I studied the processes of government for three years in Washington, but I never imagined that one of the most insightful examples of the current state of affairs could be uncovered at a post office here in Birmingham. All those who purchase stamps likely heard news of the new proposed increase to 46 cents in early July. I always knew that the Postal Service could provide insight into the way government does 'business,' but I was surprised to learn that it also showed something about resilience and change within the American body politic.
It was a sweltering summer afternoon, and I waited in line almost half an hour to mail a simple manila envelope to an address only several miles from where I lived. Over a dozen other people were waiting in line for a single attendant, and minds were clearly growing increasingly frazzled. Walk into any private business today--a UPS or FedEx store, a bank, or even a Wal-Mart--and these lines would be non-existent. I have shipped packages across the country from a private carrier far more quickly than simply mailing a large envelope across town at the Post Office.
Thus, from the Post Office, we learn about how the government does business. Although there is technical accountability in terms of law, there is no 'real' accountability. Government agencies do not have to play by real rules of supply and demand. Regulations prevent the Postmaster from handling actual money, making it impossible for him to alleviate the line. The 'manager' is basically a machine, controlled so heavily by regulations that he cannot actually see a need and address it on his own. 'Customer service' has gone out the window in the new era of the bland, faceless government employee who has typically both a union and all sorts of regulations to protect his job, regardless of performance. There is a perverse structure which allows the Post Office to actually raise prices in times of diminished demand. Imagine the irrationality of that; for doing a bad job with customer service or the product they produce, the government can simply raise prices for the consumer. Anyone who thinks that government can do big things well should walk into a post office more often. Perhaps if President Obama had done so, he would have thought twice about healthcare.
On this particular afternoon, I also learned something about the American people. For once, the individuals in line did not take this situation sitting down. A man ultimately asked to speak with a manager, and the manager eventually surfaced from 'the back' (for us to learn that he couldn't handle money). A local business owner was clearly furious, describing how he knew his business from the ground up and would expect the government to know the same. It was at this point that I learned something about speaking up, and I also learned something about the benefits of local business leadership.
This business leader was proud of his craft and his ability to solve problems on his own. He noted that he knew his business from the ground up and could typically solve any problem himself. It was an air of independence which gave him the confidence and knowledge to speak on behalf of others. Local communities have long benefited from these pools of talents and suffer now that so much talent is clustered in the form of mid-level corporate executives in major cities. Unlike BP CEO Tony Hayward who seemed to never actually participate in the decisions of his company, this gentleman took pride in his craft and his ability to solve problems.
Of course, the most telling lesson was the end, when the business owner asked who he could call to make a complaint about the postal service itself. The Postmaster's response: "It won't do no good." As the Obama administration prepares to spend even more on elaborate government programs meant to provide services to taxpayers, that is all Americans really need to know when it comes to accountability. For the individual taxpayer, it 'don't make no difference' what we think.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Education and the Crisis of Local Government
Alexis de Tocqueville, one of the most famous early students of the American republic, once praised the small towns of early America as evidence that "the government really does emanate from the governed." Several decades later, English theorist John Stuart Mill extolled the benefits of local government, including an opportunity for large numbers of the citizenry to participate in the democratic process. Since the early days, America has placed a lot of faith in local governments, allowing local entities to control their own affairs. Democracy emanates in many ways in America, from local PTA meetings at schools across the nation to county commission and school board meetings.
In recent years, as society has become more urbanized, politics has become more centralized. The rise of cable media has given politics a national focus, and Americans have become far more interested in the 'horse race' approach to congressional and presidential politics. Additionally, as more top performers in small towns across the country have moved to larger cities, there have been crises of local leadership. A number of modern social theorists have traced the evolution of rampant political corruption in rural areas to declining population in the face of fewer opportunities in small towns and the exclusive opportunities of large cities. As social commentators debate the consequences of this centralization of American life, it appears to have been exacerbated by the economic crisis.
Marie Leech of the Birmingham News reported yesterday that the Alabama Board of Education voted to take over the finances of Coosa and Sumter county schools, two rural Alabama systems. Five other systems in predominately rural counties also reported having to borrow money, and 25 additional systems reported anticipating a need to borrow money in the near future. Thus, of 103 responding school systems to a statewide financial survey, at least 32 or almost a third of respondents were experiencing some form of significant financial distress.
What is the result? The result will be more state control, and ultimately, more federal control, at the expense of local control. Some are quick to say that local control is a thing of the past, and we should embrace this new era of centralization. However, America's republic is based on the idea that each geographic region of the country needs strong local leaders. The next generation of governors, congressmen, and senators will most likely cut their teeth on local school boards, county commissions, and city halls. Additionally, citizens benefit when they have a direct say in local affairs. There are fewer bureaucratic channels and fewer stakeholders to take into consideration. For generations, small towns have served as a buffer against the aggressive federal government set up against our constitution. Now, as citizens leave for the cities and the economic crisis threatens the country, this system of local government will be called even more into question.
Conservatives should consider stepping up to defend this way of life. The best way to reduce spending in Washington is to empower local communities to take charge of more of their own affairs. Additionally, America's system of representation depends on cultivating strong talent locally. Over decades, local control has begun to evaporate, something Tocqueville also anticipated. However, with that goes a piece of our history and tradition which should not be lost entirely without a fight.
In recent years, as society has become more urbanized, politics has become more centralized. The rise of cable media has given politics a national focus, and Americans have become far more interested in the 'horse race' approach to congressional and presidential politics. Additionally, as more top performers in small towns across the country have moved to larger cities, there have been crises of local leadership. A number of modern social theorists have traced the evolution of rampant political corruption in rural areas to declining population in the face of fewer opportunities in small towns and the exclusive opportunities of large cities. As social commentators debate the consequences of this centralization of American life, it appears to have been exacerbated by the economic crisis.
Marie Leech of the Birmingham News reported yesterday that the Alabama Board of Education voted to take over the finances of Coosa and Sumter county schools, two rural Alabama systems. Five other systems in predominately rural counties also reported having to borrow money, and 25 additional systems reported anticipating a need to borrow money in the near future. Thus, of 103 responding school systems to a statewide financial survey, at least 32 or almost a third of respondents were experiencing some form of significant financial distress.
