Home Sweet Home

I grew up in Clay County, in eastern Kentucky, in the foothills of the Appalachian mountains. My ancestors have lived in those hills for more than 200 years, since William Cornett was given a land grant in what was then western Virginia. The land grant was a reward for William's service in the Revolutionary War. Kentucky still has more Cornett citizens than any other state in the US, although Cornetts are more spread out now than in the 1800s.

My upbringing was solidly middle class. Both of my parents were educators before they retired, and all four of my grandparents had college degrees and decent jobs. My childhood home is a traditional brick ranch out in the country, halfway up one of the low hills that cluster closely in that part of Kentucky. My parents still live there. We went to church weekly, ate supper together most nights, and had regular extended family gatherings. It was a good way to grow up.

The context, however, was somewhat different than average. Eastern Kentucky has always struggled economically, and when small farms went by the wayside there was little to take their place. FDR's New Deal swooped in to the rescue, followed by LBJ's efforts to lift up the poor by giving them more for free. The result is that many - perhaps even half or more - of the county's residents receive some kind of federal aid. The local term is "draw". That leads to conversations like this: "So what are you doing these days?" "Well, I draw." Lawyers build their entire practices on squeezing more government assistance from Washington. A scourge of idle hands, ignorant minds and stunted lives eats away any hope for a better future. Moonshine stills gave way to marijuana patches until hunters are afraid to go into certain parts of the county. Many young people who have the opportunity move away to pursue careers where opportunities and salaries are greater. Many others who stay in the county bury themselves deeply in meth and booze and, eventually, the red clay earth. And when your father's father's father's father began the unending cycle of "drawing" as the family's main source of income, what do you know of the path to a different life?

The South, especially in the Appalachian regions, is known for violence. Research has shown that the South is the only region of the country that predicts violence; in simple terms, that means that a person from the South is more likely to commit violence than people from other parts of the country. Some theories say the violence is a legacy from the rough Irish and Scottish immigrants who came to the US and brought their independent, clannish ways with them. Some theories say it is a holdover from the high feelings raised during the Civil War, where many families and communities were divided. Others say it's just isolation and ignorance stewing together until they formed a toxic environment.

For whatever reason, the Clay County of my childhood and family history was a violent one. In the 1970s one of my dad's first cousins was murdered. In the late 1930s my maternal grandfather was involved in a genuine shootout in the county seat's downtown; his brother was killed, as were three other men. One of my sister's college roommates lost four members of her family - brother, pregnant sister in law, and parents - to murderous ambushes by another local family. The brother had testified against a member of the family who then killed him and his family. A woman I knew - she occasionally attended church with us - shot her husband to death when she found he was cheating on her. For a while, after I moved away, I would ask my mom each time I called if someone else had been killed. The answer was often yes. Once two bodies were found stuffed in the trunk of an abandoned car a couple of miles from their house. It turned out to be a drug deal gone bad. Those are only a few examples.

The violence around me didn't touch me, for the most part, but it did cause me as an adult to think about why I had more contact with this kind of violence than most middle class Americans. I decided it was because in a county as small and rural as Clay County, with many families having been there for generations, there weren't the kinds of social divisions that many communities have. After a while, nearly everyone is related to nearly everyone else, and those you aren't related to you know - and your dad knew their dad. Anyone lost to violence or drugs wasn't a John Doe in a neighborhood I'd never driven through; it was Tom's aunt's brother-in-law's boy. The famed Six Degrees of Separation is rarely more than two degrees in Clay County.

When you come from that environment, government policies that are essentially social engineering are not theoretical concepts. They are often cause for the effect you see around you. So what is the effect of generations of supporting people in subsistence lives rather than helping them learn responsibility and ways to improve those lives? Lack of education. Rampant drug use. Lives with great potential leached out by well-meaning promises and programs that remove the incentives to achieve as individuals and communities. Ignorance is not stupidity. Inertia is not absence of the ability to act. People from eastern Kentucky have proven they have the capability to excel in every context. What many don't have is the ability to get out from under the government's well-meaning thumb.

