In his dissent in last week's Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision prohibiting states from defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out that every member of the Supreme Court was a graduate of Yale or Harvard law schools. This is, he said, "hardly a cross-section of America" ...Read more here.
Showing posts with label published articles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label published articles. Show all posts
Sunday, July 05, 2015
My op-ed in the Lexington Herald-Leader: "Introducing Our New Ruling Elite"
My newest op-ed in the Lexington Herald-Leader:
Friday, July 03, 2015
"After Democracy": My Ep-Ed in Today's Louisville Courier-Journal
My new op-ed in today's Louisville Courier-Journal:
Okay, boys and girls, today we're going to talk about the time before Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision by the United States Supreme Court in the early 21st century that prohibited states from defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Until the time of this decision (and several others at about the same time), America was what was called a "democratic republic" and the people themselves, through their elected representatives, decided issues of public consequence. You may have read about this in your history books ...Read the rest on the Courier-Journal's site here.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
"Rebels Without a Clue" runs in Lexington Herald Leader
My article "Rebels Without a Clue" was published in Friday's Lexington Herald-Leader.
Friday, October 09, 2009
"Bellydancing Toward Gomorrah in today's Lexington Herald-Leader
My piece, "Bellydancing Toward Gomorrah" appeared in today's Lexington Herald-Leader. Of course, the headline writer (never trust such people) completely blew the headline, putting "Bellydancing to Gomorrah," which completely loses the cultural allusion to Robert Bork's "Slouching Toward Gomorrah," which itself was an allusion to W. B. Yeats expression, "slouching toward Bethlehem," from his "The Second Coming."
But what am I thinking. Journalists should be culturally literate? Oh well, they ran it, and we are happy with small things these days.
But what am I thinking. Journalists should be culturally literate? Oh well, they ran it, and we are happy with small things these days.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
My opinion piece on the unconstitutionality of video slots runs in Herald-Leader
Well, I didn't even notice it until yesterday, but the Lexington Herald-Leader ran my piece on the unconstitutionality of video slot machines at horse tracks last Thursday.
Monday, October 15, 2007
"Notice to Herald-Leader employees" runs in today's Herald-Leader
My "Notice to Lexington Herald-Leader Employees" ran, interestingly enough, in the Lexington Herald-Leader today.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
My "Bad Sports about Sports" article in today's Courier-Journal
My piece on the attempt by public schools to punish private school athletic programs for their success (see my previous post with the full version here) ran in today's Louisville Courier-Journal. Their title is, "Bad Sports about Sports."
Monday, May 28, 2007
Response to Lawrence Krauss runs in today's CJ
My response to the intemperate call to squelch the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky by Case Western Reserve's Lawrence Krauss ran in today's Courier Journal.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Response to Courier-Journal
My response to the Louisville Courier-Journal's recent editorial mischaracterizing The Family Foundation's position on HPV vaccination. It was edited slightly, but nothing major. It can be found here.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Herald-Leader runs Domestic Partner Op-Ed
My article on the University of Kentucky's plan to provide benefits to live-in sexual partners (see full text below) ran in this morning's Lexington Herald-Leader.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Does UK have its priorities straight?
This guest opinion was submitted last week to the Lexington Herald-Leader for publication:
UK President Lee Todd has been pledging for several years now to bring the University of Kentucky to Top 20 status. So far, however, the road has been a rocky one. In the last U.S. News & World Report college rankings, the University of Kentucky landed at 112th—right next to the University of Missouri—Rolla.
But certain people in the university administration have struck upon an idea that could change all that, a plan that is sure to set heads spinning at places like U.S. News & World Report, and one which will put to rest once and for all how serious the University is in its quest to become one of the nation’s premier centers of scholarly excellence.
What is this plan? To give benefits to the live-in sexual partners of its employees.
As the guy in the beer commercials likes to say, “Brilliant!”