What is the result? The result will be more state control, and ultimately, more federal control, at the expense of local control. Some are quick to say that local control is a thing of the past, and we should embrace this new era of centralization. However, America's republic is based on the idea that each geographic region of the country needs strong local leaders. The next generation of governors, congressmen, and senators will most likely cut their teeth on local school boards, county commissions, and city halls. Additionally, citizens benefit when they have a direct say in local affairs. There are fewer bureaucratic channels and fewer stakeholders to take into consideration. For generations, small towns have served as a buffer against the aggressive federal government set up against our constitution. Now, as citizens leave for the cities and the economic crisis threatens the country, this system of local government will be called even more into question.
Conservatives should consider stepping up to defend this way of life. The best way to reduce spending in Washington is to empower local communities to take charge of more of their own affairs. Additionally, America's system of representation depends on cultivating strong talent locally. Over decades, local control has begun to evaporate, something Tocqueville also anticipated. However, with that goes a piece of our history and tradition which should not be lost entirely without a fight.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Education Reform: A Prescription for the Doctor
No acronym had the same resonance as AEA in the tempestuous run-up to yesterday's GOP run-off for the gubernatorial nomination. By election day, it would be impossible for most voters to avoid the somber pictures of AEA leaders Paul Hubbert and Joe Reed plastered in television ads, specters meant to haunt Dr. Robert Bentley's bid for the GOP nomination. Well, as I recommended, Dr. Bentley has won, and it is time for the GOP to start putting its house together again in order to make a strong showing in November.
I suppose I ought to begin with the positive. All the scuffling over AEA has placed education at its rightful place at the top of Alabama's political discourse. For all the debates over gambling and facilities like Greene Track, education is the real means of economic development and advancement. Better-educated people are able to earn more, participate in more diverse job offerings, and increase the overall quality of life in this state. Unfortunately, Alabama has long lagged behind in education like many other states in the Deep South. Perhaps with this new-found focus on education, the time has come for that to change. With some innovative thinking, it is more possible than people think. The economy is struggling, and even though some communities are willing to go to gambling and other 'get rich quick' schemes, a strong case can be made that investing in education now will pay far more lasting dividends in our state than gambling casinos.
Education must also now be important to Dr. Bentley, as he has to demonstrate to skeptics in his own party that he can be trusted on education. In order to do this, he should take the lead in unveiling new and innovative ideas on education. To help the GOP's nominee, I have come up with ten ideas of my own. I think Dr. Bentley should give my blog a shot on education reform. Despite my relative youth, I do have the unique experience of having gone through K-12 public schools in Alabama my entire life. Having completed this experience far more recently than many of our public officials, I tend to think I have at least a fresher perspective on many of the problems in our schools and conservative reforms which can fix them. It's worth noting that these reforms aren't necessarily controversial. These ideas can change Alabama schools and strengthen our state's conservative values without unleashing the total war against AEA which has led almost invariably to gridlock in the past. Here are my 10 Prescriptions for Alabama Schools:
(1) Create an ACTION program to provide funding for extracurricular activities in rural schools.
One of Gov. Riley's most successful education reforms has been the creation of the ACCESS distance learning program which allows top students in rural schools to take advanced-level coursework not available in their own school. Although enabling students to take these courses is a step in the right direction, Alabama should provide more grants and training for teachers to start debate, quiz bowl, environmental team, science olympiad, and other academic competitive programs in rural schools. As I can attest from my days in high school debate, these programs are invaluable in teaching research, study, and competition skills needed to both get into college and to do well when in college. ACTION would be a logical extension to ACCESS, encouraging the development of dozens of more innovative programs like the Speakfirst program which brought speech and debate to a number of inner-city students in the Birmingham area. This program would serve a conservative purpose by empowering students to think and reason on their own, instead of giving them handouts later in life.
(2) Increase the number of university partnerships with secondary and primary schools.
When I went to college at Georgetown, I was amazed by how many students described their high school experiences. Many were able to take university classes in university settings or at least participate in special university programs. Although these exist in Alabama, they can be far wider in their reach, including more class offerings for students and more innovative lab days and shadowing days for students. Universities throughout the state, such as West Alabama in Livingston, Troy in Southeast Alabama, Jacksonville State University in East Alabama, and other community colleges could be especially helpful in reaching out to students in rural areas. Existing programs at Alabama and Auburn should be given broader reach to give students exposure to higher learning from a young age.
(3) Create a Community-Based Learning Program for students.
As conservatives, we have a vested interest in retaining strong communities, because strong communities build strong values. Conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet once marveled at small Southern towns which provided what we today call 'social welfare' to people through churches or other organizations without needing the government. Today, communities still have much to teach young students. Students can learn science through local streams and ecologies. They can learn civics through attending town council meetings, and they can learn from others in their communities. A number of Alabama leaders have been pushing for more community-based learning programs for a number of years, and in a tight economy, these opportunities would give students 'field trips' which are a mere walking distance from the classroom. This program would play a crucial role in teaching students to be creative learners and also beginning to develop a connection to the community which could entice more top students to choose to remain in Alabama as professionals and leaders.
(4) Re-emphasize Civics as an integral part of the curriculum.
No issue is more important to the future of our Republic than a strong foundation in civic literacy. Students need to be able to read newspapers and interpret media biases accurately. They need to understand the wisdom of America's Founding documents and the importance of the governing process. Despite this necessity, Alabama students traditionally perform worst on the social studies portion of the Alabama High School Graduation Exam. That must change by emphasizing civic literacy throughout the curriculum and at elevating grade levels so that students are equipped with the skills to become good citizens.
(5) Introduce more Southern literature and themes with an Alabama focus.
As a Southern conservative, few things sadden me more than the lack of focus on local history and culture. While at Georgetown, I encountered many peers from New England or the Pacific Coast far more fluent in great Southern authors like Faulkner than I. The same could be said of their local state histories. Students should be exposed to the distinctive and interesting, albeit tenuous, histories of Alabama and the South. Not only could this aid in student retention, but it also helps students make sense of the world around them and use that world to understand even broader concepts.
(6) Develop new mentoring/community interaction opportunities.
Although no community leader could replace a teacher, community leaders and active professionals should be brought more actively into the school setting to integrate students into the community. Since students will one day be entering the work force, they should get experience early in interacting with adults. By providing students shadowing opportunities or elective options with non-profit agencies, science labs, and other options, students have more opportunities. Alabama should take the lead in allowing top high school students to earn elective credit through such community interactive projects.
