Senators Jack Reed and Charles Schumer made some interesting statements about the use of the term “Islamofascism” on Tuesday, as chronicled in Congressional Quarterly (via National Review Online). The two senators were asked if the “phrase” was accurate.

Naturally, neither senator thought so. Senator Reed described “the history of fascism, which was a political movement in [W]estern Europe.” Apparently, fascism can only develop in Western Europe, and, apparently, fascists “came to power through democratic elections.”

Those who use the term “Islamofascism” have misperceptions about “the nature of the threats we face today.” That threat is “not a nationalistic organization that is trying to seize control of a particular government.” No—instead, it is strictly a “religious movement” that is “motivated by apocalyptic visions.” Accordingly, most “terrorist cells seem to be evolving through imitation, rather than being organized.”

Senator Schumer seconded Senator Reed, stating that our enemies are “extreme religious fanatics,” and that we need “a real policy” to deal with them.

Senator Reed’s remark that fascism only existed in Western Europe should preclude many Democrat comparisons of George W. Bush to fascists or Nazis (same thing)—a la Dick Durbin previously and Paul Hackett today. Likewise, fascists do not have to come to power via election, although they can (Hamas).

Rightist “misperceptions” about the threat may exist, but both senators ignore the Islamic view that government and religion are not distinct entities. They are one, literally. Thus, the radical Islamist religious campaign is also a political campaign.

Furthermore, these groups are attempting to seize power, and they have succeeded in doing so in places (previously in Afghanistan, recently in Palestine, and possibly in Somalia). The Iranian regime, the very epitome of the term Islamofascism, also seized power, maintaining it to this day.

Moreover, there are nationalistic Islamofascist groups. Hamas uses Palestinian nationalism. Iran also uses nationalism. Some groups—al Qaeda—seek to unify all Muslim lands under a single empire. This, too, is nationalistic. See also my remarks that for al Qaeda and their brethren politics and religion are one.

Finally, the apocalyptic Shi’ite vision of the Twelver and the returning Mahdi does not disqualify our enemies from being fascist. In fact, this vision supports the argument that they are fascists. Nazi Germany, too, had a vision—so do our enemies.

In several of their arguments against the accuracy of the term, the senators are taking advantage of the fact that there are numerous different groups operating independently. First, that independence is vital to their survival. A more organized group is easier to track and, hence, to kill. Second, most of these terror groups have similar goals and similar philosophies; however, that does not disqualify them from being a collective threat to the United States of America.

Senators Reed and Schumer display a lack of understanding of our enemies. And for that, their kind should not be trusted with our national security, in spite of the obvious shortcomings of the current bunch of Republicans.

Our nation’s political environment has led to a great many conditions, such as decreasing educational outcomes. One such condition can be described as “redefinition,” which may also be a result of the declining education system. By this I mean that countless words now carry meanings not found in Webster.

For instance, “progress,” by definition, is “improvement.” Instead, in the political arena we take it to mean more government, or further departure from our founding principles.

Another example: “Peace” is “an agreement to end war.” Advocates of peace want the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel to agree to stop their current conflicts, but agreements require two sides. Unfortunately, the sides with whom the aforementioned are fighting often make verbal, or even formal, agreements to “end war” that they simply do not keep. In other words, there is no real agreement, and, hence, no real peace.

Another: The term “conservative” is “tending to preserve established institutions.” Not to be confused with “Republican,” those who are “conservative” these days are those who seek to change “established institutions.” For example, conservatives want to change social security, education, and health care.

Conversely, those who are “liberal,” by definition, favor “reform or progress.” Likewise, to “change” is “to make different or alter.” Today, liberals are more reactionary than far-rightists in that they seek to preserve the old institutions, like welfare, social security, progressive taxation, education, etc. In other words, they want neither reform nor change.

Yet another: “Cut” means “to reduce, curtail.” In today’s lexicon, “cut,” as in spending cut,” means “not enough.” The main gripe of liberals is that the conservative president has cut spending on education when in fact the conservative has spent twice as much as his liberal predecessor. Likewise, spending on the poor has also been cut, we are told, in the form of $112billion of increased social welfare spending.

The biggest loser of power in our current political environment seems to be…Webster. 

