before, but the collective trait stands out. Even Lou Holtz noticed when he stopped by a preseason practice, telling UW athletic director and former coach Barry Alvarez that the Badgers “can run with anybody.”
“You want to be as fast as you can,” coach Paul Chryst said, “and we’ve got some guys who can run.”
As the Badgers enter the final leg of the playoff race, they know they can keep up.
“When you think of Wisconsin, you think of tough running backs, power, things like that,” wide receiver Kendric Pryor said. “But we’re trying to change that. We’re trying to show people we’re fast on the outside, too.”
Pryor, a redshirt freshman, forms an exciting young troika with sophomore A.J. Taylor and freshman Danny Davis. The three have accounted for seven of Wisconsin’s past eight pass plays stretching 20 yards or longer. Pryor also has touchdown runs of 32 yards against Michigan and 25 against Iowa. This big-play prowess has helped since top receiver Quintez Cephus suffered a season-ending leg injury in a Nov. 4 win against Indiana. At the time of his injury, Cephus had accounted for seven receptions of 20 yards or longer, the most on the team.
After Wisconsin’s Nov. 18 win over Michigan, Davis talked about his desire to “win with speed.” His first career catch went for 35 yards against Florida Atlantic on Sept. 9. His second went for 50 yards the next week at BYU. Although tight end Troy Fumagalli leads the team in receptions, Davis, Taylor and Pryor each average better than 14 yards per catch.
“I know they’re going to do everything they can to fight for the ball and make sure we get it,” quarterback Alex Hornibrook said, “and then after the catch, they do some things that are pretty special, too.”
Wisconsin’s defense is doing special things, too, ranking first or second nationally in points allowed, yards allowed, rush yards allowed and pass yards allowed. The Badgers have allowed 10 or fewer points in half their games and just five touchdowns in their past seven contests. Although Wisconsin has been a top defense the past three seasons, speed is taking this year’s group to the next level.
Need proof? Look at the linebackers, especially T.J. Edwards, who is tied for the team lead with four interceptions, and Ryan Connelly, Wisconsin’s top tackler. The two have combined for 21 tackles for loss. Defensive coordinator Jim Leonhard also loves the athleticism he has with linebackers Garret Dooley, Andrew Van Ginkel and Leon Jacobs, who has hopscotched positions throughout his career but once tracked down Melvin Gordon on a long run in practice. Jacobs is thriving this season as a starting outside linebacker, recording 8.5 tackles for loss, 3.5 sacks and two forced fumbles.
“All those guys can run,” Leonhard said. “They can chase plays down. It’s not just a power game. Get us out of the box, and you’ve got us right where you want us. We don’t feel that way with that group.”
No player reflects the new Wisconsin and the program’s developmental roots more than Connelly, a 228-pound outside linebacker. He played quarterback in high school and received no FBS interest, so he walked on at Wisconsin. After showing bursts last season, in which he started eight games, Connelly has become a blur of speed and aggression this fall, always around the ball.
“That guy is bouncing around the field 100 miles an hour,” Edwards said.
Connelly perfectly complements Edwards, a Butkus Award finalist who is bigger (244 pounds) and admittedly a bit slower but who also uses his speed to reach the action.
“He’s not afraid to throw his body around,” Leonhard said of Connelly. “He plays at a high rate of speed, so when he hits something, there’s usually pretty good contact. He trusts his athleticism, and he just plays fast.”
Badgers players and coaches are aware of how they’re viewed, how they’re included in the still popular belief that the Big Ten’s best can’t run with the best from other leagues. Fullback Austin Ramesh, who had a 41-yard gain on a jet sweep at Minnesota — yes, Wisconsin runs its fullbacks on jet sweeps — said Wisconsin “might not win the combine competition” against most of its opponents but added, “We’re not a slow team.”
Leonhard recently detailed how Wisconsin’s defense matches up athletically at all three levels, highlighting players such as end Alec James, free safety Natrell Jamerson, cornerback Derrick Tindal and linebackers Jacobs, Van Ginkel and Connelly. He then paused and added, “I don’t know if this conversation can really apply to the Big Ten. It doesn’t really fit the narrative of the big, slow Big Ten anymore.”