Apparently there is a school of thought, which seems to include Todd himself, which thinks this kind of policy will somehow contribute to an increase in the school’s academic stature. And maybe it’s true. Maybe there are people at organizations that rank schools who really think providing benefits to live-in sexual partners somehow results in students learning more.
For all we know, these same people might have been impressed with last week’s lecture in UK’s Memorial Hall on how to bring about female orgasms. But somehow you get the idea that the people who rank schools are looking for something… well, a little more serious.
Supporters of this policy point to the fact that many of the most prestigious universities have domestic partner benefits policies, as if that’s the key to becoming an academically prestigious university. To hear these people tell it, you would think Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and MIT were nothing until they instituted domestic partner benefits programs.
Can simply kowtowing to special interest groups really vault a school into the nation’s college elite? President Todd and his administration apparently think so.
If the University of Kentucky is really intent on becoming more highly regarded as an academic institution, why isn’t it doing something that would really make a difference at UK in regard to the level of learning that actually takes place?
The rankings agencies, for example, can’t possibly be impressed with the fact that the University recently forced many of its departments to increase their class sizes. Here are the sizes for several of this year’s introductory freshman classes: History 108 (American History): 300 students; Philosophy 120 (Logic): 672 students; Biology 103 (Intro Biology): 600 students; Chemistry 108 (Intro Chemistry): 250 students; Biology 102 (Human Ecology): 300 students; Psychology 100: 504 students.
Now there are several things we know without question: First, students don’t learn very well when they are separated from their teachers by large crowds of people—at least not as well as when they are not. We know this. No one disputes it.
Secondly, we know that professors are less inclined to teach at places where they have to face large lecture halls full of the faces of people they can never possibly get to know. Just ask any professor.
One university department had to increase its maximum class size from 32 to over 600. Why? According to the administration, because it doesn’t have the resources to keep classes small.
The University of Kentucky cannot keep class sizes at a reasonable number because it doesn’t have adequate resources, yet it can somehow find a way to take care of the live-in sexual partners of its staff.
Let’s all take a moment and collectively scratch our heads in bewilderment.
Or maybe the University could (brace yourself, here comes a revolutionary idea) increase faculty salaries. UK’s faculty salaries currently languish at 89 percent of the salaries at its benchmark institutions to which it compares itself.
I have this notion—call it crazy if you like—that the people at places like U.S. News and World Report would be far more impressed if the University spent its time and energy on policies that actually helped students than with whether it is giving benefits to the homosexual and heterosexual partners of its staff.
The University of Kentucky is desperately seeking the society of the Stanfords and Cal Techs of this world. Instead, it keeps waking up to their less attractive cousins. If President Todd and his staff don’t get their priorities straight, they’re going to be turning over and finding themselves staring the University of Missouri—Rolla in the face.
Again.
© 2006 by Martin Cothran. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be published without the express written consent of the author. These comments are the personal opinions of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official opinion of any other persons or organizations.
UK President Lee Todd has been pledging for several years now to bring the University of Kentucky to Top 20 status. So far, however, the road has been a rocky one. In the last U.S. News & World Report college rankings, the University of Kentucky landed at 112th—right next to the University of Missouri—Rolla.
But certain people in the university administration have struck upon an idea that could change all that, a plan that is sure to set heads spinning at places like U.S. News & World Report, and one which will put to rest once and for all how serious the University is in its quest to become one of the nation’s premier centers of scholarly excellence.
What is this plan? To give benefits to the live-in sexual partners of its employees.
As the guy in the beer commercials likes to say, “Brilliant!”
Apparently there is a school of thought, which seems to include Todd himself, which thinks this kind of policy will somehow contribute to an increase in the school’s academic stature. And maybe it’s true. Maybe there are people at organizations that rank schools who really think providing benefits to live-in sexual partners somehow results in students learning more.
For all we know, these same people might have been impressed with last week’s lecture in UK’s Memorial Hall on how to bring about female orgasms. But somehow you get the idea that the people who rank schools are looking for something… well, a little more serious.