Last week's news about the over-the-counter morning after pill caused a bit of controversy, though other highly important matters (Jon Benet, for instance) took precedence. Still, the pill's new status is another chapter in the politics of sex.

Many of our national problems can be traced back to the family, or the breakdown thereof, and hence can be traced back to sexual behavior. This is a taboo subject that government cannot literally address directly (as in regulating sexual activity) but one that government can affect in the form of providing and/or removing incentives for certain behavior.

There are two prime elements to the politics of sex: 1) The promotion of sexual irresponsibility and 2) Sheltering people from the consequences of such behavior.

First, our society and government promotes sexual irresponsibility. In our public schools, sex education often teaches children how to have sex while advocacy groups oppose abstinence education (i.e. "Here's how ya do it..." without suggesting that students refrain for the time being). There is an elite (media, pop culture) opposition to Judeo-Christian values, which usually include saving sexual activity for marriage. Then the entertainment industry places sex--extra- and premarital sex--all over television, movie screens, and advertisements. Finally, the sexual liberation movement has taught us that we practice real freedom by having sex with many, many people.

Second, the government (and lobby groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, and others) shelters citizens from the consequences of sexually irresponsible behavior. Those consequences, of course, are sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, the latter of which results in single-parent families that are less able to provide materially and emotionally for their precious children.

Militant support for abortion and contraceptives (over, say, altering one's behavior) encourage sexual irresponsibility because the actors know that they can avoid pregnancy. Furthermore, the government subsidizes single motherhood, although to a lesser degree under TANF. Thus, unwed parents have a financial buffer in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, which also encourages the same behavior.

So why change one's behavior when there are fewer social pressures to do so and buffers to shelter one from the consequences of such actions? Freedom of action is more important, after all, than responsibility, isn't it?

Not so. Unfortunately, our society has gone a long way toward divorcing responsibility and freedom. The latter now takes precedent where the former was once equally important.

Ohio's gubernatorial candidates engaged in a conversation about economic growth at an Ohio Association of Regional Councils meeting on Tuesday. The occasion highlighted the drastically different approaches Ted Strickland and Ken Blackwell might have toward bringing about economic growth.

According to the Columbus Dispatch report on the event, Strickland prefers "a state office that would offer incentives for development in Ohio’s urban areas," but "he would withhold state economic development grants from cities that 'poach' businesses from elsewhere in their regions." Likewise, "Strickland said a single office that reports directly to the governor could develop new land-use policies that would consider local economies."

As more time passes, Strickland must inevitably unveil actual policy ideas, and the ideas he discussed at Tuesday's meeting are consistent with his already-expressed philosophy, which is: more government control.

Strickland's idea of "incentives" is most likely the dreaded subsidy, which means, obviously, more state spending, a point underlined by the proposal to withhold funding from cities that "poach" business. Accordingly, "a single state office" under the governor that "consider[s] local economies" would require someone to make arbitrary decisions between regions. In other words, government would decide, to a degree, who gets what.

Furthermore, the market should decide where business growth occurs, not Ted Strickland. The assumption that government funds economic growth (rather than backing off and letting it occur naturally) and that government should decide which regions grow will distort the market. Ultimately, this is detrimental to slow-growth regions, as actors in those regions will not likely take the necessary steps to promote economic growth because government protects them. For example, if growth is slow in Dayton because of taxes, regulation, and crime rates, Dayton officials will be less-inclined to cut taxes, deregulate, and fight crime if Ted Strickland's administration pours money into the city to save it.

Ken Blackwell, on the other hand, has good, basic free market ideas, starting with developing "unified development guidelines to stimulate capital investment" because "[e]ach municipality now has its own rules." In other words, a Blackwell administration would implement the same rules, known in advance, for everyone. This would eliminate favoritism and arbitrary government decisions and allow for natural economic development.

Blackwell proved he could implement government policies that not only do not hinder economic growth but invite it. For example, "[a]s secretary of state, Blackwell...streamlined incorporation guidelines to make business formation easier." Other Blackwell proposals, such as spending limits and tax relief, will allow business to do what they do best: make money and create jobs.