Leonhard played in a different Big Ten when he starred for Wisconsin at safety from 2002 to 2004. Only Purdue and Northwestern ran spread offenses then, so power mattered more than speed, and Wisconsin had plenty of it. Four Badgers defensive linemen were drafted in 2005.
“It’s more of a space game [now],” Leonhard said. “Everyone is trying to find athletic players at all positions, and we obviously put a premium on the physicality and how we want to play up front, but you need athletes who can run around the field and make plays.”
Connelly thinks speed can cover mistakes. Although the Badgers are strong tacklers and seemingly always in the right position, their pursuit en masse can stop the running back or receiver who breaks free.
“That’s what’s going to win you games,” Connelly said.
Wisconsin has won every game this season, recording the first 12-0 start in team history. But to get rid of the annoying labels once and for all — really, really good but not quite elite; solid and smart but athletically limited — the Badgers need to beat Ohio State and secure a College Football Playoff spot.
From time to time, Leonhard will show players video of top college and NFL defenses, the best statistically and athletically. He’ll tell the group, “This is what the best is doing. Can we do that? Is that how we play?”
On Saturday in Indianapolis, Wisconsin hopes to deliver the answer.
Readers might recall the 2003 Fiesta Bowl between Miami of Florida and Ohio State. The former had National Football League-level athletes. But OSU won 31–24 in double overtime because the Buckeyes’ defense made one last stop. That could be analogous to Saturday’s game, except that this year’s Buckeyes have the role of the 2002 Hurricanes and this year’s Badgers are the 2002–03 Buckeyes.
The Badgers are unbeaten largely because of their defense, with improvements stemming from the second-half disaster in last year’s Big Ten championship game, as Jesse Temple reports:
The opponent and circumstances surrounding the game are different. But the lessons the Badgers took from that second half still apply.
“It’s definitely a learning experience to know that even if we get in a situation where we’re down, we’re not completely out of the game,” [inside linebacker Ryan] Connelly said. “Also, if we get up big to know they’re not out of the game. Really, anything can happen. It just goes to show you’ve got to play every down like it’s your last down.”
Wisconsin’s defense has carried that approach into this season, and the results have been nothing short of spectacular.
Wisconsin ranks No. 1 in total defense (236.9 yards per game), No. 1 in rushing defense (80.5), No. 2 in pass defense (156.4) and No. 2 in scoring defense (12 points). Wisconsin has allowed 15 touchdowns this season, the fewest of any FBS team. But the defense has been responsible for only 12 of those touchdowns.
Badgers defensive coordinator Jim Leonhard said a big reason for that success stemmed from the number of returning players from last season, which has created confidence at all levels of the field. Two of the most important talking points Leonhard uses each week are to stop the run and not allow explosive plays in the passing game, and the Badgers have adhered to that strategy well.
Wisconsin is the only team in the nation to not surrender a run of 30 yards or longer this season. The longest run against the Badgers was a 28-yarder by Nebraska tailback Devine Ozigbo on Oct. 7. Wisconsin’s defense also has allowed just 32 plays of at least 20 yards. Among Power 5 conference teams, only Washington has given up fewer explosive plays with 31.
“For the most part, we’ve won our 1-on-1 battles this year,” Badgers inside linebacker T.J. Edwards said. “Guys are challenging players on every play. I think that’s just guys playing with confidence. Confident in the game plan and confident in each other that if something does go wrong, there will be a guy right next to you to have your back. I think it’s very easy to let it loose and play free when you know someone is going to be there to help.”
Tindal said he has been impressed at what he’s seen from the defensive line, linebackers and defensive backs.
“Every time I watch film, I’m amazed at what I see,” Tindal said. “Like, dang, all these guys really are down there working. I appreciate that from my standpoint and it makes me feel like, man, they’re down there working, I’ve got to handle my job, make sure their job is easier.