And here is a graphic representation of that effect. Clay County, my childhood and ancestral home, has the fourth lowest median income of any county in the US. It has the 18th lowest per capita income among US counties. And it has the lowest per capita income of any county in the US with a non-Hispanic white majority.

One thing that confirms, for anyone with lingering doubts, is that race and ethnicity have nothing to do intrinsically with low income, low achievement, drug use or violence. Clay County is historically a very homogeneous community; in 2000, there were only about 1200 blacks in a population of 24,000, and fewer than 100 Asians. I can pretty much assure you that the Asians are doctors of Indian descent working in the local hospital and clinics. So the effects you see are driven by behavior in the white population there.

It is telling that the poorest communities in our nation are those that the government has "helped" the most. The fact that the fourth poorest county in the nation is nearly all white people is also quite telling. What does Clay County have in common with an Indian reservation or an inner city black community? Intense government nanny-ism. What does Clay County have in common with the most affluent counties in the nation? A majority white population. What has being white caused? Nothing of apparent benefit. What has being nannied caused? Destruction.

As we enter into a new era of Democrat leadership in Washington DC - in the White House and in both houses of Congress - it's important to consider the legacy of big government and federal nannyism in our nation. It has not been a good thing, on balance. And having grown up in Clay County, KY; worked in Jersey City, NJ; and living now outside Birmingham, AL while working for a social service agency, I think I have a good sense of its effects.

----------

The only irony in the mix: I now live in Shelby County, Alabama, 87th on the list of top income counties nationwide. In my defense, I live in the southern portion where we're still more country mouse than city mouse, with commensurate pay.

Also, although I shouldn't have to say this, I want to point out that not everyone in Clay County draws, and some who draw have genuine need that would warrant help in any context. Many current Clay County citizens are competent, educated and hard working. Many are competent and hard working although not well educated. There are wonderful things about the county and its people, and I was blessed to grow up there. I'm proud of my county and my state, for many good reasons. That doesn't cloud my understanding that there is much that needs fixing, and a major cause of the damage that needs fixing is government nannyism.

UPDATE: The essay above discusses how liberal government policies pushes people down and holds them there. This post indicates that once they've got you there, they'll slap you around for anything they don't like about your behavior.

Say on, brother, say on

You really really really need to watch this. And send the link to everyone you know.

Part of the reason is because it's a black man who is a conservative and a follower of Christ who is speaking out against Obama with eloquence.

But the main reason is because he makes the clearest case in the shortest amount of time in the most entertaining way about why Obama is a horrible choice for everyone in this country.

And he makes a good case for voting for John McCain even if you think his conservatism is at best suspect. He actually mentions Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

I love this guy. He and his buddies are going on my link list. When I get around to editing HTML.

Nobama from a Christian perspective

During the 2000 election, I asked a friend of mine at church who she was voting for. She said "Al Gore". I was shocked. She is a godly woman, faithful in her attendance but also in her life in general. She and her husband are the equivalent of a load-bearing wall for that congregation. Although we didn't discuss details I'm quite confident she holds the same views on moral issues as other conservative Christians. I asked her why she was voting for Al Gore. Her answer?

"I think he would be better for us black folks."

I didn't challenge her on her choice, because I got the distinct impression she was uncomfortable discussing it. But it has bothered me since then. Why would any Christian make a political decision on any basis other than the extent to which the candidate's moral and policy positions are in line with God's Word?

Today I received a copy of an email written by Huntley Brown, a concert musician who wrote the email in response to friends who asked him to vote for Obama. I checked the story on Snopes.com, as I always do for forwarded emails, and found that he had added comments there. He did not mean for his email to be sent out generally, and he's gotten a lot of flack for it. I'm sorry for that, but not surprised, because his attitude flies in the face of liberal identity politics. His message, in short: He votes for a candidate based on Christian principles, not because of the candidate's race.