(7) Introduce the study of financial literacy and planning.
As conservatives, we should care very deeply that future students are educated in the basics of financial literacy. Not only will this help them one day with more stable families, it will teach them the importance of hard work combined with sound budgeting. Last year, I had the opportunity to hear the Shelby County Board of Education consider adopting more programs to encourage financial awareness among students. This would be a smart program to adopt statewide.
(8) Prioritize Gifted Education.
As stated previously on this blog, gifted education is of paramount importance for our state's future, and it should be a top priority for our next governor.
(9) Promote Cross-curricular learning with the inclusion of art and literature.
One of the biggest problems in education today is that many students find what they study in school 'irrelevant.' Math seems never to connect to history, and history never connects to science. Alabama should take the lead in connecting the curriculum while also adding more art and music appreciation into subjects such as history and literature. William F. Buckley was one of the greatest conservative figures of the 20th century, and he always exuded a strong appreciation for the fine arts. Russell Kirk had views on art which reinforced the 'permanent things,' and many great conservatives were truly 'men of letters' who appreciated art, literature, and the humanities. Alabama students deserve at least to be exposed to these ideas while also seeing how these areas of study link to the broader curriculum.
(10) Institute a High School Service Project Requirement for Graduation.
Finally, there is no greater conservative principle than community service. It is the most basic example of the individual finding a need and addressing it without the presence of the state. In preparation for this duty of citizenship, Alabama high school seniors should be required to design, complete, and present a service project as a requirement for graduation. Far more useful than other federal proposals, this would require students to start actively thinking about needs in their communities. Many systems like Shelby County have already developed programs to get students thinking about and performing community service. This program would take it to another level by encouraging students to be more creative and more innovative.
As Dr. Bentley can see, there are plenty of creative ideas out there on education. He just needs to know where to look, and who to trust. To that end, I hope at least he can trust me because these basic ideas could move Alabama and its people forward. If we do not use the contention and discord of the recent primary to begin a productive open and honest discussion on education reform which begins with bringing people together, we'll always be forced to look to the bottom of the list to find 'Alabama' when it comes to education.
I suppose I ought to begin with the positive. All the scuffling over AEA has placed education at its rightful place at the top of Alabama's political discourse. For all the debates over gambling and facilities like Greene Track, education is the real means of economic development and advancement. Better-educated people are able to earn more, participate in more diverse job offerings, and increase the overall quality of life in this state. Unfortunately, Alabama has long lagged behind in education like many other states in the Deep South. Perhaps with this new-found focus on education, the time has come for that to change. With some innovative thinking, it is more possible than people think. The economy is struggling, and even though some communities are willing to go to gambling and other 'get rich quick' schemes, a strong case can be made that investing in education now will pay far more lasting dividends in our state than gambling casinos.
Education must also now be important to Dr. Bentley, as he has to demonstrate to skeptics in his own party that he can be trusted on education. In order to do this, he should take the lead in unveiling new and innovative ideas on education. To help the GOP's nominee, I have come up with ten ideas of my own. I think Dr. Bentley should give my blog a shot on education reform. Despite my relative youth, I do have the unique experience of having gone through K-12 public schools in Alabama my entire life. Having completed this experience far more recently than many of our public officials, I tend to think I have at least a fresher perspective on many of the problems in our schools and conservative reforms which can fix them. It's worth noting that these reforms aren't necessarily controversial. These ideas can change Alabama schools and strengthen our state's conservative values without unleashing the total war against AEA which has led almost invariably to gridlock in the past. Here are my 10 Prescriptions for Alabama Schools:
(1) Create an ACTION program to provide funding for extracurricular activities in rural schools.
One of Gov. Riley's most successful education reforms has been the creation of the ACCESS distance learning program which allows top students in rural schools to take advanced-level coursework not available in their own school. Although enabling students to take these courses is a step in the right direction, Alabama should provide more grants and training for teachers to start debate, quiz bowl, environmental team, science olympiad, and other academic competitive programs in rural schools. As I can attest from my days in high school debate, these programs are invaluable in teaching research, study, and competition skills needed to both get into college and to do well when in college. ACTION would be a logical extension to ACCESS, encouraging the development of dozens of more innovative programs like the Speakfirst program which brought speech and debate to a number of inner-city students in the Birmingham area. This program would serve a conservative purpose by empowering students to think and reason on their own, instead of giving them handouts later in life.
(2) Increase the number of university partnerships with secondary and primary schools.
When I went to college at Georgetown, I was amazed by how many students described their high school experiences. Many were able to take university classes in university settings or at least participate in special university programs. Although these exist in Alabama, they can be far wider in their reach, including more class offerings for students and more innovative lab days and shadowing days for students. Universities throughout the state, such as West Alabama in Livingston, Troy in Southeast Alabama, Jacksonville State University in East Alabama, and other community colleges could be especially helpful in reaching out to students in rural areas. Existing programs at Alabama and Auburn should be given broader reach to give students exposure to higher learning from a young age.
(3) Create a Community-Based Learning Program for students.
As conservatives, we have a vested interest in retaining strong communities, because strong communities build strong values. Conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet once marveled at small Southern towns which provided what we today call 'social welfare' to people through churches or other organizations without needing the government. Today, communities still have much to teach young students. Students can learn science through local streams and ecologies. They can learn civics through attending town council meetings, and they can learn from others in their communities. A number of Alabama leaders have been pushing for more community-based learning programs for a number of years, and in a tight economy, these opportunities would give students 'field trips' which are a mere walking distance from the classroom. This program would play a crucial role in teaching students to be creative learners and also beginning to develop a connection to the community which could entice more top students to choose to remain in Alabama as professionals and leaders.
(4) Re-emphasize Civics as an integral part of the curriculum.
No issue is more important to the future of our Republic than a strong foundation in civic literacy. Students need to be able to read newspapers and interpret media biases accurately. They need to understand the wisdom of America's Founding documents and the importance of the governing process. Despite this necessity, Alabama students traditionally perform worst on the social studies portion of the Alabama High School Graduation Exam. That must change by emphasizing civic literacy throughout the curriculum and at elevating grade levels so that students are equipped with the skills to become good citizens.
(5) Introduce more Southern literature and themes with an Alabama focus.