“We work in tandem. I’m just proud of everybody. What we’ve been able to accomplish, all the doubters, all the naysayers, ‘Oh, y’all losing this, y’all losing that.’ They say it every year, man. But Wisconsin always finds a way.”
Wisconsin’s defense was so good this season that 12 different players earned some form of all-Big Ten honors — even more impressive considering only 11 players can be on the field at one time.
But before members of the defense begin patting themselves on the back, they are aware that their most difficult challenges are still to come. That starts Saturday against an Ohio State team that ranks fourth in the FBS in total offense (529.8 yards per game) and fifth in scoring (43.8 points).
“There’s some weeks we know that we weren’t exactly challenged and we know there’s better opponents out there waiting for us,” Connelly said. “To know that we will face better opponents keeps us hungry not to completely accept the fact that we’re so amazing or anything.”
Wisconsin has spent the week studying Ohio State game film, which has provided another lesson on the importance of finishing games. Last season, Wisconsin led Ohio State 16-6 at halftime and clung to a 16-13 lead after three quarters. But Ohio State forced overtime and escaped with a 30-23 victory at Camp Randall Stadium. The previous matchup between the two teams resulted in Ohio State drubbing Wisconsin 59-0 in the 2014 Big Ten title game.
Given that a playoff berth is at stake, what happened in the Big Ten title game last season, and the team Wisconsin is playing, there will be no shortage of motivation for the Badgers defense to excel.
“I’m expecting them to come out and think they’re just going to beat us because they go to Ohio State,” Tindal said. “They just say they’re better than us. … They expect that they’re going to dominate us. We can’t let that happen.”
The faults of quarterback Alex Hornibrook aside (and there were hardly any faults in the Badgers’ Paul Bunyan Axe-winning game over Minnesota last week), Saturday’s game will be either won or lost by Wisconsin’s defense. Defense and running the ball are not just the staples of the Barry Alvarez era; they go back farther than that to when a seven-win season was a good season at Camp Randall.
The UW Athletic Department produces an online magazine, “Varsity,” which included interesting thoughts from athletic director Barry Alvarez that started with former men’s basketball coach Bo Ryan:
Every successful player or coach has done it their own way. That’s why I thought it was interesting to hear the different stories Sunday at the Hall of Fame basketball event in Kansas City.
Bo Ryan’s story is a reminder that there’s not one magical formula to winning, regardless of the level of competition or the sport.
Bo had certain things that he believed in — core principles that he taught and coached — and it was sound at every level: Platteville, Milwaukee and at our place.
Watching his teams play, you could see that his coaching was based on the fundamentals and he never got away from that. It’s pretty much how we run our football program.
Don’t try to create something you can’t do. Be true to who you are. Play to your strengths.
After Bo retired, Greg Gard has emphasized the same things. He took over a team that wasn’t playing very well and he turned them into a good team.
He never lost the kids. You saw them get better. That’s good coaching.
I can still remember going in and talking to Greg after a couple of tough losses that year. I told him, “You’re getting better. You’re getting closer. Trust yourself.” And you saw what happened.
Greg and Paul Chryst have taken comparable approaches. Unlike many coaches today, they truly care about the players. It’s not about their next job and it’s not about breaking the bank.
It’s about coaching and caring about those kids.
We never say goodbye …
… because Saturday isn’t UW’s last game. It may not even be the Badgers’ next-to-last game. Ponder that, because …
Let’s start your day with Helen Raleigh‘s reporting of the latest New York Times idiocy:
“If you let boys be boys, they will murder their fathers and sleep with their mothers.” This shocking statement came from Stephen Marche’s recent New York Timescolumn, titled “The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido.”
Marche’s column shows that, after the unfolding of waves of sexual harassment scandals, the radical left’s moral signaling has reached a new height. It’s not enough to call all men pigs. The radical left wants to condemn all boys, too.
What’s their proposed remedy to cure sexual harassment? Make boys and men more feminine. This approach can’t be more wrong.
Whenever the topic of sexual harassment comes up, most people immediately fixate on the image of a powerful male sexually harassing a powerless female. While that image can be true sometimes, it represents an incomplete picture.
