Chris Christie, Barbara Walters and Girth Control

In a prime-time television interview, Barbara Walters asked New Jersey Governor Chris Christie if his excess weight did not disqualify him for higher office. While her motivation for this question may stem from a desire to see no Republican in any office ever, she couched her language in pure-hearted concern for the governor's welfare:

WALTERS: Okay, governor, I feel very uncomfortable asking this question when I'm sitting opposite you, but you are a little overweight.
CHRISTIE: More than a little.

WALTERS: Why?

CHRISTIE: If I could figure that out, I'd fix it.

WALTERS: There are people who say you couldn't be president because you're so heavy.

Those "people" are undoubtedly Democrats, still furious with Christie over his lambasting and political manhandling of the public employees unions in his state. Despite Christie's post-Sandy approval ratings and pop culture persona, diehard liberals do not let go of grudges easily. It would certainly not be the first time that vexed opponents resorted to fat jokes to cut their political leaders - excuse the expression - down to size.

President Grover Cleveland is best known as the only chief executive to serve two non-consecutive terms. Serving as the 22nd president from 1885 to 1889, and later as the 24th from 1893 to 1897, Cleveland made a big splash when he arrived in Washington for his first inauguration. One Wisconsin congressman observed:

Cleveland's coarse face, his heavy inert body, his great shapeless hands, confirmed in my mind the attacks made upon him during the campaign. (from Grover Cleveland by Henry F. Graff)

Hovering near 300 pounds at a mere 5 foot 11 inches, Cleveland contrasted poorly against his handsome predecessor, President Chester Arthur. Yet the capital - and the country - was soon to learn of the new president's boundless stamina. The historian Henry Graff labels Cleveland a "workaholic", conducting business until well after midnight while still arising at six each morning. Lack of physical exercise showed on his body, but it barely lessened his capacity for work or the sharpness of his mind. He left the United States a legacy of sound currency, anti-interventionism and constitutional fidelity: three virtues held in contempt by the current, skinny occupant of the White House. Maintaining such strengths did not come without a price. Populist pressure to dilute the gold standard and ease credit standards set Cleveland at odds with his own party. Running for the U.S. Senate in 1894, South Carolina Governor Ben Tillman excoriated his fellow Democrat:

... when Judas betrayed Christ, his heart was not blacker than this scoundrel Cleveland, in deceiving the Democracy. He is an old bag of beef and I am going to Washington with a pitchfork and prod him in his fat ribs. (from Grover Cleveland: A Study in Character by Alyn Brodsky)

Ironically, these same partisans accused President Cleveland - one of the most libertarian-minded since the founders - of despotism, relying only on "brains, belly, and brass."

Looming even larger among presidential silhouettes is that of William Howard Taft. President Taft still reigns as the most obese Commander-in-Chief in American history. Between 335 and 350 pounds, he was by all accounts an unhappy chief executive, and that despondence may well have contributed to his inability to shed pounds. Unlike Cleveland, Taft willingly engaged in physical recreation like tennis, golf and even weightlifting. Though some have later suspected the napping president to have suffered from sleep apnea, he was still the most widely (no pun intended) -traveled president up to that time. More importantly, though he was a poor political practitioner, he was a very wise statesman. Moderate in philosophy, he has historically appeared a stodgy conservative, sandwiched as he was between two narcissistic, self-promoting progressives: Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

President Taft served as a restraining influence on the passions of the times. He valiantly opposed literacy tests for new immigrants, arguing that many came to America to receive education that was lacking in their home countries. Furthermore, he scrupulously enforced merit in the civil service. These are not sexy issues in today's shallow reporting, but maybe they should be. Beyond that, Taft broke up trusts and promoted conservation with all of Roosevelt's zeal, if none of the ex-president's exhibitionism. Because he lacked TR's salesmanship and penchant for the limelight, Taft was unable to garner the personal popularity that would have given him the political heft to match his physical heft. His third-place finish in the 1912 election was humiliating for an incumbent, though liberating for William Howard Taft, who would go on to serve for a decade as Chief Justice of the United States.

As with Cleveland, the fat jokes usually came from slow-witted enemies. Congressman James Watson recounted a legendary encounter between the president and New York senator Chauncey Depew:

Mr. Depew stepped up to Taft... and taking liberties that I never would have thought of taking with a president, said to him, putting his hand on Mr. Taft's big frontal development: "What are you going to name it when it comes, Mr. President?" It was just about that time that Taft was beginning to have some difficulty with Roosevelt, and he quickly responded: "Well, if it's a boy, I'll call it William; if it's a girl, I'll call it Theodora; but if it turns out to be just wind, I'll call it Chauncey." (from William Howard Taft: An Intimate History by Judith Icke Anderson)

In the end, the physical proportions of our two most corpulent chiefs were, while both amusing and annoying, not debilitating. Of course, we know today of the myriad health problems associated with obesity: high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Yet both these men lived to ripe old ages, with Cleveland fathering five children in his 50s. Is it not better to call for total transparency when it comes to a candidate's health than to assume it is poor because we do not like his or her appearance? John Kennedy was among the most robust presidents in image; in fact, he was among the sickliest. Still, his admirers care little about the cover-up of health problems. Perhaps because he looked so good doing it. Anyway, Ms. Walters - once a serious journalist - now restricts most interviews to the beautiful people of stage and screen. Given her well-sculpted subjects, it should surprise nobody that she finds a competent and hardworking governor unacceptable on the national stage.

