Search results

The death of Count Ermengol of Osona at the Battle of Baltarga (c. 940) has been understood in two very different ways. According to some, this battle was a clash between Catalans and Hungarian nomads, but others interpret it as a confrontation between the ruling families of the main Catalan counties. In this paper, we will consider the main historiographical studies on the topic and place the encounter at Baltaraga at the core of the struggles in Catalan county politics in the mid-10th century, thus rejecting the thesis that proposes a skirmish with Hungarian hordes. From the first third of the 10th century, different tensions led to the confrontation of the comital houses of Barcelona and Cerdanya, which resulted in an armed conflict in the 940's in order to settle the succession to the county of Urgell and the hegemony of the Catalan counties among the sons and grandsons of Wifred the Hairy. ; La mort del comte Ermengol d'Osona a la batalla de Baltarga (c. 940) ha estat interpretada de dues maneres totalment oposades. Per a alguns, aquesta batalla va consistir en una topada entre catalans i nòmades hongaresos, mentre que per a d'altres fou un enfrontament entre les principals cases comtals catalanes. En aquest article abordarem la principal historiografia sobre el tema i situarem l'enfrontament de Baltarga al centre del joc de la política comtal catalana de mitjan segle X, rebutjant així les tesis que parlen d'un xoc contra hordes hongareses. Des del primer terç de la desena centúria diverses tensions van enfrontar les cases comtals de Barcelona i Cerdanya, unes tensions que van derivar en un enfrontament armat a la dècada del 940 per dirimir la successió del comtat d'Urgell i l'hegemonia als comtats catalans entre els fills i néts de Guifré el Pelós.

The largest European war since World War II is a natural source of lessons for any army. In the following study we offer a list of its military strategic lessons through the analysis of the known history.

Controversy over an endorsement of elementary and secondary
education options stoked by Louisiana's political left and its fellow travelers
serves as a reminder that they cannot tolerate invitations to open, comprehensive,
and fact-based inquiry in the education process, a state of affairs only now
being corrected.

Earlier this week,
Superintendent of State Education Cade Brumley announced a partnership with the
web content producer PragerU.
Founded by opinion columnist Dennis Prager, its materials provide primers on
issues of the day, and has resources dedicated to educational dissemination from
kindergarten to 12th grade. PragerU holds itself out as presenting information
as an alternative to leftist paradigms that frequently plague education that
completely ignore contrary information questioning their validity, giving
students an incomplete picture that serves more to indoctrinate than to educate
that PragerU materials seek to overcome.

Mirroring arrangements in several others states,
PragerU will make easily accessible to Louisiana educators material congruent with
meeting state standards adopted at the beginning of this now-concluding
academic year. PragerU was chosen because it has such material. Note that its
content doesn't replace core instructional material, which is determined
by local education agencies and not the state, nor is it required for use
in state classrooms.

The howls heard from the left after the announcement
in actuality trace back three years to when it was defeated in its attempt to
force "action civics" into the periodic revision of social studies standards
for state schools, an approach that deemphasizes acquisition of impartial factual
knowledge and its analysis in favor of guided discussion open to following an
agenda that then becomes translated into action outside the classroom. While
proponents at first seized the initiative, Brumley and others eventually
sidelined that approach in favor of one organized around the theme of American
exceptionalism and how the pursuit of liberty has shaped that, where students
learn historical facts and, by their high school years, begin to explore to
what degree the ideals upon which the country was founded and developed have
been realized and can evaluate and explicate viewpoints concerning that.

This, of course, drove crazy the more committed
leftist ideologues in public education, who must have cringed or even stroked
out when they read in Brumley's introductory letter to the standards
that they illustrated "how the United States has become the greatest country in
the history of the world," which "teach our students to appreciate the majesty
of our country and their obligations as citizens to safeguard America's
founding principles," and finished with quotes from Republican former Pres. Ronald
Reagan. Thus, this learning is the basis on which students henceforth are
tested from which school and district accountability scores are computed and the
basis on which pupil progression and diploma awarding are determined.