Supporters of this policy point to the fact that many of the most prestigious universities have domestic partner benefits policies, as if that’s the key to becoming an academically prestigious university. To hear these people tell it, you would think Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and MIT were nothing until they instituted domestic partner benefits programs.
Can simply kowtowing to special interest groups really vault a school into the nation’s college elite? President Todd and his administration apparently think so.
If the University of Kentucky is really intent on becoming more highly regarded as an academic institution, why isn’t it doing something that would really make a difference at UK in regard to the level of learning that actually takes place?
The rankings agencies, for example, can’t possibly be impressed with the fact that the University recently forced many of its departments to increase their class sizes. Here are the sizes for several of this year’s introductory freshman classes: History 108 (American History): 300 students; Philosophy 120 (Logic): 672 students; Biology 103 (Intro Biology): 600 students; Chemistry 108 (Intro Chemistry): 250 students; Biology 102 (Human Ecology): 300 students; Psychology 100: 504 students.
Now there are several things we know without question: First, students don’t learn very well when they are separated from their teachers by large crowds of people—at least not as well as when they are not. We know this. No one disputes it.
Secondly, we know that professors are less inclined to teach at places where they have to face large lecture halls full of the faces of people they can never possibly get to know. Just ask any professor.
One university department had to increase its maximum class size from 32 to over 600. Why? According to the administration, because it doesn’t have the resources to keep classes small.
The University of Kentucky cannot keep class sizes at a reasonable number because it doesn’t have adequate resources, yet it can somehow find a way to take care of the live-in sexual partners of its staff.
Let’s all take a moment and collectively scratch our heads in bewilderment.
Or maybe the University could (brace yourself, here comes a revolutionary idea) increase faculty salaries. UK’s faculty salaries currently languish at 89 percent of the salaries at its benchmark institutions to which it compares itself.
I have this notion—call it crazy if you like—that the people at places like U.S. News and World Report would be far more impressed if the University spent its time and energy on policies that actually helped students than with whether it is giving benefits to the homosexual and heterosexual partners of its staff.
The University of Kentucky is desperately seeking the society of the Stanfords and Cal Techs of this world. Instead, it keeps waking up to their less attractive cousins. If President Todd and his staff don’t get their priorities straight, they’re going to be turning over and finding themselves staring the University of Missouri—Rolla in the face.
Again.
© 2006 by Martin Cothran. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be published without the express written consent of the author. These comments are the personal opinions of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official opinion of any other persons or organizations.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Stay Away Fools, 'Cause Love Rules at UofL
If you see a faded sign on the side of the road that says “fifteen miles to the University of Louisville,” you'll be directed toward a university whose board of trustees recently voted to provide taxpayer-funded domestic partner benefits to its unmarried employees with live-in sexual partners.
While the university is in the midst of these sweeping changes, it might want to consider a name change that more adequately characterizes the school under its new policy, and we’ve got just the thing: "The Love Shack." Given the popularity of the song of that name, it would be more nationally recognizable than its present title, and would have a greater attraction for the kind of prospective employees to which it now says it would like to appeal.
In a recent article in the Courier-Journal, Bill Stone, a UofL trustee who claims to be a conservative, said that without such a policy the university would restrict its "opportunities to attract all kinds of folks."
It seems unlikely that the "folks" the university now wants to attract will be hopping in their Chryslers and setting sail for UofL just because of the new policy. (This is, after all, the Volvo crowd we're talking about here). But even if they did head down the highway, looking for Louisville’s academic love getaway, how will the new policy be viewed by other kinds of "folks"--"folks" who aren't looking for a place to work (or a place to send their children) that encourages unmarried live-in heterosexual and homosexual relationships among its employees?
What is UofL's message to these “folks”?
"Stay away fools, 'cause love rules" at the University of Louisville.
