Browse Category

Great Debate

“When knights surrender their swords, beasts shall devour maidens” – Paul Bois

By Lawrence J. Fedewa, Wednesday, December 13, 2017
This is the title of a piece by Paul Bois in the Daily Wire (October 17, 2017), the controversial Ben Shapiro’s conservative blog. This striking title raises yet another aspect of this month’s emotional outcry concerning the sexual ab of women. That is the question, “Where are the men who know about these abuses and do nothing?” Bois follows a different track, but my interest is – why don’t the men who know about this behavior defend these women? I attribute their silence simply to cowardice, whatever the source.
However, the issue is so much more complex. The basic reason a man doesn’t challenge a sexual predator who is in a position of power – perhaps his boss – is the same reason the women submit, namely self-preservation. If she refuses to submit, or files a complaint afterwards, she risks retribution from the abuser, non-support from whatever authorities she might inform, a possibly permanent reputation as a “trouble-maker” or worse, and the consequent ruin of her career. The same risks face a man who tries to stop the predator. That knight frequently surrenders his sword when he accepts a dependent position on the predator. Not always. Some guys remain stubbornly independent no matter their position. But they, like the women they are supporting, also frequently pay the price.
The underlying issue here is the belief prevalent in certain sectors of our society that aggressive behavior toward women is a sign of masculinity, often accompanied by the idea that women secretly love this treatment and that their protests are simply required by social norms.  Complicating the matter is the fact that some women really do want to be treated this way.
This brings up the issue female behavior. The modern American woman may be sexually aggressive herself, under the belief that any dependency on men is a limitation on her self-reliance. It seems a safe bet that there will soon be cases making news of men being sexually harassed by powerful women. We may soon see gender equality in this area as well as others.
Another aspect of this situation is the fashions in women’s dress. I don’t believe I have ever heard a woman admit that women dress for men. Always they steadfastly maintain that women dress for women. It is hard to believe that women long to see each other in near-naked swim suits, skin tight pants, low cut shirts, and other styles which leave little to the imagination. No matter the real answer to that question, however, men are all around these scantily clad women. So, whatever the women’s motivation, these styles give men the impression that women who dress in this way do so to attract attention to their bodies, and the people most interested in their bodies are men. This “sex appeal” really does stimulate appeal to the opposite sex. In certain industries, such as, entertainment and sports, men are expected to live in an atmosphere of constant stimulation while pretending not to notice.
Then there is the issue of conviction by the press. It appears that, if a woman has any reason to make trouble for any man, all she has to do is come up with a convincing story, hire Gloria Allred who will arrange a TV interview, and within days the accused male will be called upon to resign post haste. No presumption of innocence, no depositions, no trial, no defense, no judge, no jury.  Just go! The job of discovering evidence, assessing credibility, placing blame – all now goes to the press.
Clearly, this way of handling these accusations is neither fair nor ethical. But what is the proper way these accusations should be handled? While individual cases may differ, there are some basic guidelines any policy decisions should follow:
  1. Any institutional policy (including government) should be fair to both parties. The days of assuming that any female complainant is at fault have to be over. Women (and men, for that matter) should be reassured that their complaint will be accepted with respect and given a fair hearing. The complainant is the victim not the perpetrator.
  2.  The punishment for such behavior should fit the offense. The press is equating misdemeanors the same as felonies.  Not all unacceptable actions are equal. The woman who recently filed a complaint against a man who told her she was beautiful is not talking about rape.
  3. Victims should be encouraged to speak to their friends about the event, and to report to authorities as soon as feasible. The informed friend(s) should be encouraged to accompany the victim.
  4. There must be procedures in every venue to deal properly with all such occurrences. Many are not criminal offences, and these should not be made public until some official action by the company, office, church, club, or whatever group is responsible for the principals has been taken to determine the facts. The press should be responsible only for reporting the news, not for adjudicating the news.
  5. Finally, laws and procedures must be devised to deal quickly with these complaints. Time is not the friend of the victim or the accused.
These considerations are, in my opinion, applicable to the Franken and Conyers cases as much as to anyone else. The fact that they both resigned without seeking due process can only be interpreted as admission of guilt. The same reasoning applies to the other cases which seem to be appearing on a daily basis. Trial by the press is never an acceptable procedure.
 Although sexual abuse has been happening forever, now is our time to face up to it and, as a society, come up with appropriate solutions. Sexual abuse of women joins a growing list of painful sins which have haunted our generation, including the Catholic priest scandal, the military treatment of females, the human trafficking crimes, and the abortion tragedies. These and other gender-related practices have surfaced in this new world of ours and it is up to us to create the social norms and procedures to pass on a more moral society than we inherited.
© Richfield Press, 2017

 

Free Market Healthcare?