So, as PragerU content emphasizes the same sentiments,
it's entirely logical to hold it out as a resource, which elicited leftist outrage
because it challenges the stranglehold the left tries to maintain over
education. Never forget that the left cannot countenance such challenges because
it knows its version of things has serious factual and analytical problems that
become obvious when challenged, so it must do everything it can to delegitimize
any contrary view to disqualify it as a challenger.

Therefore, naturally enough, from the left arises bogus
claims that PragerU content isn't factual, when in reality when analyzed such charges
equate opinionated but factually sustainable views with error merely
because they disagree with the preferred narrative. And that exercise is entirely
hypocritical because of the enormous amount of inaccurate/biased material the
left encourages for insertion into public education over which it raises no
concerns.

In several cases, leftists not only didn't raise
alarms over such propaganda entering schooling, but advocated for it. A popular
textbook – it's unknown in how many Louisiana schools it's used – by a social
activist on the left disguised as a historian is riddled
with inaccuracies and books similar to it in tone and lack of factual care an
organization
pushed for dissemination in Louisiana in response to the new social studies
standards. Criticized
heavily for similar shortcomings is the notorious 1619 Project – whose tone
is almost the polar opposite of the new standards – which again may have been
taught in Louisiana schools. And, where was the outcry when a teacher union
began campaigning for school
libraries to adopt the highly-biased NewsGuard rating system, now under
legal trouble for censorship activities – and again, with an unknown number
of Louisiana schools allowing it in?

Understand that this current rant – which went so
far as to have the Democrat chairman of the Senate and
Governmental Affairs Committee state Sen. Cleo Fields, without any legal authority
to do so, thereby abusing his panel's power of reviewing executive appointees,
call in Brumley
for a closed-door hearing (the committee vets single executive appointees,
but the superintendent
is appointed by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education without Senate
approval) over the matter – comes as a tantrum as part of the grieving process
of the left, triggered by its inability to present policies that a healthy
majority of Louisiana support that include social studies education. It
believes its own ideology that opposition to it is illegitimate, and it can't wrap
its head around the fact that its agenda is discarded and without power.

Let these children throw their fit, while the adults get on with the
business those displaying these histrionics neglected for so long.

In an unfortunate case of throwing out the baby with
the bathwater, some desirable
changes to Louisiana public records laws face deferral due to adverse, if
not in some ways undeserved, critiques of them.

Several bills addressing the subject the Legislature
perused this session. Among them, SB 423 by Republican
state Sen. Jay Morris originally
would have limited records requests to Louisianans; SB 482 by GOP
state Sen. Heather Cloud
would shield the governor's and his family's schedule if safety is a concern
and would exempt advisory and deliberative communications; and SB 502 by
Republican state Sen. Blake
Miguez would require that an actual Louisiana citizen be verified as making
a request. A later
iteration of SB 423 essentially would have combined these elements.

It's important to note that in terms of breadth
Louisiana has one of the most comprehensive and far-reaching open
records laws among the states. Many restrict coverage to certain branches
or levels while Louisiana shields only parts for each. Often these restrictions
go much further than Louisiana's; for example, a number of states exempt the
advisory and deliberative processes. That, in fact, is the approach taken for
the most part by the federal government and most
recently was strengthened by the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, while these laws would weaken access to public
records, in a comparative perspective they wouldn't make the state a closed-off
outlier among its brethren but more likely push it to the modal category. And
there is justification for why these might contribute to better policy-making.

Aside from security concerns, exempting advisory
and deliberative products adheres to the rationale that the federal judiciary
has articulated, that the policy-maker receives more candid advice that might
lead to better policy but which may have negative public opinion optics
attached to it prior to implementation that discourages rendering of that
advice if its revelation to the public is possible. These bills also address perversion
of the intent of the laws, through the weaponization of the public records
process, where adversaries to the ideological agenda of those in power flood
that agency with requests as a means of gumming up the works; by limiting
requests to verified persons either state residents or property owners – which
isn't unreasonable since state taxpayers must foot the bill for requests if
requestors aren't charged – that prevents automated and minimizes frivolous
attacks.