The contrast is clear. Strickland will increase government control and spending while Blackwell will relieve government hindrances on growth. The laws of economics dictate that the latter would be the better fit for the state.

US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled today that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretap program is unconstitutional. In the program, the NSA listens to conversations between callers in the US who were communicating with callers outside of the US, the latter of which were known terrorists or associates thereof.

Judge Taylor’s decision—the merits of which I will not address at this time, but suffice it to say that I think it was made in error—is part of a wider campaign. This campaign includes both leftists and radical Islamists, and it is a campaign conducted in opposition to the United States of America.

There is NO coordinated/combined international effort between leftists and radical Islamists; however, they share an enemy in the US. Most of their goals differ, but the shared goal—defeat of the US—is enough for their efforts to amount to, despite the lack of agreed cooperation, a mutual campaign.

The Rationale

Leftists see the world in terms of a vision—a utopia—of social justice that is based on the assumption that the current world is unjust. Thus, the prevailing power(s) in the world is viewed as an obstacle to that social justice.

Likewise, radical Islamists—be they al Qaeda or Ba’athists or any of the many other groups—see a world that their forefathers once ruled, called the Caliphate. The Ottoman Empire, defeated and dissolved in World War I, was the end of that rule. Bin Laden and his ideological counterparts seek to reinstate Muslim rule. Thus, the prevailing power(s) in the world is viewed as an obstacle to that goal.

The Campaign

When the US and her allies began the campaign against terrorism (a campaign against radical Islamic terrorists, despite the absence of such a label from the powers that be), radical Islamists opposed those efforts. Leftists, who viewed the potential expansion of US influence as a setback in the pursuit of utopian social justice, likewise opposed the US.

Since 9/11, radical Islamists, savvy to Western ideological debates and media culture, began using leftist grievance terminology—Crusades, poverty, health care, imperialism, etc. Slowly but surely, leftist and radical Islamic efforts, while not coordinated per se, most definitely coincided and complimented one another.

Thus, the Western left engages in the following activities:

• Distorted media coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: e.g. ignoring positive developments while conducting on-air body counts of casualties
• Moral equivalencies between the US and terrorists: e.g. equating Western leaders with terrorists (Bush is the real terrorist and other slurs)
• Lending credibility to unsavory figures: e.g. Mike Wallace’s rather rosy interview with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
• Claiming that the Western executors of the war are oppressive, almost totalitarian: e.g. Bush is Hitler and other like slurs
• Use rhetoric similar to radical Islamists: e.g. frequent invocations of imperialism as the goal of Western efforts
• Resist US diplomatic efforts in the UN: e.g. frequent French and/or Russian vetoes of US-backed resolutions
• Impeding US efforts through the courts: e.g. today’s ruling against the warrantless wiretap program and the recent ruling against tribunals

Likewise, radical Islamists compliment these efforts by:

• Spreading anti-Americanism through their state-controlled media outlets: e.g. claims in 2003 that the US had come to Iraq in order to establish a colony in al Quds al Arabi
• Intimidating and suppressing pro-US and/or pro-reform elements in their societies: e.g. intimidation of and violence against the voting public and newly-elected officials in Iraq and Afghanistan
• Providing distorted media coverage to Western media outlets, often falsified: e.g. the doctored Reuters photographs from Lebanon
• Using Western freedom against the West: e.g. the use of European nations and the US as safe havens, financial outlets, and recruiting centers
• Using rhetoric similar to that of Western leftists: e.g. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s scolding of the US for having so many citizens without health care—the “uninsured”

Consequently, the US and her allies have the following disadvantages:

• Regardless of the aims or results of US actions, most media outlets worldwide will portray them negatively
• Any US effort is more heavily-scrutinized and, thus, more criticized
• Terrorist efforts and leftist rhetoric are given a pass
• Terror attacks are portrayed in the West as understandable reactions against the US
• There is little or no cooperation in the UN Security Council

Both visions—the left’s vision of a world of social justice, or without injustice, and radical Islam’s Caliphate—are not only unrealistic, but impossible (the former more so than the latter). America’s only crime in the matter is being the perceived obstacle to those visions. Consequently, no US endeavor can ever be justifiable. Thus, in the quest to make its citizens safer and spread liberty, which in turn makes us safer, so goes the theory, the cards are stacked against the United States of America.