To learn more about Cleveland, Taft and their politics, visit my blog at http://williamhowardstatecraft.blogspot.com/.

View the original article here

Gun Control or Better Media? Which Will Really Stop the Violence?

Anyone who's been in touch with recent events in America knows that the school shooting in Connecticut has refocused attention on gun control. But will gun control really curtail gun violence?

THE PROBLEM IS THE ENVIRONMENT?

Certainly, as best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell points out in Tipping Point we are shaped by our environment. In a no-gun environment, gun violence would drop to zero. But no one seems interested in making America a no-gun environment. Gun control, yes. Gun elimination, no. We want our police and our military to have guns. Politicians, Hollywood stars, and high-level businesspeople want their bodyguards armed. As a people we don't seem terribly concerned about allowing people to hunt or to shoot guns recreationally. What we want is to curtail gun violence. So the question is: how is that possible in an environment where both legal and illegal firearms exist?

THE PROBLEM IS MOTIVATION

In his landmark TED talk Tony Robbins says, "If I pull a gun on you and I'm in the hood, instantly I'm significant from zero to ten how high? Ten!" Tony claims that everything we do is motivated by our six human needs. Particularly violence is motivated by our need for significance, that is our need for attention, or our need to feel unique, special, different. Looked at from this angle, people will turn away from violence when we take away its significance.

STORIES MOTIVATE

Going back to Tipping Point, Gladwell analyzes the meteoric rise in suicide attempts by teenage boys in Micronesia after a highly publicized 1966 suicide by the "charismatic scion of one of the wealthiest families" of Ebeye. That story motivated other boys whose publicity motivated others in a vicious cycle that has caused the suicide rate among young males in Micronesia to hit one out of every thousand, and on some islands, one in forty. Many of these suicides seem to be triggered by banal disagreements with older family members and do not fit the traditional "cries for help" model. Still, each one is highly publicized, giving permission and even encouragement to the next.

MORE LAWS OR BETTER MEDIA?

Now of course, Micronesia could outlaw rope, wire, belts, and anything else these men might try to hang themselves with, but wouldn't it make more sense to take away part of the reason they're committing suicide? What if the Micronesian media refused to report on suicides the way TV stations now refuse to show stadium streakers at baseball games? By taking away suicide's significance, you could take away a major motivational factor. And what about gun violence?

SHOOTER VS. HERO

By now everyone knows the name of Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter. How many instead know the name of Victoria Soto? She's the 27-year old Newtown teacher who lost her life while saving a whole classroom full of first graders by hiding them in the classroom and telling the gunman they were in the gym. What, she didn't make your local newscast? What if the mass media agreed to a total media blackout about the shooters and focused on the heroes? What would that give us permission and encouragement to do?

Now I'm not saying we don't need intelligent gun laws. We do. I'm suggesting that violence could be greatly curtailed by a media blackout like they already use for streakers at sporting events. Cut away from the action, give a brief commentary, and then focus on the heroes everyone wants to see. Couldn't that spark a social revolution of heroic generosity?

Fr. Scott Kallal is one of the founding members of the Apostles of the Interior Life, a new community dedicated to answering Pope Benedict's call to raise up "a new generation of apostles rooted in Christ's word, able to respond to the challenges of our time, and ready to spread the Gospel far and wide." You can contact Fr. Scott at scottkallal@gmail.com

View the original article here

Mass Murderers Don't Suffer Anguish Over Disobeying Gun Control Laws

Every school and non-school mass shooting in the United States over the past decade has taken place in one of the states in the upper half of the country by strictness of gun control laws, as measured by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The sole exception was the targeted political assassination attempt of Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona in 2011.

Even in mass shootings that unfolded in states near the middle of the ranking-e.g., Colorado-the massacres took place in locations where guns were banned. In Aurora, Colorado, the shooting was carried out at a Century 16 cinema, whose parent company's policy prevents firearms on its premises.

As gun control expert John Lott has pointed out, virtually every mass shooting in U.S. history has been carried out against unarmed civilians, whether in gun-free schools, on gun-free college campuses, or in gun-free government buildings. There are no mass killings at shooting ranges, hunting parties, or policeman's balls.

Everyday citizens generally observe gun control laws, but mass killers-who usually turn themselves in or kill themselves after the shootings-don't flinch over violating firearm possession rules. Mass murderers tend not to suffer moral anguish over disobeying gun control laws.

Many shootings, such as the assault at Virginia Tech in 2007 or the Binghamton immigration center in 2009, could have been halted in progress, had one of the victims been carrying a firearm. This hypothetical doesn't apply in the Sandy Hook, Connecticut elementary school shooting last Friday-at least for the schoolchildren-but the impact of most shootings could have been mitigated by the presence of an armed victim.