A recent study published in the International Journal of Public Health, based on interviews of more than 3,000 high school students in Norway, finds non-physical sexual harassment in schools happens to boys and girls equally. For physical sexual harassment, more and more female teachers are being charged for having sex or sexually harassing male students.
A CBS News site documents 61 notorious female teachers’ sex scandals in American schools. While mainstream media generally underreports sexual harassment cases when boys or men are the victims, Instapundit.com, a libertarian blog maintained by Glenn Reynolds, has been tracking such cases through its “teaching women not to rape” section.
Beyond schools, a growing number of men report being sexually harassed at workplaces.In 2015, 17 percent of the workplace sexual harassment claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were filed by men. If that number seems low to you, it’s because many males choose not to report harassment. Like female victims, males are embarrassed and are afraid of losing their employment. In addition, these male victims face credibility issues because many people simply don’t believe a man can be sexually harassed.
Sexual harassment is wrong no matter which sex is the aggressor and which is the victim. We as a society can’t condemn an entire sex based on a few highly publicized cases. We need to treat each case seriously and honestly without starting a gender war.
This nascent gender war is already having real consequences. For decades, there has been a widening academic achievement gap between American girls and boys, with girls leading the way. Girls today are more likely to graduate from high schools and colleges than boys are. Girls also earn higher grades than boys in all school subjects, according to an analysis published by the American Psychological Association in 2014.
The co-author of this analysis, Susan Voyer, points out that “The fact that females generally perform better than their male counterparts throughout what is essentially mandatory schooling in most countries seems to be a well-kept secret, considering how little attention it has received as a global phenomenon.”
The Washington Post recently reports that “The differences (academic gap) between boys and girls are largest among the most disadvantaged children. But socioeconomic status does not entirely explain the gender gap. Even well-off boys struggle to compared to well-off girls.”
The same article finds thatboys start to fall behind girls at an early age. They are less likely to be kindergarten-ready than girls, “less likely to identify letters of the alphabet, less likely to be able to communicate their needs.” As they grow, boys continue to lag behind girls academically, but lead in absences and suspensions. These gaps are especially wide for kids from the most disadvantaged families: “Boys in broken families were 8 percentage points less likely than girls to be kindergarten ready.”
Given this context, it is an especially poor time to aggravate attacks on the masculine sex as a whole.
Researchers have several explanations for boys’ lag behind girls. One is that the traditional schooling model of students sitting in a classroom quietly for a long period of time favors girls. Boys learn differently than girls. Girls make more serotonin and oxytocin, chemicals that enable them to sit for a long time. But boys learn better through hands-on activities, visual experiences, and movement.
So in a traditional classroom setting, boys, especially young boys, are more likely to move around and disrupt, which leads to them being disciplined by teachers more, which can lead them to like school less. While these differences are a powerful argument for school choice, in the absence of real choice, boys are being left behind.
There are many programs inside and outside schools that nurture girls and encourage them to be whoever they want to be. Yet young boys don’t get as much attention. On the contrary, schools seem to have lower expectations for boys. Some parents say teachers tell them things such as “Your kid’s handwriting is so-so. But it’s good enough for a boy.” Very few teachers will speak like that about a girl.
This is all the more reason we should evaluate each person on his or her own needs and merits rather than talk down to boys and slam their entire sex.
Besides parents, boys also learn from other males they encounter. Our entertainment industry, one of the most liberal places on earth, has been churning out strong female characters and denigrating male characters for decades. The TV sitcom doofus dad paired with a highly competent mom is a common cliché.
Also, look at the Star Wars franchise. Since Disney took it over, the last two movie installments and the upcoming new one all feature strong heroines in leading roles, while the men are in supporting roles. In the Star Wars universe outside the movies, Leia takes a leading role while Han Solo and Luke Skywalker act the idiot, running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
As someone who has four young nieces, I welcome these strong female characters. But I can’t help worrying about two things: how does this lack of strong male characters affect young boys? And how will it affect perceptions of males when girls turn into women?