Mike Wallace also claimed that there are plenty of Jews in the Iranian legislature. I found that hard to believe, knowing what I know about Iran. As a result, I consulted the CIA World Factbook for demographic information about the mostly Persian nation.

Ethnic groups in Iran include: "Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%."

In terms of religious make-up: "Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%." Note that Jews, along with three other groups, comprise only 2% of the population.

Of the 270 seats in the parliament, 190 of them belong to Islamists, 50 to reformers, 43 to independents, and 5 to religious minorities. A BBC article from 2002 stated that only one Jew was a member of the Iranian parliament--a Scot paper confirmed the allocation of one seat for Jews.

Thus, what Mr. Wallace said is not only unlikely, but almost absurd.

If any ethnic group in the United States was legally allocated only one seat, Mike Wallace would not likely claim that there is "plenty" of that group in Congress. That he said such things is embarrassing for CBS.

Man is perfectible. At least that is the foundation of the thought behind efforts to downplay the worldwide terrorist threat.

That line of thought holds that man is perfectible and that the existing order is unjust. Adherents to such thought seek an impossible utopia that would be "socially just." Thus, the primary power in the existing, unjust world, is the United States, which does not seek utopia; therefore, they must be stopped in order to bring about that vision.

This line of thinking is indeed dangerous. The ideal world would be classless and one of peace an harmony in which no one suffers. Naturally, such a world is impossible, at least here on the mortal earth.

It is dangerous because it leads to moral relativism. Thus, Mike Wallace interviews Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--a man who has vowed to kill every Jew in Israel--and in the process grant him some degree of legitimacy. Meanwhile, adherents to the utopian vision claim that the American president is the true terrorist, even though he has never vowed to wipe out an entire race of people.

Likewise, such people blame the United States for radical Islamic-fascist terrorism, and they seek to discount the threat by calling war on terror hawks names like "warmonger" and "fearmonger." Today's foiled terror plot to blow up airplanes will be dismissed as an understandable response against the main power of the unjust prevailing order.

Even as we learn that Iranians are among the Hezbollah dead in Lebanon, as they were among the Shi'ite militia dead in Iraq in Karbala and Najaf Provinces during fighting in 2004, adherents to the utopian vision ignore the threat. It is overblown, they say.

Be it Iran or al Qaeda or any other similar group, they are not the real threat, we are told.

This line of thinking is extremely dangerous. Since it is based on a world that does not and, mathematically-speaking, cannot exist, there is no reality on which to base their logic. The old Soviet Union exemplified the utopian world, but since it is gone, there is no vehicle for the idea. Hence, the only thing left to do is resist the primary power of the existing, unjust world.

In the process, we are told to understand the messianic threats of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and, in general, to tolerate al Qaeda and their ilk because somehow their actions are our fault.

Unfortunately, in the real world, evil exists, and in a world where one lives based on something that has never been, and never will be, reality, evil will ultimately be tolerated. And at the peril of millions.

A few years ago, David Horowitz wrote a book entitled Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. While Mr. Horowitz is seen as too far to the right for some readers, one should consult the Associated Press, because they essentially make the same link, albeit inadvertently, and on a global basis.

One article from last week detailed an odd event between strange bedfellows in Iran, where that nation's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, conferred upon Venezeulan leader Hugo Chavez with Iran's highest honor: the Islamic Republic Medal.

Ahmadinejad, an Islamic fascist, and Chavez, a socialist (at least) would seem to some to be at odds. Yet, the former gives the latter a great honor.

Another AP story from today carried with it a photograph of several Lebanese protesters waving flags. The caption identified "Lebanese supporters of the Lebanese Communist party and pro-Hezbollah groups [waving] Lebanese and Hezbollah flags and posters of Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah during an ... protest "

A group of communists and supporters of an Islamic fascist group engage in a joint protest? That, too, might seem odd to some observers.

If one has not figured it out yet, the far left and far right are uniting worldwide against...the United States (note the elipses in the quote of the AP photo caption--I left out "U.S." intentionally).

Communists/socialists and fascists have two things in common. First, they want absolute government control over everything that runs in their countries--and they want themselves to be in charge. Second, they hate the United States (first and Israel second).