As a Southern conservative, few things sadden me more than the lack of focus on local history and culture. While at Georgetown, I encountered many peers from New England or the Pacific Coast far more fluent in great Southern authors like Faulkner than I. The same could be said of their local state histories. Students should be exposed to the distinctive and interesting, albeit tenuous, histories of Alabama and the South. Not only could this aid in student retention, but it also helps students make sense of the world around them and use that world to understand even broader concepts.
(6) Develop new mentoring/community interaction opportunities.
Although no community leader could replace a teacher, community leaders and active professionals should be brought more actively into the school setting to integrate students into the community. Since students will one day be entering the work force, they should get experience early in interacting with adults. By providing students shadowing opportunities or elective options with non-profit agencies, science labs, and other options, students have more opportunities. Alabama should take the lead in allowing top high school students to earn elective credit through such community interactive projects.
(7) Introduce the study of financial literacy and planning.
As conservatives, we should care very deeply that future students are educated in the basics of financial literacy. Not only will this help them one day with more stable families, it will teach them the importance of hard work combined with sound budgeting. Last year, I had the opportunity to hear the Shelby County Board of Education consider adopting more programs to encourage financial awareness among students. This would be a smart program to adopt statewide.
(8) Prioritize Gifted Education.
As stated previously on this blog, gifted education is of paramount importance for our state's future, and it should be a top priority for our next governor.
(9) Promote Cross-curricular learning with the inclusion of art and literature.
One of the biggest problems in education today is that many students find what they study in school 'irrelevant.' Math seems never to connect to history, and history never connects to science. Alabama should take the lead in connecting the curriculum while also adding more art and music appreciation into subjects such as history and literature. William F. Buckley was one of the greatest conservative figures of the 20th century, and he always exuded a strong appreciation for the fine arts. Russell Kirk had views on art which reinforced the 'permanent things,' and many great conservatives were truly 'men of letters' who appreciated art, literature, and the humanities. Alabama students deserve at least to be exposed to these ideas while also seeing how these areas of study link to the broader curriculum.
(10) Institute a High School Service Project Requirement for Graduation.
Finally, there is no greater conservative principle than community service. It is the most basic example of the individual finding a need and addressing it without the presence of the state. In preparation for this duty of citizenship, Alabama high school seniors should be required to design, complete, and present a service project as a requirement for graduation. Far more useful than other federal proposals, this would require students to start actively thinking about needs in their communities. Many systems like Shelby County have already developed programs to get students thinking about and performing community service. This program would take it to another level by encouraging students to be more creative and more innovative.
As Dr. Bentley can see, there are plenty of creative ideas out there on education. He just needs to know where to look, and who to trust. To that end, I hope at least he can trust me because these basic ideas could move Alabama and its people forward. If we do not use the contention and discord of the recent primary to begin a productive open and honest discussion on education reform which begins with bringing people together, we'll always be forced to look to the bottom of the list to find 'Alabama' when it comes to education.
Bentley Wins: Reflections
As I write this evening returns continue to pour in but upstart candidate Dr. Robert Bentley appears to have handily taken the GOP gubernatorial nomination against establishment-backed Bradley Byrne. Political analysts will be quick to analyze issues such as crossover voting, AEA support, and advertising strategy in coming days. Republicans will have to begin licking wounds and mending fences if they hope to win in November. As I argued before the election, Dr. Bentley should be just the man to mend those fences. In the wake of Dr. Bentley's victory, it is worth considering what should be important as the GOP begins to pick up the pieces and focus on November.
It's worth taking a moment to analyze why Dr. Bentley ultimately won and Mr. Byrne ultimately lost. There will be lots of speculation about what happened, but there are several clear trends. First, Byrne's pugnacious style gained him few allies among the electorate or even among his fellow candidates. However, the most surprising fact is that the Birmingham News predicted this result back in June, and no one ever seemed to listen. The News warned that Byrne could win the I-65 corridor while losing the state itself. It appears, as ABC 33-40 just indicated, that Bentley made even more inroads in these rural areas after his initial surprising performance June 1.
From this win, Dr. Bentley should draw key lessons which would serve him well both as a candidate and as a governor. Bentley won the GOP nomination by carefully crafting a coalition of disaffected voters dissatisfied with the 'business as usual' approach down in Montgomery. However, one notices that these types of protests often end simply in protest. Bentley managed to do something more--he convinced these people that he could be a viable candidate who could represent them fairly in Montgomery. He was so persuasive that they showed up at the polls, made their stand, and have placed him in surprising position to be Alabama's next governor. Bentley's strategy should guide him through November, and should he win, it should guide him through his first four-year term.
Dr. Bentley must also remember the constituencies which carried him to the nomination. Bentley won the hearts of rural Alabama, and that is where true southern conservatism was born and continues to reside. It was the South described by Richard Weaver when he noted that the South, unlike the North, retained a strong Burkean since of tradition. These small towns are struggling these days, and they voted for Dr. Bentley from the hope for a new way forward.
Throughout his campaign ads, Dr. Bentley promised not to forget these people and to 'never profit from his office.' I hope Dr. Bentley will keep this promise and raise it to the next level, by promising to bring real reform to these parts of Alabama. By bucking the GOP establishment, Dr. Bentley has the opportunity to provide a distinctive voice for these parts of Alabama. It is my hope that Bentley will promote real economic development in these parts of Alabama instead of unreliable fixes like illegal gaming. I hope Dr. Bentley will promote more innovative education programs like Gov. Riley's ACCESS program designed to bring more academic opportunities for Alabama students in rural areas (more on that soon). The opportunities are endless for Dr. Bentley to create a Comprehensive Plan for Alabama's Future. I have every hope that he will do so.
Students of Alabama politics will be studying this election for many years. Dr. Bentley has undergone a meteoric rise from underdog to top dog. Now, he has to prove that he is a real leader and not a fluke. Many GOPers are skeptical at the moment, but I have confidence that Dr. Bentley can overcome these skeptics and prove a capable candidate and reliable governor. Conservatives can at least take heart that he is attuned to the small town voters where Southern conservatism traces its truest roots.
It's worth taking a moment to analyze why Dr. Bentley ultimately won and Mr. Byrne ultimately lost. There will be lots of speculation about what happened, but there are several clear trends. First, Byrne's pugnacious style gained him few allies among the electorate or even among his fellow candidates. However, the most surprising fact is that the Birmingham News predicted this result back in June, and no one ever seemed to listen. The News warned that Byrne could win the I-65 corridor while losing the state itself. It appears, as ABC 33-40 just indicated, that Bentley made even more inroads in these rural areas after his initial surprising performance June 1.