Hi Everybody,

As long as the future of Obamacare is still undecided, we still have time to discuss alternatives. The debate thus far appears to center on how much government subsidies should be included in the final package. Today we look again at how much government involvement is necessary (rather than how much can we afford) to achieve our national goals. With a $20 trillion national debt, a “government lite” approach seems to be in order.

So, let’s look again at what a truly free market healthcare system might really look like — without the hang-ups of past assumptions.

(This column is edited from a version originally published on January 6, 2017. Unfortunately, we haven’t progressed very far since then. )

As always, comments welcome. Thank you for your support.

Larry Fedewa

____________________________________________________________________

What a free-market health care system could look like

By Lawrence J. Fedewa – – Friday, January 6, 2017

As long as we are repealing and replacing Obamacare, the starting point should be setting our goals. American health care should be:

1, High quality, state-of-the-art
2. Available to all — which means
• Affordable
• Abundant
• Well-funded

What are the principal obstacles to these goals?

a. The first and most obvious obstacle is the shortage of medical personnel. This shortage has two facets: not enough medical professionals are produced in the first place, and of those who do enter practice too many drop out before their time. There are whole areas of inner cities and rural America, for example, which have no physicians at all. Why? Because our medical schools do not graduate enough doctors to serve the population of the United States. Why not? Lack of intelligent students? Lack of students who are motivated to give their lives in service to their fellow man? Not at all.

The reason is lack of money

Keep Reading

President pulls right, Pope Francis pulls left

 

FILE – In this May 24, 2017, file photo. U.S. President Donald Trump stands with Pope Francis during a meeting at the Vatican. Some evangelical supporters of Trump are seeking a meeting with Pope Francis over a recent critical article

Is Pope Francis I attacking American Christians? Steve Bannon targeted with ‘apocalyptic geopolitics’

By Lawrence Fedewa – – Friday, August 11, 2017

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

A controversial article in La Civiltà Cattolica, a Vatican-approved publication, by editor-in-chief Jesuit Fr. Antonio Spadaro and Marcelo Figueroa, an Argentine Presbyterian pastor who leads his country’s edition of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, has attacked the American Christians who supported Donald Trump for the American presidency.

Singled out for special opposition are the so-called “conservative” Catholics and the evangelical Christians and their alleged representative in the White House, Steve Bannon. Mr. Bannon is accused of advocating an “apocalyptic geopolitics.”

Taken by itself, the article is long, confusing, wildly inaccurate in its interpretation of American Christianity, and an unremarkable critique by uninformed foreigners of a “straw man,” that is, an opponent created by the authors for the purpose of attacking it (not unlike the “fake news” of America’s media stories).

What gives the article importance is the presumed association with Pope Francis I. Although the Pope has not commented publicly on the article, the publication is published by the Jesuits, the Pope’s religious order, sponsored by the Vatican, and the authors are well-known associates of the Pope. At several points in the text, Pope Francis’ positions are cited as differing from those of the supposed opposition. This context strongly suggests that this article speaks for the Pope. If so, it speaks poorly for the Pope.

In summary, the essence of the piece seems to be that conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants have formed a political alliance in the United States to create a theocracy, based on an Old Testament-oriented, fundamentalist ideology, which seeks to establish the literal interpretation of the Bible as the basis of American law. Adherents to this view are called “value voters.” As their means of promoting this view, they are full of “gloom and doom” scenarios about threats to the “American way of life.” The need for drastic changes is therefore urgent. It is not surprising that the authors liken this movement to the jihad of radical Islam. To top off their point of view, they describe the vehicle for this domination of American life as the Trump administration.

They contrast this terrifying threat of apocalypse with traditional Catholic (and biblical) belief that the Kingdom of God is not of this world. Here they are a little ambiguous (to say the least) because the Bible clearly sequences the Last Judgement as part of the apocalypse. Nevertheless, the authors accuse their opponents of seeking a “heaven on earth” which can only be achieved by winning the “war of religions.” The true Christian message is to treat everyone with love as preached by Pope Francis, “Love not war!” How all this ties together is not made clear by the authors..