Otherwise, the two disagree on a great many things in terms of specific tenets of their world philosophies. Communists hate the U.S. because it defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War and it represents capitalism. Islamic fascists hold a thousand year-plus grudge with Judeo-Christian society and wish to reestablish their once-glorious caliphate.

Typically, communists and socialists are wary of religion because it detracts from the true religion: the government as run by them. Meanwhile, Islamic fascists would dislike the godlessness of the communists.

However, the two poles have put aside their differences in a common quest: defeat the United States.

As I walked across the bridge from Newport, KY to Cincinnati on my way to the Reds game Saturday, I read the following proclamation, which was spray-painted on the bridge walk way: "F--- Bush and his Nazi regime." This reminded me of similar statements made about Bush, specifically, and Republicans in general, most of which equate the Bush administration with Nazis or fascists.

People who make such claims presumably want the average citizen to be persuaded to their point(s) of view. But I find hyperbole anything but persuasive. People who write things like "Bush is a Nazi" either do not think, are irrational, or are blatant liars.

May I also add that one rarely, if ever, observes such outlandish statements painted on the sidewalk (or placed on bumper stickers, etc.) bearing hyperbolic conservative slurs of leftists.

Still, one must ask: What is a Nazi, and what is a fascist? Let us consult a left-wing history textbook, Western Civiliazation, Volume C by Jackson J. Spielvogel.

For instance, the Nazi regime had the following actions and characteristics:

• Publicly stated that certain people (Slavs, Jews, etc.) were inferior
• When they went to war, they annexed conquered land
• Suspended their constitution in order to "fix the country"
• Purged civil service arms of Jews
• Placed political opponents in concentration camps
• Abolished all political parties other than the Nazi party
• Killed political and potential opponents within their own organization
• Developed the concept of an Aryan race state
• Boycotted, via government, Jewish businesses
• Passed laws exluding non-Aryans (Jews) from varying rights

Likewise, consider the following actions and characteristics of the Italian fascist regime:

• Assassinated opposition party leaders (socialist Giacomo Matteotti)
• Expanded powers controlling the press in the name of peace, which included suspending any publication they wished
• Arrested political opponents and held them without due process
• Enrolled youth in fascist groups on a compulsory basis
• Controlled the media as a state propaganda arm

One would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the Bush administration has engaged in any of the aforementioned activities.

Thus, one must also question why people who utter such nonsense should be taken seriously in public debate. The answer is: they shouldn't be.

The current media trend--the one that has staying power beyond a week--is global warming. We are told that the world is warming at an alarming rate, that it is our fault, and that we must take drastic action now or, in ten years, we will pay dearly.

News magazines like Time and Newsweek run alarmist stories about global warming. Al Gore has made a documentary about the subject. Even right-wingers like Pat Robertson are claiming to be converts to the cause of global warming.

Fortunately, it's all hysteria.

I learned from my college geography and geology classes that the earth's climate undergoes natural changes over time. For instance, we have had ice ages. Geologists believe that the North American coast has been located well inland as well as far out on the continental shelf.

Likewise, the earth is closer to the sun at times, and at times farther away. Just as one's hand gets warmer the closer one gets to a fire, so too will the earth be warmer as it gets closer to the sun--and that may be what is happening now.

And all before man was even believed to exist.

Thus, it is not surprising that scientists disagree as to whether the current warming pattern is natural or manmade. In other words, it's not hard, scientific fact.

On the other hand, a geologist named Bob Carter from James Cook University in Queensland was cited as saying, in a London Telegraph article from April 9 of this year, that global warming ceased in 1998.

Likewise consider a CNSNews article from today. According to the article, our current heat wave is light compared to that experienced during the 1930s. While we complain about consecutive days above 90 degrees (which I recall is normal in Ohio from my days of playing baseball in the blistering sun), our counterparts in the '30s endured 21 days with temperatures exceeding 100 degrees in 1930 alone.

Meanwhile, the media will continue to create unneeded hysteria as we gladly welcome the coming autumn.

On July 30, the New York Times published a story about a Cincinnati area company that was indicted for hiring illegal immigrants.