From this win, Dr. Bentley should draw key lessons which would serve him well both as a candidate and as a governor. Bentley won the GOP nomination by carefully crafting a coalition of disaffected voters dissatisfied with the 'business as usual' approach down in Montgomery. However, one notices that these types of protests often end simply in protest. Bentley managed to do something more--he convinced these people that he could be a viable candidate who could represent them fairly in Montgomery. He was so persuasive that they showed up at the polls, made their stand, and have placed him in surprising position to be Alabama's next governor. Bentley's strategy should guide him through November, and should he win, it should guide him through his first four-year term.
Dr. Bentley must also remember the constituencies which carried him to the nomination. Bentley won the hearts of rural Alabama, and that is where true southern conservatism was born and continues to reside. It was the South described by Richard Weaver when he noted that the South, unlike the North, retained a strong Burkean since of tradition. These small towns are struggling these days, and they voted for Dr. Bentley from the hope for a new way forward.
Throughout his campaign ads, Dr. Bentley promised not to forget these people and to 'never profit from his office.' I hope Dr. Bentley will keep this promise and raise it to the next level, by promising to bring real reform to these parts of Alabama. By bucking the GOP establishment, Dr. Bentley has the opportunity to provide a distinctive voice for these parts of Alabama. It is my hope that Bentley will promote real economic development in these parts of Alabama instead of unreliable fixes like illegal gaming. I hope Dr. Bentley will promote more innovative education programs like Gov. Riley's ACCESS program designed to bring more academic opportunities for Alabama students in rural areas (more on that soon). The opportunities are endless for Dr. Bentley to create a Comprehensive Plan for Alabama's Future. I have every hope that he will do so.
Students of Alabama politics will be studying this election for many years. Dr. Bentley has undergone a meteoric rise from underdog to top dog. Now, he has to prove that he is a real leader and not a fluke. Many GOPers are skeptical at the moment, but I have confidence that Dr. Bentley can overcome these skeptics and prove a capable candidate and reliable governor. Conservatives can at least take heart that he is attuned to the small town voters where Southern conservatism traces its truest roots.
Monday, July 12, 2010
My Vote Tomorrow: For Robert Bentley
For some time, I have hesitated to make an endorsement in the contentious GOP race for governor, for several reasons. First, I have such immense respect for many of my friends on both sides of this race, and second, there has been little evidence of a true visionary in this race. Bradley Byrne has, for the most part, made this a referendum on his opponents and AEA, using vitriol and negativity at every stop in order to attack those who criticize them, whether those attacks are real or assumed. Bentley has run a positive campaign, though he has also dodged on specifics. Bentley's public campaign has largely focused on issues like his willingness to refuse a salary which are, at best, cosmetic fixes to the state's problems.
Despite these reservations, I believe Bentley is the clear choice for the GOP in tomorrow's primary, and I will be voting for him. Looking at the ads which have recently run, they actually do provide some evidence toward who could be a better leader of our state. Recent history shows that governors have been shaped by how they have dealt with failure instead of success. Gov. Don Siegelman ran in the 1990s on an education lottery, and after his program was denied by voters, his administration spiraled into ultimate failure (and corruption). Gov. Riley proposed Amendment 1 to raise Alabama's taxes for education, and this also failed miserably when put to a statewide vote. However, Gov. Riley responded by working around his failings to create real change in Alabama. On education, he worked around the AEA to pass responsible budgets and develop innovative programs like the ACCESS Distance Learning Program, the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI), and other programs to encourage better education in Alabama. He has worked tirelessly to bring economic development to the state, reaching out directly to Europe and Asia to promote investment opportunities in Alabama. Most importantly, he has worked with Alabama's leaders in Washington, notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, on proposals such as the ThyssenKrupp steel development near Mobile and the ever-controversial Airbus proposal for a new military tanker to be built near Mobile. Gov. Riley has done this while fighting for real ethics reform without clear results and reaching what could largely be considered a stalemate on gambling. Gov. Riley has fought issues where he knows the odds are against him, but he has also been willing to select issues where he knows he can succeed, building a better state along the way.
Although Gov. Riley has endorsed Byrne, I think Bentley is clearly the better successor to Riley's legacy. Humility as an over-used term in politics which rarely applies to candidates, but Mr. Byrne has taken political hubris to a new level. Byrne adopted an 'every man for himself' tactic of negativity in the initial crowded primary, and he has brought a similar level of negativity to the runoff against Mr. Bentley. Bentley, on the other hand, has adopted a positive campaign, and positive campaigns can build coalitions. By making fewer enemies, Dr. Bentley has a better chance to actually gain results in Montgomery, and by all accounts, Bentley is also a true conservative candidate. Bentley offers the possibility for addressing health care needs in this state, economic growth, and improved education. The gentle touch which he has applied during the primary will serve him well in Montgomery, allowing him to work around difficult issues while still improving the state. Mr. Byrne has not shown that he can deal with individuals and build coalitions around those who disagree with him. By all accounts, many of the GOP rivals in the initial primary have supported Bentley. If Byrne can't play well with his fellow Republicans, what makes voters think he can get results when fighting against hostile Democrats who may well retain control of the legislature heading into 2011?
Like many in the GOP, I dislike the AEA. Top gun Paul Hubbert has often been a force against reasonable change in Alabama, on education reform like charter schools and on ethics reform like double-dipping rules for legislators. Hubbert is a major reason why Alabama has failed to move forward in recent decades. That said, the level of GOP posturing on the issue, including a forced resignation of an ALGOP local official with ties to Hubbert, has reached the level of a laughable and irresponsible witch hunt. Anyone who has ever read Arthur Miller's Crucible knows that witch hunts rarely end well, and by voting against a candidate for assumed ties to Hubbert or his friends, GOP voters are still allowing the AEA undue influence over their party. Meanwhile, though Byrne has criticized Bentley's ties to AEA, few have questioned Byrne's ties to large numbers of PAC contributions, highly wealthy independent donors, and large businesses like Alabama Power. Traditional conservatives were equally critical of big government and big business. Byrne's contributions from a who's who of wealthy Alabama donors total far more than Bentley's contributions from AEA, and this is certainly a problem.