What to make of all this?

Keep Reading

The Death of Democracy and “We the People”

By Colonel George Seiler, USAF (ret.), Ph.D., (Thursday, August 10, 2017)

We have elections to let the people, the US citizens, voice their opinion in the form of a vote.  For many years I have professed that we overthrow the current government with ballots, and not bullets.  The US was one of the few countries where the loser did not have to get out of town.  The loser could even still display the bumper sticker of his losing candidate, and not worry about his windows getting shattered, or his car burned and vandalized.  It was OK to express your opinion, and after the election, the two parties blended together to make America flourish, make a better life for the kids and grandkids, expand the family living quarters, save up for a new car, or college. Become a journeyman at a trade, like electrician, HVAC, auto maintenance, new buildings, new roads and bridges. Politics was at least 2 years away, and the Presidential election was 4 years away.

In the interim, people respected the office of the President.  It was taught in our schools to do so.  We rallied for or against policy, legislation bills, changes in treaties, new treaties, American involvement on the world front to keep us safe.

But in 2016/2017 something appalling happened.  Keep Reading

Will there ever again be peace in this valley?

By Lawrence J. Fedewa – Wednesday, June 26, 2017

This country is in the most disruptive turmoil since the end of the Vietnam War. The most visible antagonists seem to be the President on one side and the media on the other. By “media”, I mean everyone from news organizations to comedians, to movies, to the theater. Everyone who has access to any form of media seems to have a grudge against the President. On the other hand, his so-called “counter-punching” especially through his tweets, adds fuel to the fire with nearly every tweet. (Fighting for the national soul by “tweeting” should at the least tweak our sense of humor.)

So, why not? At least more than the usual suspects are passionately involved in political dialog. A whole new population is suddenly watching every step the media will let them see.  A side effect of this newfound political passion, however, is the abandonment not only of objectivity, but even of common sense. At the extremes, we have attempted assassinations, riots and domestic terrorism.  Less dangerous perhaps, but nearly as disturbing is the utter contempt many on both sides hold for the other. This is not the America we want to live in.

What has happened to us? How did we come to this sorry state?  What we have at this moment in American history is a clash of cultures, a true culture war. It did not happen overnight. This “war” has been brewing for a long time. What is different about today is its eruption into the open, into everyday life and discourse.

Keep Reading

Is war with China inevitable?

In this April 6, 2017 file photo, Chinese President Xi Jinping, left, smiles at U.S. President Donald Trump as they pose together with their wives for photographers before dinner at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

By Lawrence J. Fedewa – – Monday, May 29, 2017

Half of China’s public believes that military conflict between China and the United States will occur within the next 10 years. This is one finding of the 2017 U.S. China Public Perceptions Opinion Survey, (the “Survey”) published by the Committee of 100 (C100) during its annual conference, held last week in Washington D.C.

The C100 is a national organization of prominent Chinese Americans, founded in 1990 by superstars I. M. Pei (architect) and Yo Yo Ma (musician) “to promote the participation of Chinese Americans in all fields of American life and encourage constructive relationships between the people of the United States of America and Greater China”.

The Survey is a veritable treasure chest of information about American and Chinese public perceptions on a host of major issues – and the C100 brought it to the attention of Members of Congress and high-level staff at the State Department and the White House last week. The findings are based on face-to-face interviews with 3,696 Chinese respondents and telephone interviews with 1,018 Americans, using the most advanced methods of survey science and techniques. This report reflects also my face-to-face interview with Mr. Charlie Woo, who led the Survey effort. Mr. Woo’s day job is co-founder and CEO of Megatoys, Inc. in addition to his prominence in many civic and community causes in his hometown of Los Angeles and nationally. Keep Reading

Grand Jury for Leakers?

 

Hi Everybody,

 

Today’s worry is about a topic which is critical but slipping under the rug again — namely, our cyber security leaks like a sieve, and all anyone does is rail at the leakers.  Who is responsible for all these leaks? Who is supposed to be plugging the holes?

 

There are also some new items on the website: especially Chapter Two of Inside: The Early Years — more stories of a growing boy in another time. Inside — more stories of a boy in a different time

 

As always, comments welcome. Thank you for your support.