In reality (a concept not terribly popular at funky little schools like UofL—or, apparently, among their trustees), the new policy is likely to alienate as many people as it attracts—among both prospective staff and students. The folks “lining up just to get down” are likely to be no more numerous than those who decided not to get in line in the first place.
As the policies of public institutions like UofL stray further and further away from the moral convictions of the taxpayers who are asked to support them, officials in control of those institutions cannot reasonably expect to bang on the door of the General Assembly, with a budget as big as a whale, and demand that legislators ask their constituents to hurry up and bring their jukebox money to pay for it.
This is why the controversy over UofL's policy is now as hot as an oven:
If taxpayers should expect anything, they ought at least to expect the institutions they support not to actively undermine their own values.
"I also want to make it clear," the “conservative” Stone went on, "this is not an endorsement of gay marriage or any of the other lightning issues."
Not so fast. Put all the glitter on it you want, that’s exactly what this decision is.
For years our cultural institutions have encouraged marriage. They have done this because there has been a cultural consensus on one simple fact—a consensus that still predominates despite the attempts of institutions like UofL to ignore it: marriage is good for society. If there is one fact that social science has established over the course of its existence, it is this one.
You can believe what you want to about non-marital, live-in relationships—same-sex or otherwise. You may think they're a Cosmic Thing. But the evidence they are good for society is slim to none, and when it comes to the consequences for children, that’s definitely not where it’s at.
Stone has obviously found in the University of Louisville Board of Trustees a little ol’ place where he can get together with others who see it as responsible to use taxpayer dollars to undermine marriage. We’re quite confident that the whole shack shimmies when Stone and his liberal friends bat these issues around and around and around as they make policy for the university.
Stone has the right to say anything he wants to. But when he starts lip synching the gay rights agenda, he really should be more careful in portraying it as "conservative". If marriage isn't one of those things conservatives are trying to conserve, then there's very little point in being one.
© 2006 by Martin Cothran. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be published without the express written consent of the author. These comments are the personal opinions of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official opinion of any other persons or organizations.
This piece appears in today's Louisville Courier-Journal online opinion page.
While the university is in the midst of these sweeping changes, it might want to consider a name change that more adequately characterizes the school under its new policy, and we’ve got just the thing: "The Love Shack." Given the popularity of the song of that name, it would be more nationally recognizable than its present title, and would have a greater attraction for the kind of prospective employees to which it now says it would like to appeal.
In a recent article in the Courier-Journal, Bill Stone, a UofL trustee who claims to be a conservative, said that without such a policy the university would restrict its "opportunities to attract all kinds of folks."
It seems unlikely that the "folks" the university now wants to attract will be hopping in their Chryslers and setting sail for UofL just because of the new policy. (This is, after all, the Volvo crowd we're talking about here). But even if they did head down the highway, looking for Louisville’s academic love getaway, how will the new policy be viewed by other kinds of "folks"--"folks" who aren't looking for a place to work (or a place to send their children) that encourages unmarried live-in heterosexual and homosexual relationships among its employees?
What is UofL's message to these “folks”?
"Stay away fools, 'cause love rules" at the University of Louisville.
In reality (a concept not terribly popular at funky little schools like UofL—or, apparently, among their trustees), the new policy is likely to alienate as many people as it attracts—among both prospective staff and students. The folks “lining up just to get down” are likely to be no more numerous than those who decided not to get in line in the first place.
As the policies of public institutions like UofL stray further and further away from the moral convictions of the taxpayers who are asked to support them, officials in control of those institutions cannot reasonably expect to bang on the door of the General Assembly, with a budget as big as a whale, and demand that legislators ask their constituents to hurry up and bring their jukebox money to pay for it.
This is why the controversy over UofL's policy is now as hot as an oven:
If taxpayers should expect anything, they ought at least to expect the institutions they support not to actively undermine their own values.