Liberals keep insisting, every time there's a mass shooting, "It's time to have a debate about gun control." Well, we've had that debate, many times, and the left always fails to make the case that the citizenry are safer as sitting ducks. Even the Supreme Court has finally come around to acknowledging the Second Amendment.

Liberals also mistakenly believe that correlation is causation, such that the simultaneous presence of relatively lax gun laws and high crime rates means the former cause the latter. As John Lott has also shown, there are wide variations in cultural norms, social histories, and violence rates across states, regions, and countries that have nothing to do with gun ownership. What's most relevant is what happens when stricter or looser gun control measures are introduced into a jurisdiction, and how this change affects crime rates. The evidence from Lott's research is incontrovertible: Passing concealed carry weapons laws reduces crime, and passing restrictions on gun ownership and use increases it.

So liberals typically get the gun control issue wrong. But lately a number of conservatives have been getting it wrong, too.

The liberal fallacy occurs when a conservative argues, "This intrusive, unconstitutional policy you're pushing has no demonstrable effect on, and arguably exacerbates, the problem you're trying to eradicate"-to which the liberal invariably replies, "Let's have more of it!"

The conservative mistake is more insidious. The liberal version can be torn apart as the non sequitur it is, but the conservative version seeks to shut off debate.

The conservative fallacy is: "We're better than exploitative liberals who politicize these tragedies and push for gun control. Let's not discuss what caused this tragedy and how to prevent it; let's spend our time praying and crying for the victims."

After mass shootings, liberals shout, "More gun control!" and conservatives cry, "Don't support solutions that could prevent shootings in the future!"

Conservative self-restraint includes disallowing talk about how lives could be saved if victims were armed, and how defending your loved ones isn't just a political stance but a moral issue.

Of course we should have a moment of silence for the victims, send our condolences to their families, and consider the human impact of the tragedy. But can't we spend five minutes talking about how we can arm ourselves-physically or otherwise-against such madness next time?

The mainstream media will accuse conservatives of being cold-hearted if we cite data supporting our claims and don't spend enough time welling up over pictures of crying faces. But if we believe what we say about gun control, shouldn't we pride our ability to abstract from particular cases and not let our emotions get the best of us? Wouldn't the policies we're recommending prevent more of those crying faces?

As one gun control advocate who understands this dynamic notes of the shooting victims, "Their families must be given space to mourn, and that space should be respected. But it does not honour the dead to insist that there must be no room in that space for rational thought and critical appraisal."

Previously published in modified form at Red Alert Politics

View the original article here

Haven't We Had Enough School Killings? Gun Control Has Failed - Another Look at Alternatives

1. When a terrified person facing harm calls 911, the officer arrives after the crime 95% of the time.

Solution: The average response time of someone who has a gun is seconds. Why rob them of their right to defend themselves?

2. Politicians make laws, and it seems to them that if guns are used to commit crimes, taking away guns is logical. The more that government fails to control crime, the more the politicians restrict our rights.

Solution: Let them remember the Constitution that they swore to uphold. By contrast, Mao Tse Tung said it well, "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."

3. There are hidden forces pushing us toward Novus Ordo Seclorum (words on our $1 bill proving this is not a conspiracy theory) but the changes go against our Constitution so those powers are working through the United Nations to coerce US compliance. Gun Control is not about guns; it's about control.

Solution: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government. The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;... " Thomas Jefferson

4. Christians seem to think it is their duty to "turn the other cheek" and let a killer shoot them. This is contrary to biblical teaching and the words of Christ on his last night: "he that has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." Luke 22:36. The Jewish translation of the sixth Commandment (and they should know) is, "Thou shalt not commit murder." Self defense is okay!

Isn't it about time we tried something different? What better target for cowards than a gun-free zone? Why not require teachers to take Continuing Education in handling a gun? They do for everything else.

Newtown CT is a perfect example of how gun control isn't working. All the gun control laws were in place and the shooter didn't even own a gun. Leaders can shed tears and call for gun control, but if guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.

In Switzerland, the government gives every adult a gun and trains them to use it. They have the lowest crime rate of any civilized country.

After Pearl Harbor, the primary deterrent to the Japanese landing on our west coast was the belief that they would be facing American civilians with guns.

Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." Walter Mondale "

The nation's murder rate is near a 40 year low and the number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high and rising by about 4.5 million annually. "Right-to-Carry states had lower violent crime rates on the average than the rest of the country. Total violent crime in Right-to-Carry States was 24% lower; murder 28% lower; robbery 50% lower and aggravated assault 11% lower. The cities with the highest murder rates were cities with severe gun control." FBI Crime Report. 2007 FBI Crime Report is Bad News for Anti-Gunners 1/2009.

Not eager to use it, but Dr. Richard Ruhling believes owning a gun is biblical. He invites a look at his website at http://WakeUpAmericaForTheEnd.com/the-book

View the original article here