Meanwhile, Byrne's connections do cause concern. In recent days, Byrne has received support from major Republican officials, namely Governor Riley and Congressmen Spencer Bachus and Jo Bonner. To some, this may be an awe-inspiring show of support for Mr. Byrne. To me, it reeks of the political desperation of a well-connected candidate. Instead of 'wowing us' with his views, Byrne is trying to 'wow us' with his wealthy and powerful friends. Having to resort to this type of campaigning does not speak well of his ability to deal with the hurly-burly of Montgomery politics as a top executive.
Thus, to me, there is a clear choice on election day, and I'll be voting for Bentley. It should come as no surprise that when the generally conservative Rasmussen Reports provided a poll on the Alabama race, Bentley performed better against Democrat Ron Sparks than Byrne. Both beat Sparks, though Byrne won 49-40 and Bentley won 56-37. Thus, Bentley gives the GOP both a better chance at victory in November and Alabamians a stronger assurance of a better next four years. Bentley deserves praise for his work in elevating himself from a likable candidate to a serious candidate, and GOP voters would be smart to reward him tomorrow with their vote to be the next governor of Alabama.
Despite these reservations, I believe Bentley is the clear choice for the GOP in tomorrow's primary, and I will be voting for him. Looking at the ads which have recently run, they actually do provide some evidence toward who could be a better leader of our state. Recent history shows that governors have been shaped by how they have dealt with failure instead of success. Gov. Don Siegelman ran in the 1990s on an education lottery, and after his program was denied by voters, his administration spiraled into ultimate failure (and corruption). Gov. Riley proposed Amendment 1 to raise Alabama's taxes for education, and this also failed miserably when put to a statewide vote. However, Gov. Riley responded by working around his failings to create real change in Alabama. On education, he worked around the AEA to pass responsible budgets and develop innovative programs like the ACCESS Distance Learning Program, the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI), and other programs to encourage better education in Alabama. He has worked tirelessly to bring economic development to the state, reaching out directly to Europe and Asia to promote investment opportunities in Alabama. Most importantly, he has worked with Alabama's leaders in Washington, notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, on proposals such as the ThyssenKrupp steel development near Mobile and the ever-controversial Airbus proposal for a new military tanker to be built near Mobile. Gov. Riley has done this while fighting for real ethics reform without clear results and reaching what could largely be considered a stalemate on gambling. Gov. Riley has fought issues where he knows the odds are against him, but he has also been willing to select issues where he knows he can succeed, building a better state along the way.
Although Gov. Riley has endorsed Byrne, I think Bentley is clearly the better successor to Riley's legacy. Humility as an over-used term in politics which rarely applies to candidates, but Mr. Byrne has taken political hubris to a new level. Byrne adopted an 'every man for himself' tactic of negativity in the initial crowded primary, and he has brought a similar level of negativity to the runoff against Mr. Bentley. Bentley, on the other hand, has adopted a positive campaign, and positive campaigns can build coalitions. By making fewer enemies, Dr. Bentley has a better chance to actually gain results in Montgomery, and by all accounts, Bentley is also a true conservative candidate. Bentley offers the possibility for addressing health care needs in this state, economic growth, and improved education. The gentle touch which he has applied during the primary will serve him well in Montgomery, allowing him to work around difficult issues while still improving the state. Mr. Byrne has not shown that he can deal with individuals and build coalitions around those who disagree with him. By all accounts, many of the GOP rivals in the initial primary have supported Bentley. If Byrne can't play well with his fellow Republicans, what makes voters think he can get results when fighting against hostile Democrats who may well retain control of the legislature heading into 2011?
Like many in the GOP, I dislike the AEA. Top gun Paul Hubbert has often been a force against reasonable change in Alabama, on education reform like charter schools and on ethics reform like double-dipping rules for legislators. Hubbert is a major reason why Alabama has failed to move forward in recent decades. That said, the level of GOP posturing on the issue, including a forced resignation of an ALGOP local official with ties to Hubbert, has reached the level of a laughable and irresponsible witch hunt. Anyone who has ever read Arthur Miller's Crucible knows that witch hunts rarely end well, and by voting against a candidate for assumed ties to Hubbert or his friends, GOP voters are still allowing the AEA undue influence over their party. Meanwhile, though Byrne has criticized Bentley's ties to AEA, few have questioned Byrne's ties to large numbers of PAC contributions, highly wealthy independent donors, and large businesses like Alabama Power. Traditional conservatives were equally critical of big government and big business. Byrne's contributions from a who's who of wealthy Alabama donors total far more than Bentley's contributions from AEA, and this is certainly a problem.
Meanwhile, Byrne's connections do cause concern. In recent days, Byrne has received support from major Republican officials, namely Governor Riley and Congressmen Spencer Bachus and Jo Bonner. To some, this may be an awe-inspiring show of support for Mr. Byrne. To me, it reeks of the political desperation of a well-connected candidate. Instead of 'wowing us' with his views, Byrne is trying to 'wow us' with his wealthy and powerful friends. Having to resort to this type of campaigning does not speak well of his ability to deal with the hurly-burly of Montgomery politics as a top executive.
Thus, to me, there is a clear choice on election day, and I'll be voting for Bentley. It should come as no surprise that when the generally conservative Rasmussen Reports provided a poll on the Alabama race, Bentley performed better against Democrat Ron Sparks than Byrne. Both beat Sparks, though Byrne won 49-40 and Bentley won 56-37. Thus, Bentley gives the GOP both a better chance at victory in November and Alabamians a stronger assurance of a better next four years. Bentley deserves praise for his work in elevating himself from a likable candidate to a serious candidate, and GOP voters would be smart to reward him tomorrow with their vote to be the next governor of Alabama.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Next Stop: Gay Marriage?
Some who follow politics will remember the debates over gay marriage in the Senate during the summer of 2004. At that moment, President Bush encouraged senators to preserve a traditional definition of marriage and family by means of federal amendment. Senators wrangled over the issue of the Federal Marriage Amendment in July, and it ultimately failed due to the wayward votes of a handful of Republicans, including one-time GOP nominee John McCain. Looking back on that debate, we receive an intriguing lesson in failed promises. At that time, Democrats and moderate Republicans opposed a federal amendment because they claimed the issue was already resolved by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed overwhelmingly by Congress during the Clinton Administration. This law, they claimed was more than sufficient to protect a traditional definition of marriage, and social conservatives ultimately lost that battle.