I encourage you to read both the original email and his further comments.

Then ask yourself whether you make choices based on God's principles for us, or on earthly aspects of your physical self and context. In God's kingdom there is neither Jew nor Greek, rich or poor, black or white, Ethnicity 1 or Ethnicity 2.

As a side note, I'm not saying that in this election John McCain is a sterling example of a perfect candidate. He's not. The Republicans continue to slide away from Christian values in the party's platform. And in areas where the principles are not specifically addressed by God, the Republicans continue to shift toward more spending and more government, neither of which are politically conservative values. I'm disgusted with them. But the Democrats have put forward a candidate whose liberal and socialist creditentials are terrifying, and the Obama/Democrat platform is in many instances starkly unChristian. We need to reshape the Republican party. I just hope we don't have to do it in the very hostile environment a Dem presidency will foster, rather than the conparatively more open environment McCain would allow.

It's not about race - Part II

I still think there is a solid chance that McCain will win. In fact, if I had to lay money on it, I'd take McCain. How much of that is wishful thinking? I don't know. But I don't think even most of it is.

However, there is also a good possibility that Obama will win. He's got a lot of people buffaloed. I think an Obama presidency would be a very bad thing for this country. I think he thinks he's a lot smarter than he is, which is always dangerous. Deeply arrogant people who also think more highly of their skills than evidence warrants* generally make big mistakes. And Obama as President Obama will be on greased skids to a downfall. For our sake, I hope it isn't irreparable.

The purpose of this post, though, is to make this point: Regardless of how Obama does, if he's elected, his success or failure won't be because he's black. Yes, his race informs his views. But race is not a pivotal or causal factor in a person's capabilities, temperment and ego.

I'm concerned that if Obama becomes president and makes a mess of it, as I think he would, it would sour the electorate on black candidates for a while. That would be a shame. There are a lot of men and women who are black, Hispanic, etc., who would be - and are - wonderful leaders for our country. In fact, I think that judging Obama on his race rather than his behaviors, leadership (or lack thereof) and political philosophies (the real ones, not the win-this-election ones) is what got us in to this position.

Race needs to come off the table. It just isn't important as a selection criteria. We're moving ever closer to a time when that will be accepted practice, and I hope it's fully realized soon. In the meantime, I hope that Obama's presidency, if it occurs, doesn't do more harm than good.

* Some people are deeply arrogant but also extremely competent. Surgeons, concert pianists and Olympic-level athletes come to mind. Their confidence is part of what allows them to do very difficult tasks with great success. I think Obama has the arrogance without the competence.

She's got legs!

A photographer crept behind Sarah Palin at a rally yesterday and took a photo of the audience. The photo shows Palin's legs from just below the knees down, and as much of the audience as you can see around and between her legs. It doesn't look particularly startling to me; if Fox News hadn't asked if it were sexist, I wouldn't have thought about it. I might have wondered if the guy in the front row was trying to look up her skirt.

Fox News asks if the photographer would take this photo of Joe Biden - the implication being: No, because he's a man. As a former news photographer myself, I would say: No, because men wear slacks and you can't get a cool silhouette around them. You probably wouldn't be able to see the audience at all. So the question falls flat on process.

The better question is: Would the photographer take the same photo of Hillary Clinton? As far as I know, none did when she was running. But she always wore slacks. Same problem as with men - no useful angle to use. Let's suppose, though, that Clinton did wear a skirt at some point. Would a photo be taken in a similar pose? I think so, if the photographer had the shot. Would the media use it?

Ahhhh.... there's the question. I think they wouldn't. Not because they thought it sexist. Not because they didn't want to portray Hillary in this feminine way.

They wouldn't because Hillary has thick ankles.

This is about a fun angle and a nice asthetic, people! And I have no problem with it at all.