A strong masculine character is able to stand next to a strong feminine character, which can enhance both. A character like the marshal played Gary Cooper in “High Noon” will not only teach boys what it means to be a good man and how to treat women, but also teach girls what a loving and respectful relationship looks like.
Now liberals want us to ignore these biological differences between boys and girls, to either condemn all boys as bad or treat them like girls, erasing the sex difference, which will further delay boys’ development. Boys who don’t do well in school are more likely to end up with lower-paying jobs as young men. Such economic realities have ripple effects on women, too.
The share of Americans who are married is at its lowest point since at least 1920. Pew Research shows one of the main reasons is that young people, especially young men, do not feel financially prepared for such a commitment. I know several women who are beautiful, intelligent, and have good-paying jobs, but have been single for a long time because they just can’t find men who are emotionally mature, sharing their intellectual and financial abilities.
The NYT column is wrong. In their quest for gender sameness, liberals have gone too far. It’s time to stop their war on boys and men. Our society should treat boys and girls, men and women, equally, while honestly taking into consideration their biological differences. We need to nurture boys as boys and girls as girls. One way to start is by not telling men they are horrible beasts just for the sin of being born with XY chromosomes.
Matt Walsh agrees, starting from the perspective of the sexual harassment scandals du jour:
There is obviously a serious problem, and I have already suggested some ways that we might address it. I don’t say “solve it” because it will never be solved. What lies at the root of this epidemic is that we are a fallen race. That particular issue won’t be fully resolved until the Second Coming. Still, as I put forth last week, there are certainly some things we could do to contain, minimize, and mitigate the problem. But I was chastised for my plan because it focuses too much on empowering the potential victims. This is victim blaming, apparently.
There is another, more popular, strategy that a large number of liberal men have embraced, or pretended to embrace. It requires all men to fall to their knees in shame and accept guilt for things they haven’t actually done. We must apologize profusely for abusing women, even if we haven’t abused any women. We must accept that we are complicit, even if we haven’t been complicit. Social media is littered with self-emasculating dudes of this type, eager to demonstrate their wokeness by castigating their entire gender. Some men are resolving to spend a day in silence, others are reminding their fellow men that they should “shut the f**k up,”others are tweeting with the hashtag #YesAllMen (meaning “Yes, all men are responsible for sexual assault”).
There was a viral article written a few days ago, by a man, insisting “if you’re a man, you’re probably trash.” The author goes on to say that we men are “all agents of the patriarchy… We are all active contributors to rape culture.”
To which I say: speak for yourself, chief.
Another common and related solution, often proposed by female feminists and the male eunuchs they keep as pets, is that we should elect fewer men to public office, and have fewer men in leadership positions at companies, and generally do what we can to shove men to the sidelines and put women in their place. Human society must become something like a honey bee hive, where the men are mere drones whose only function is to eat, reproduce, and die. I think some dudes would find this arrangement quite favorable, which is probably why so many of them are eager to bow in submission and step to the side. It gives them more time to lounge on the couch and play video games, after all.
I think this is the wrong approach. It’s wrong for many reasons but let’s focus on two:
First, quickly, it’s absurd and overly simplified to paint this as a “men are bad, women are good” situation. In fact it’s pretty laughable to suggest that women in power are somehow less likely to be abusive and terrible. They may be abusive and terrible in different ways, but there’s certainly no evidence that we’ll end up with better politicians and CEOs if our country was converted into a feminist dystopia. I have known miserable, vile, self-centered people in my life, as have we all, and I’d say it’s been a pretty even split by gender. Perhaps my anecdotal experience is unusual, but I don’t think so. Sin does not discriminate according to sex.
Second, more importantly, we’re completely missing the point. The problem is not that there is too much masculinity in our culture. On the contrary, there isn’t nearly enough. A man becomes an abuser and harasser of women when he rejects that which makes him a man. He is not expressing his masculinity when he strips naked and struts around in front of his unwilling coworkers and subordinates — a move that seems oddly common among these types — rather, he is expressing his almost complete lack of masculinity.