Now, we fast-forward six years. After a number of amendments protecting marriage were passed during the 2004 and 2006 elections, a reverse trend has begun to occur. States like Iowa have allowed for same-sex marriage, but that paled in comparison to a decision made by a judge in Massachusetts yesterday. Judge Joseph Tauro struck down DOMA as unconstitutional, noting that marriage is to be strictly defined by the states. The decision was hailed as a major victory by same-sex marriage advocates, and the DOMA case will likely be heard by the US Supreme Court, prompting a nationwide look into the issue. This court battle will likely occur alongside the fights in federal court in California over Proposition 8.
The end result confirms what social conservatives feared in 2004, which was that the only way to protect marriage was to define it constitutionally through the purpose of amendment. In many ways, marriage in some shape or form deserves some sort of constitutional clarification. Family was clearly important to the Founders, but the definition of family was taken for granted and not called into question. Although the State has taken over many responsibilities over the course of time, the family remains an important element of American civil society, culturing children toward playing a productive role in society. Whatever the definition of family that exists, it needs to be set and acknowledged by the state. In the increasingly mobile American society, it's difficult to conceive of a permanent solution of different states with different actions. In many ways, liberal states simply won't allow it. Look at issues like same-sex marriage and healthcare. Once Massachusetts has adopted a particular position, they seek to have their interpretation adopted one way or another by every other state. The end result is that marriage will be defined, either by a legislator or a court, at the federal level.
I, for one, want to see Congress tackle the issue. For too long, Congress has simply exported difficult issues to the court system. When difficult issues like abortion have surfaced, Congress has often willingly taken a backseat to justices who have never been subjected to a popular vote. This has given the court a power never anticipated by the Founders. The Founders actually thought the courts would be the weakest branch, since they could neither raise armies or curry popular favor. They were only supported by the power of their judgments, though the courts are now considered 'untouchable.'
I also hope that conservatives will stand together and attempt to resurrect the American family by giving it a traditional definition. Although homosexuality itself cannot and should not be made illegal, marriage is a social institution and social institutions are a reflection of a society's values. America's clearest way to reflect its social values is by defining marriage as a traditional home between a man and a woman. American families are suffering, given the high divorce rates and technological changes of the present day. It's difficult for parents to retain control of their kids who are increasingly in touch with the outside world from an early age, and families often are breaking apart. Instead of simply adopting resolutions which could (and likely would) make these problems worse, we should take the initiative to improve this institution. Without the family, children are only left with the State to culture them into society.
Thus, the recent court ruling on DOMA provides conservatives with several lessons. One is that same-sex marriage will likely have to be resolved, one way or the other, at the federal level. It cannot simply be engaged at the state level through state amendment protections. Another is that the moderates and liberals misled the public on the strength of the DOMA law. No law of Congress is protected from an increasingly activist judiciary. If social conservatives care about this issue, they would be wise to not be fooled again.
Now, we fast-forward six years. After a number of amendments protecting marriage were passed during the 2004 and 2006 elections, a reverse trend has begun to occur. States like Iowa have allowed for same-sex marriage, but that paled in comparison to a decision made by a judge in Massachusetts yesterday. Judge Joseph Tauro struck down DOMA as unconstitutional, noting that marriage is to be strictly defined by the states. The decision was hailed as a major victory by same-sex marriage advocates, and the DOMA case will likely be heard by the US Supreme Court, prompting a nationwide look into the issue. This court battle will likely occur alongside the fights in federal court in California over Proposition 8.
The end result confirms what social conservatives feared in 2004, which was that the only way to protect marriage was to define it constitutionally through the purpose of amendment. In many ways, marriage in some shape or form deserves some sort of constitutional clarification. Family was clearly important to the Founders, but the definition of family was taken for granted and not called into question. Although the State has taken over many responsibilities over the course of time, the family remains an important element of American civil society, culturing children toward playing a productive role in society. Whatever the definition of family that exists, it needs to be set and acknowledged by the state. In the increasingly mobile American society, it's difficult to conceive of a permanent solution of different states with different actions. In many ways, liberal states simply won't allow it. Look at issues like same-sex marriage and healthcare. Once Massachusetts has adopted a particular position, they seek to have their interpretation adopted one way or another by every other state. The end result is that marriage will be defined, either by a legislator or a court, at the federal level.
I, for one, want to see Congress tackle the issue. For too long, Congress has simply exported difficult issues to the court system. When difficult issues like abortion have surfaced, Congress has often willingly taken a backseat to justices who have never been subjected to a popular vote. This has given the court a power never anticipated by the Founders. The Founders actually thought the courts would be the weakest branch, since they could neither raise armies or curry popular favor. They were only supported by the power of their judgments, though the courts are now considered 'untouchable.'
I also hope that conservatives will stand together and attempt to resurrect the American family by giving it a traditional definition. Although homosexuality itself cannot and should not be made illegal, marriage is a social institution and social institutions are a reflection of a society's values. America's clearest way to reflect its social values is by defining marriage as a traditional home between a man and a woman. American families are suffering, given the high divorce rates and technological changes of the present day. It's difficult for parents to retain control of their kids who are increasingly in touch with the outside world from an early age, and families often are breaking apart. Instead of simply adopting resolutions which could (and likely would) make these problems worse, we should take the initiative to improve this institution. Without the family, children are only left with the State to culture them into society.
Thus, the recent court ruling on DOMA provides conservatives with several lessons. One is that same-sex marriage will likely have to be resolved, one way or the other, at the federal level. It cannot simply be engaged at the state level through state amendment protections. Another is that the moderates and liberals misled the public on the strength of the DOMA law. No law of Congress is protected from an increasingly activist judiciary. If social conservatives care about this issue, they would be wise to not be fooled again.
Irondale Acts: Making Sense of Immigration
Immigration has been in the national news a lot in recent weeks. President Obama recently made a speech calling for immigration reform while offering few specifics, and the Justice Department run by Eric Holder announced its intention to challenge the constitutionality of the Arizona immigration law which made national headlines throughout the spring. On national news programs, those who oppose immigration 'reform' are cast as nativists, racists, and jingoists, referring to the early 1900s. This week, Irondale, a Birmingham suburb, waded into the issue when the city council there passed 4-2 a resolution allowing officers to look into the immigration status of individuals who are stopped by the police or are under investigation. All of these situations, taken together, pose questions on immigration and state's rights.