Almost immediately, the Times claimed that the indictments "created a new environment of fear in Ohio’s immigrant communities." A local Catholic nun claimed, "People are afraid to leave the house to go to the store. They are afraid to come to church."

The "climate of fear" exists mainly among illegal immigrants and those who hire and shelter them. Why is there a climate of fear? Well, there are people living in the United States on an illegal basis. They fear because they know they broke the law.

Continuing, the Times article stated: "The wave of anxiety came as immigrants were feeling new confidence after two nationwide demonstrations in the spring where they rallied for immigration reform." In other words, what was once a quiet subject became extremely public, and the illegal immigrant lobby overstepped its bounds.

Compassion is no doubt at the center of pro-illegal immigrant activism. Still, one must consider the consequences of such sentiments.

Essentially, those willing to grant a pass to illegal immigrants--better than ten million of them (no small matter)--are eroding the rule of law, which is the foundation of a free society.

Our free society is one of ordered liberty, in that the government establishes rules that are KNOWN IN ADVANCE and that everyone follows. The government then steps in when someone violates one of those rules. When such a large group of people are permitted to break the law, then the rules change. In other words: it's not fair.

Unfortunately, tolerating blatant disregard for the law on such a widespread basis undermines that law. People don't trust it. Accusations of racism and xenophobia are leveled against opponents of illegal immigration, but such accusations are made in error. On the contrary, most Americans are law-abiding and simply want respect for the law they themselves must follow.

Certainly the people in Mexico (and elsewhere) have problems, but they are Mexican (or Honduran, etc.) problems. They are not American problems but problems resulting from their own countries' governments. It is better to fix their governments rather than let them sink in perpetuity and take their problems upon our own shoulders.

That there is a climate of fear is irrelevant. Accepting illegal immigration affects the United States, the rule of law, and does nothing to correct the problems that caused the illegal immigrants to come here in the first place. Such immaterial claims as "climate of fear" are only ploys to take the easy way out at the expense of tomorrow, all in the name of compassion.

Let us finish looking at Ted Strickland's Turnaround Ohio plan.

Plank #7

7. Retain, create and attract jobs worthy of Ohio workers by focusing on industry sectors in which Ohio companies are growing, and which will spur our economy to generate wealth and prosperity for the future.

Retaining and attracting jobs require the same action: government should buzz off. Tax breaks and deregulation will create an inviting climate for business and, thus, will attract business to the state while giving existing businesses reason to stay.

In terms of the "industry sectors in which Ohio companies are growing," the same remedies apply: give them incentives to stay in the form of lower taxes and deregulation. These measures will lower operating and production costs for companies and they will be better able to provide jobs and be more likely to stay.

Also, government does not “create” jobs without increasing bureaucracy, which increases the need for more tax revenue, which increases the tax burden on Ohio’s taxpayers, which ultimately chases businesses and individual taxpayers from the state, which ultimately compounds the tax burden on the poorest people.

Likewise, it isn't the government's place to decide which jobs are "worthy": each individual employee determines that. If an industry can't find employees, it falters. Again, the market can figure this out absent government intervention.

Again, as with all the planks of Strickland's plan, too much government intervention is implied. Government's true role is to ensure that existing rules, as they are known in advance, are enforced, ensuring fair play. Government is the umpire--it should call balls and strikes and allow the best to win rather than choosing who wins.

In general, government intervention distorts the market--what would naturally occur--and raises the cost of business. Moreover, the more control government takes, the less responsibility individuals have. While this may sound attractive to some people, it is ultimately detrimental to society. If Joe does not have to provide for his children financially, provide parenting, or run his business responsibly (in terms of finances) because the government will do it for him, then he will not.

Thus, this is the chief flaw of all of Strickland's proposals. Noble are his goals, but his means are tried and tested and simply do not work as well as individual citizens behaving responsibly. He continues to have a vision of the world as he wants it to be--vision is good, but it is limited by reality--but these ideas ignore the world as it really is. In other words, people behave based on incentives. Each of Strickland's proposals suggests to adults that they do not have to completely fulfill their responsibilities, be they reading to their children at night or operating a fiscally responsible business.

That is why Turnaround Ohio is more of 360-degree turnaround than a 180-degree turnaround.