These men are weird, desperate, self-debasing, and effeminate. If you say we should have fewer of those kinds in positions of power, I agree. Let’s have none at all. But we would do well to replace them with men who are actually men. What we need in our society are chivalrous, strong, respectable, productive, and self-sacrificial men. Real men, in other words. Men who protect, provide, and do all of the things that society has always depended upon men to do. If you are that sort of man, you certainly should not shut up, step to the side, or consider yourself “trash.” Our culture needs your input and leadership more than ever.
It may be pointed out that there are fewer and fewer of these men available today. Again, I agree. That’s why we must raise our boys to embrace their masculinity — not apologize for it or feel ashamed of it — and carry themselves with dignity. The abuser and harasser never learned this lesson. He is an empty shell. He couldn’t be a man so he decided to be a cartoon instead. He is not fueled by “toxic masculinity” or any kind of masculinity at all. He is a twisted, emotionally stunted little boy who never grew out of puberty.
The issue is not that he is a man but that he never became one. That’s his problem, and ours.
There is a simple test for whether doing something to a woman is appropriate or not: Would you want (to name a few of the latest) Al Franken, John Conyers, Matt Lauer, Garrison Keillor, etc. to do what they’re accused of having done to your daughter?
Today in 1987, a Kentucky teacher lost her U.S. Supreme Court appeal over her firing for showing Pink Floyd’s movie “The Wall” to her class over its language and sexual content.
The school board that fired the teacher apparently figured that they don’t need her education.
<!–more–>
Birthdays begin with one-hit wonder Billy Paul:
Lou Rawls:
Drummer Sandy Nelson (who played drums on the aforementioned 1958 single):
Eric Bloom of Blue Öyster Cult …
… was born the same day John Densmore, the Doors drummer:
Two more media stars were fired on Wednesday due to allegations of sexual misconduct. Matt Lauer and Garrison Keillor are the latest celebrities to lose their jobs in a cascade of accusations and revelations that began with the October exposure of the many misdeeds of film producer Harvey Weinstein. If recent history is any guide, some will say that other industries are just as bad as the ones that produce information and entertainment. But the hopeful news is that this may not be true, based on the results of a new public opinion survey.
As for Mr. Lauer, co-anchor of NBC’s “Today” show, the speed of his exit from his longtime perch atop the world of morning broadcast television was striking. According to the Journal:
NBC News Chairman Andy Lack said in a memo to staff Wednesday that the network received a detailed complaint from a colleague about misconduct by Mr. Lauer that represented “a clear violation of our company’s standards.”
The alleged incident between Mr. Lauer and the staffer took place during the network’s coverage of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, a person briefed on the matter said.
“While it is the first complaint about his behavior in the over 20 years he’s been at NBC News, we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident,” Mr. Lack added.
Ari Wilkenfeld, a lawyer for the accuser, said his client “detailed egregious acts of sexual harassment and misconduct by Mr. Lauer” in a meeting Monday night with members of NBC’s human resources and legal departments. Mr. Wilkenfeld said NBC “acted quickly and responsibly” in investigating the claims and firing Mr. Lauer.
As far as this column can tell, Mr. Lauer has not commented publicly on the allegations. In the matter of Mr. Keillor, this doesn’t appear to be a case of unwanted prairie home companionship, but rather a workplace issue. According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:
Citing “inappropriate behavior with an individual who worked with him,” Minnesota Public Radio said Wednesday it has terminated its relationship with Garrison Keillor, the former host of “A Prairie Home Companion” who helped build MPR into a national powerhouse.
In an email to the Star Tribune Wednesday, Keillor said, “I put my hand on a woman’s bare back. I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.”
Ironically or perhaps not, Mr. Keillor had just this week published a defense of fellow Minnesota liberal Sen. Al Franken, who has also been accused of sexual misconduct. The accused naturally deserve the presumption of innocence.
Today’s news follows the firing of numerous other alleged malefactors who held leading positions in the information and entertainment media. Just last week another staple of broadcast television, Charlie Rose, was fired by CBS, PBS and Bloomberg amid numerous accusations of appalling conduct.