"I also want to make it clear," the “conservative” Stone went on, "this is not an endorsement of gay marriage or any of the other lightning issues."
Not so fast. Put all the glitter on it you want, that’s exactly what this decision is.
For years our cultural institutions have encouraged marriage. They have done this because there has been a cultural consensus on one simple fact—a consensus that still predominates despite the attempts of institutions like UofL to ignore it: marriage is good for society. If there is one fact that social science has established over the course of its existence, it is this one.
You can believe what you want to about non-marital, live-in relationships—same-sex or otherwise. You may think they're a Cosmic Thing. But the evidence they are good for society is slim to none, and when it comes to the consequences for children, that’s definitely not where it’s at.
Stone has obviously found in the University of Louisville Board of Trustees a little ol’ place where he can get together with others who see it as responsible to use taxpayer dollars to undermine marriage. We’re quite confident that the whole shack shimmies when Stone and his liberal friends bat these issues around and around and around as they make policy for the university.
Stone has the right to say anything he wants to. But when he starts lip synching the gay rights agenda, he really should be more careful in portraying it as "conservative". If marriage isn't one of those things conservatives are trying to conserve, then there's very little point in being one.
© 2006 by Martin Cothran. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be published without the express written consent of the author. These comments are the personal opinions of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official opinion of any other persons or organizations.
This piece appears in today's Louisville Courier-Journal online opinion page.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Kentucky Republicans and the Loyalty Gap
"There is a loyalty gap between the two parties that favors the Democrats. This is why the Democrats don’t need an 11th commandment. Party loyalty is not an afterthought to be attached as a later amendment. It’s in their Decalogue."
The Kentucky Republican Party leadership is lining up against the reelection bid of Gov. Ernie Fletcher. Unfortunately, they have lined up in the manner of what, in less politically correct days, used to be called a "Polish firing squad": they have formed themselves in a circle.
This development says a lot about the governing abilities of Republicans, little of it good. It also marks out the difference between Republicans and Democrats in terms of how they handle crises within their respective parties.
Jefferson County Republican Chairman Jack Richardson was the most recent addition to the circle. Richardson's comments go further than Senate President David William's previous remarks in that Richardson has now explicitly called upon the Governor to end his re-election campaign.
In Kentucky Republican politics, there are many Charlie McCarthy's, but only one Edgar Bergen, which makes it fairly easy to determine, when comments like Richardson's hit the press, who was behind them.
Sen. Mitch McConnell has as complete a control over the state Republican Party apparatus as it is possible to have in modern politics. There used to be party machines that served this purpose. That function can now only be performed by strong personalities, and, if Sen. McConnell has nothing more than this (as, in fact, he does), he has that. It is therefore a foregone conclusion that Richardson's remarks reflect the views of McConnell.
McConnell is matched in political acumen by only two other politicians in the state, one a Republican and the other a Democrat. The Republican is David Williams; the Democrat is Greg Stumbo. Gov. Fletcher now has all three aligned against him. One hopes Fletcher has a good dog: the prescribed form of friendship in places of political power.
There are now factions forming in the party: the sitting leadership on one side, and people like Larry Forgy (former gubernatorial candidate) and Bill Stone (former Jefferson County Party Chairman) on the other.
Stone recently criticized Richardson for saying what he said about a sitting governor of his own party, and basically called for Richardson's resignation on the grounds that part of Richardson's job description was to support Republican candidates and officials.
Ted Jackson, another former county party chairman, came to Richardson's defense, telling the Louisville Courier-Journal, "There is no obligation that Jack Richardson be muzzled by anyone."
Well, for one thing, Stone was not trying to muzzle Richardson; he was calling on people like Richardson to muzzle themselves for the good of the party. For another, since when was it okay for party officials to openly criticize sitting officeholders of their own party? Is this really the Kentucky Republican party's new rule?
If so, look for more circular firing squads.