 

Larry Fedewa

 

View our profile on LinkedIn  Follow us on Twitter

Atty. Gen. Sessions should empanel grand jury to probe intelligence leaks

From Snowden to WikiLeaks to Clinton to Russians, the sieve is troublesome
By Lawrence J. Fedewa – – Monday, April 17, 2017
ANALYSIS/OPINION
An extraordinary scenario is taking place right out in the open, and we all seem to be missing it. The subject is the utterly incompetent protection our “intelligence community” (as they like to be called) is providing for the nation’s most precious secrets.
It was bad enough when a young contractor named Edward Snowden could steal millions of classified records pertaining to the plans, strategies, surveillance, identities, and reports of all types and pass these files to WikiLeaks founder, Swedish gadfly Julian Assange, who promptly disclosed the whole lot to the entire world (2013).
But this adventure foreshadowed the popular response to all the subsequent WikiLeaks. What happened were cries of righteous indignation – against whom? Against the keepers of these secret files, who allowed this to happen? Not at all. The outrage was against the little leaker, Mr. Snowden. The outrage was so intense and so universal that Mr. Snowden was forced into exile.
But surely, the primary sin was the work (or lack thereof) performed by our esteemed “intelligence community,” whose responsibility it is to guard the nation’s secrets against all comers. But they couldn’t even stop a young contractor.
The next big leak was at the hands of another young American, a transgender Army corporal named variously Bradley or Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, who perpetrated the largest public disclosures of military secrets in the history of the United States (2014). So, who went to jail? Manning.
What about those senior officials up and down the line of command whose incompetence allowed such a thing to happen? Not one was ever even accused, let alone indicted, of treason or even dereliction of duty. No wonder there have been further violations of our national security.
This time (2017), there is a casual admission by the FBI and the rest of the “intelligence community” that the Russians have systematically hacked into our national security data – although no public evidence has been produced to that effect. All the Washington wonks are assuming that the purpose of this intrusion was to trifle with the American election. Interestingly, that charge seems to assume that WikiLeaks obtained the Podesta emails from the Russians and used it to damage the Hillary Clinton campaign.
In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, this assumption is so much poppycock. In the first place, Mr. Assange himself maintains that the data were obtained from a disgruntled Clinton campaign worker. Secondly, this is not a far-fetched claim, based on the identity and type of little guys who pulled off much greater and more damaging disclosures in the past. Thirdly, the disclosures were true. No one has ever denied the authenticity of the material, damning as it was to Mrs. Clinton herself.
So, this whole house is built upon sand – there is nothing there but the angry musings of a defeated campaign trying desperately to blame someone else for their own failures.
But what about the cyber security which protects the nation’s secrets? Are we being informed that once again, there has been a catastrophic breakdown of that shield? Who is responsible for that?
We know that Barack Obama, in his last days in office, geometrically expanded the number of agencies (from one to 17) and people (unknown hundreds) who were to be given access to raw (unmasked) data. It has also been reported that Mr. Obama authorized continued access of Hillary Clinton and six aides to the same top secret material she had as Secretary of State, presumably right up to the election. This in spite of her obvious disdain for the laws and rules governing such access.
This cavalier attitude toward cyber protection clearly does not bode well for the state of the art. Further, there seems little doubt that the Obama Democrats spied on the Trump transition team. That is a violation of the law and Americans would like to see somebody go to jail this time, someone to keep Manning company.
But no one seems to be talking about these failures of the “intelligence community.” It is time to clean up the flagrant incompetence surrounding cyber protection of our national secrets. Those responsible must be held accountable, and a new team appointed to the task.
The new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, should also empanel a grand jury to investigate the people and the reasons behind this breakdown to determine whether laws have been broken. Obviously, the FBI under the perpetually confused and confusing James Comey can’t handle the job.
If the likes of Snowden and Manning can penetrate our national security, surely the Russians, the Islamic State, North Korea and who knows who else shouldn’t have any trouble.
Copyright © 2017 The Washington Times, LLC

 

Obama’s Legacy & Trump’s Future – Dr. Larry Fedewa

“The Police Academy” is a program for law enforcement personnel, and hosted perhaps the most comprehensive interview I have done to date. Link:
https://www.policeacademypodcast.com/podcast/2017/4/6/obamas-legacy-trumps-future-dr-larry-fedewa
Here is the summary:
In this episode, Dr. Larry discusses everything from American politics, to the retribalization of America, to our founding fathers fighting for American ideals; from the history of Islam and Christianity, to the fight against ISIS today. Buckle up and enjoy the show!