There will likely be commentary in the coming days about how this problem exists in every industry, and it surely does. But there’s reason to believe that workplaces may be relatively safer outside of Hollywood and journalism. A new Economist/YouGov survey out this week finds Americans understandably and deeply concerned about the issue, but also finds that Americans are generally not working in places like the Weinstein Company.
While a large majority see sexual harassment as a serious problem for the country in general, they see less of a problem in their own workplaces. Specifically, a full 80% see sexual harassment as either a somewhat serious or very serious problem in the United States. Large majorities of both men and women hold this view.
But when asked about sexual harassment in the places they have worked, just 36% call it a somewhat serious or very serious problem. Of course one would hope for the complete absence of harassment, but the difference is striking. According to this survey, most American women do not regard sexual harassment as a serious problem in the places they have worked.
Traditional media have faced formidable challenges created by new technologies. This column’s most celebrated alumnus has described how unchecked bias has also undermined media authority. Now beyond questions of opinion and judgment, the industry faces a new test of its moral authority. How much cultural power can a movie or a television program exert if the audience decides its creators are repulsive?
For brick-and-mortar retailers, Black Friday isn’t the boon it once was. Retail analyst ShopperTrak reported a 2 percent decline in foot traffic early in the holiday weekend, while online sales jumped 17 percent. The trend spells bad news for Wisconsin’s small businesses, many of which rely on face-to-face transactions to support the bulk of their sales – a difficult feat when crowds aren’t out shopping.
To make matters worse, a 1939 law actually prohibits retailers in Wisconsin from offering the same door-buster deals as their online competitors. The state’s ironically named “Unfair Sales Act” makes it a crime for businesses to sell goods below cost. That means door-buster sales on toys, electronics and other common holiday gifts are decidedly less of a bargain than you’d find in other states or online. Even post-Black Friday sales announcements carry a huge caveat for the Badger State – “Prices may vary in Wisconsin.” Adding insult to injury, the law also requires a 9 percent markup on gasoline, and other items like alcohol and tobacco.
According to conventional wisdom, outlawing deep sales prevents large chains from putting their mom-and-pop competitors out of business. If big box stores can’t undercut small business prices, local retailers will stay open and provide the necessary competition to keep all prices low. Unfortunately for consumers, the Great Depression-era “wisdom” doesn’t hold water.
An analysis by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty found that laws like Wisconsin’s Unfair Sales Act have no effect on the number of small business retailers in a state. It shouldn’t come as a surprise: the law prohibits small businesses from selling goods below the legal markup too. And when an antiquated law virtually guarantees that the deals will be better online, Wisconsinites have little incentive to brave the cold for a 4 a.m. shopping trip. When anchor tenants don’t see an influx of early morning customers, neither do the small coffee shops, eateries, and novelty stores nearby.
Black Friday is far from the only time of year that bargain hunters are left empty handed by the Unfair Sales Act. A recent study on the law’s effect on back-to-school supplies found shoppers in Milwaukee paid 12 to 146 percent more than shoppers in other major Midwestern cities.
It explains why the special interests benefitting from state-sanctioned price inflation are fighting to maintain the law. In an interview with the Wisconsin State Journal, the Wisconsin Grocers Association divulged its fear of a “short-term price war” among retailers who never had an incentive to compete for their customers. If Wisconsin’s Unfair Sales Law protects anyone, it’s the benefactors of crony capitalism.
Unsurprisingly, a whopping 76 percent of shoppers who know about the Unfair Sales Act think it should be repealed. But it’s not for a lack of trying: Wisconsin legislators from both parties have attempted to abolish the law several times since the 1980s. Lawmakers in both the Assembly and State Senate even introduced legislation to repeal the bill earlier this year.
The only thing unfair about sales is punishing businesses that have them. Until politicians prioritize consumers ahead of the businesses that profit from mandatory high pricing, Wisconsin’s antiquated law will ensure every retail holiday looks like Cyber Monday.
Whether or not you like big-box retailers or the downtown mom-and-pop store, the correct roles of government do not include setting prices, nor what a store is able to or must charge for a product or service.
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 