There is a very simple question: can conservatives oppose illegal immigration without being racists, nativists, or 'uncivilized' in the face of our changing world? My answer is a resounding yes, and it is time to separate the emotion from this issue and look at both difficult moral questions and questions of national security. Those who listen to many so-called 'Republicans' who support immigration reform will lament that the party has been hijacked by angry racists, and it is true, there are people in the world who have backward views on race and class. That does not mean that all (or even most) people who oppose immigration reform are doing so out of racism.
Considering the immigration bills recently debated in Washington, there have been plenty of concerns. Several years ago when the Senate became embroiled in a bitter debate over immigration, there were questions over whether an amnesty proposal would actually work. The Senate bill at the time was projected to stop at most 13% of illegal crossings over the border while providing amnesty for those already here. Thus, there was little guarantee that the Senate plan would actually address the border-crossing crisis and prevent the need for another amnesty in 10 to 20 years. That was the case after the 1986 amnesty which ultimately failed to solve the border problem.
Let's face it, the border in our country is a major problem. It is a human rights issue because Hispanic laborers seeking a better life in the US risk their lives attempting to cross through miles of hot desert or in the backs of trucks. At the very least, American and Mexican officials should have a shared interest in shutting down this risky, dangerous, and illegal form of human movement. Additionally, it is a security issue in a number of ways. The border is a major passage point for drugs and other unsavory sorts of criminal activities, and this should be shut down. Finally, it's also a highly dangerous national security issue. If al qaeda and those who wish to do Americans harm see a weakness in this country, it's naive to believe they won't try to exploit that weakness. It is past time for America's leaders to devote significant resources to protecting Americans at home instead of just fighting them overseas.
Finally, there are other aspects of recent immigration 'reforms' which should cause concern, beginning with the idea of the 'guest worker program.' The term sounds benign, but it has some significant potential consequences worth considering. Most of us could not begin to count the times we have been called a 'nation of immigrants' in recent years, and that is very much true. Most Americans have arrived from other nations and brought skills, cultures, and dreams to the United States. However, those who came to America often sought citizenship. They came with their families and over the course of decades became permanently integrated into American society and culture. They voted in elections, ran for office, founded corporations, attended churches, and invigorated American civil society in dynamic ways. Under a 'guest worker program,' though, America's new immigrants would be temporary workers whose families would stay at home. They would work in the most menial jobs to send money home and then leave in several years. In essence, many Americans would support an 'imported underclass' to perform the jobs they do not want to do themselves. Perhaps this is simply an adaptation to changing circumstances, but it is worth of significant debate. Should America be comfortable with temporary workers, and could these workers exist without the sorts of unrest we find in European countries like France?
For a variety of reasons, the federal government has failed to solve the immigration policy, and now states have gotten desperate enough to try their own hand. Back when I was in grade school, I learned that the role of the president is to enforce the law. For President Obama, he is not enforcing the law, and he is actually attempting to prevent others from enforcing the law. He is shirking the law. Perhaps the Irondale resolution is not the perfect step, but it is a step toward enforcement of the law. The next step is to send lawmakers to Washington this November who will get this issue resolved and allow America to remain a nation of immigrants while also protecting those who are here and the dreams of those who wish to come here.
There is a very simple question: can conservatives oppose illegal immigration without being racists, nativists, or 'uncivilized' in the face of our changing world? My answer is a resounding yes, and it is time to separate the emotion from this issue and look at both difficult moral questions and questions of national security. Those who listen to many so-called 'Republicans' who support immigration reform will lament that the party has been hijacked by angry racists, and it is true, there are people in the world who have backward views on race and class. That does not mean that all (or even most) people who oppose immigration reform are doing so out of racism.
Considering the immigration bills recently debated in Washington, there have been plenty of concerns. Several years ago when the Senate became embroiled in a bitter debate over immigration, there were questions over whether an amnesty proposal would actually work. The Senate bill at the time was projected to stop at most 13% of illegal crossings over the border while providing amnesty for those already here. Thus, there was little guarantee that the Senate plan would actually address the border-crossing crisis and prevent the need for another amnesty in 10 to 20 years. That was the case after the 1986 amnesty which ultimately failed to solve the border problem.
Let's face it, the border in our country is a major problem. It is a human rights issue because Hispanic laborers seeking a better life in the US risk their lives attempting to cross through miles of hot desert or in the backs of trucks. At the very least, American and Mexican officials should have a shared interest in shutting down this risky, dangerous, and illegal form of human movement. Additionally, it is a security issue in a number of ways. The border is a major passage point for drugs and other unsavory sorts of criminal activities, and this should be shut down. Finally, it's also a highly dangerous national security issue. If al qaeda and those who wish to do Americans harm see a weakness in this country, it's naive to believe they won't try to exploit that weakness. It is past time for America's leaders to devote significant resources to protecting Americans at home instead of just fighting them overseas.
Finally, there are other aspects of recent immigration 'reforms' which should cause concern, beginning with the idea of the 'guest worker program.' The term sounds benign, but it has some significant potential consequences worth considering. Most of us could not begin to count the times we have been called a 'nation of immigrants' in recent years, and that is very much true. Most Americans have arrived from other nations and brought skills, cultures, and dreams to the United States. However, those who came to America often sought citizenship. They came with their families and over the course of decades became permanently integrated into American society and culture. They voted in elections, ran for office, founded corporations, attended churches, and invigorated American civil society in dynamic ways. Under a 'guest worker program,' though, America's new immigrants would be temporary workers whose families would stay at home. They would work in the most menial jobs to send money home and then leave in several years. In essence, many Americans would support an 'imported underclass' to perform the jobs they do not want to do themselves. Perhaps this is simply an adaptation to changing circumstances, but it is worth of significant debate. Should America be comfortable with temporary workers, and could these workers exist without the sorts of unrest we find in European countries like France?
For a variety of reasons, the federal government has failed to solve the immigration policy, and now states have gotten desperate enough to try their own hand. Back when I was in grade school, I learned that the role of the president is to enforce the law. For President Obama, he is not enforcing the law, and he is actually attempting to prevent others from enforcing the law. He is shirking the law. Perhaps the Irondale resolution is not the perfect step, but it is a step toward enforcement of the law. The next step is to send lawmakers to Washington this November who will get this issue resolved and allow America to remain a nation of immigrants while also protecting those who are here and the dreams of those who wish to come here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