Have Republican Party officials in Kentucky completely forgotten the "11th Commandment"? This was the political maxim devised by California State Republican Chairman Gaylord Parkinson in Ronald Reagan's 1966 campaign for governor to avoid what had happened to Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election. It said, as Reagan phrased it, "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."
This is the rule that grim party officials pull out their spectacles and read to prolife Republicans whenever there is a prochoice Republican running for office. They are supposed to remember that everyone is "on the same team" and to be supportive no matter what. Let's see if we can devise a lesson here: you must support a fellow-Republican even though he is wrong on the most crucial cultural issue of our time, but it is okay to publicly shoot the knee caps out from under a sitting governor because his political skills are perceived as sub par?
Has the 11th commandment experienced the same fate as the principle of smaller, more efficient government among Republicans?
That Republican party officials should find themselves in league with Greg Stumbo against a sitting Republican governor should bring pause to those who labor under the impression that Republicans can govern competently.
Gov. Fletcher has been labeled as "inept" in his handling of the hiring scandal. In truth, he has not handled it well. But he has handled it no worse than any recent governor (with the possible exception of Wallace Wilkinson) would have handled a similar situation. It is a tough spot to be in: the target of an investigation by an attorney general from the opposing party. No other Kentucky governor has had to face anything like it. And the situation is made tougher by the fact that it is Greg Stumbo in the attorney general's chair.
The protestations of Republican Party leaders that they have abandoned this governor because of his inept response to the Stumbo investigation founders on the rocks of one simple fact: they abandoned him well before the investigation was even underway. Does anyone remember the thunderous silence from party leaders the day this investigation was announced in the media? To hear party leaders tell it, they have fought the good find, and run the race, but all to no avail.
Let’s be honest.
There was no concerted attempt of any significance to come to the aid of this governor when he was targetted by the Democrat’s biggest gun. He was abandoned on the field as the first shots were fired.
To ask how Democrats would have handled a situation differently from Republicans is to run up against an important difference between the two parties: one that marks out the Democrats--all other things being equal--as more capable at wielding power. This can be a good or a bad thing, depending on your perspective. The difference is this: the Democrats do the loyalty thing a lot better than Republicans. Maybe the machine politics, still a favored form of operation for Democrats until recent times, is behind this. But whatever the reason, it remains true.
Democrats take care of their own, while Republicans shoot their wounded.
There is a loyalty gap between the two parties that favors the Democrats. This is why the Democrats don’t need an 11th commandment. Party loyalty is not an afterthought to be attached as a later amendment. It’s in their Decalogue.
Democrats have less of a tendency to air their differences publicly and a greater tendency to kiss and make up when it matters. Republicans should take note.
And while we are discussing loyalty, we need to remember one thing. Who was it who was chiefly responsible for Fletcher’s rise to the Governor’s office? Was it not Mitch McConnell himself? Was it not McConnell who groomed Fletcher for this position from the political cradle? If Fletcher is really as inadequate as he is portrayed by those who speak at the Senator’s pleasure, then should not McConnell, far famed for his political perception, have seen all of this before it happened?
Another rule of politics is this: You gotta dance with who brung you. If someone helped to put you where you are, you are beholden to them. But loyalty is not a one-way street. If you’ve gotta dance with who brung you, then you outta have to dance with the one you brought.
Republicans have been in the ascendency in recent years throughout the South. Events in Kentucky have mirrored this trend. But if Republicans continue in their habitual practice of self-immolation, the pendulum could very well swing the other direction.
If Republican leaders in this state think that just issuing Fletcher a blindfold and a cigarette is going to solve their problems, they are sorely mistaken. There are times when breaking the bonds of political loyalty is the lesser of evils. But this is not one of them.
This post also appears as an opinion piece on the Louisville Courier-Journal's online opinion section here. It was also posted on the "On the Right" conservative blog.
© 2006 by Martin Cothran. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be published without the express written consent of the author. These comments are the personal opinions of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official opinion of any other persons or organizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)