These aren't unreasonable objectives – indeed, GOP
Gov. Jeff Landry
when attorney general endured
a weaponization attack some years ago – but have to walk a fine line
between the process reducing the quality of governance and ensuring that enough
sunshine falls upon state and local government activities. What would have been
the latest version of SB 423 actually struck a pretty good balance, with a
couple of changes: more specifically defining what is advisory and deliberative
and by retaining a personhood verification (which doesn't have to go to great
lengths) and for persons without a direct state connection (such as residents
or property owners) observing a mandatory and much higher fee scale (which could
be avoided by teaming up with state residents in the request, which would be an
easy thing to do for academicians and journalists, or even the agency could
waive those fees as it does for state residents if the requestor can
demonstrate definitively that the information is to be used only for academic or
journalistic purposes).

But that won't happen this session, as Morris actually
withdrew his bill and the others have said they don't plan on pursuing theirs. That's
a net loss insofar as the opportunity to excise some of the less salutary aspects
of Louisiana's open records laws, which actually didn't have touched upon their
gravest defect: among
the most cumbersome to enforce that only encourages deep-pocketed special
interests to abuse that law.

In league with more benign interests genuinely worried about access, these
entities drummed up opposition enough to sideline the reforms for now. In the
future, proponents will have to make a better case about the utility of the
reforms to counter a simplistic narrative that these were exercises to make
governing more secretive. Until then, the imperfect process will lumber on.

It's going to take more than just a big election
cycle win for conservative voters to steer Louisiana government from its
liberal populist pathology, a recent struggle over welfare spending shows.

It always starts the same way. Something unusual,
such as the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, occurs that leftist interests seize
upon to leverage into government action and new expenditures. Then after a point
it's declared the new benefit needs to be made permanent, and conservative
policy-makers too often capitulate.

Liberals understand fully that a substantial
proportion of the public suffers from addiction to government largesse, that
once the benefits start flowing many want hit after hit without end. One of the
Leninist foundations on which today's political left is built is the principle
that what is its is its forever, while whatever policy space its opponents
occupy is always up for grabs.

In
this instance, as part of the pandemic response the federal government
began paying an extra $40 per month per child per family per month for three
months in the summer as an extension of school meal programs, which has come to
be called called Summer EBT. Unwisely, Washington Democrats as well as enough
Republicans decided to make it a permanent feature to which states could apply
starting this year.

Never
mind that multiple programs already exist that perform this function for
decades. Never mind as well that these alternatives do it better at lower cost.
Never mind also that doling out straight cash benefits this way is the method most
prone to fraud, error, and inducing the least healthy eating habits.

Never mind that qualifying families already
receive several hundred dollars per month in food subsidization. Never mind
that if there really were some hunger crisis, despite these expensive existing gifts,
that the extra money could be channeled through one of the existing superior
programs for delivery. Never mind that especially this delivery method only discourages
self-sufficiency, specifically in regarding food provision programs in Louisiana,
that disproportionately produces overconsumption and waste within the target
population.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry and his
Secretary of Children and Family Services David Matlock initially wisely
resisted calls to join in, which would require an estimated $3.6 million or so
state annual match – plus several millions of more millions of dollars in
software upgrades – to catch an estimated $71 million in federal money, out of
billions to be spent nationally in every state. They understood that a program
that would address inefficiently and poorly an object of public policy that
would have considerable detrimental side effects would end up costing Louisiana
taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year, for as even if only a small
portion came directly out of their pockets in state taxes, from them the
federal government would fleece the remainder, directly or through piling on additional
national debt now standing at $34 trillion or over 121 percent of gross domestic
product.

But, apparently, not anyone, including usually
staunch conservatives, understood this in the Louisiana Senate. Recently, senators voted unanimously
(with five absent) to ask Landry to commit to Summer
EBT. The measure now lies in the House for consideration, whose members also
don't seem to get it as they voted unanimously for a budget to which they added
Summer EBT administrative costs, and in a form where Landry cannot deploy a
line-item veto to strip that funding. The budget's sponsor GOP state Rep. Jack McFarland –
chairman of the apparently-dormant Louisiana Conservative Caucus that claims a
mantle of fiscal conservatism, no less – has been the most outspoken supporter of
the program in the chamber.

All because, it seems, even die-hard Louisiana
conservative legislators just can't get off the smack, especially when it's close
to "free." Ironically, a House bill wending
its way through the legislative process would prohibit state and local
governments and their employees from referring to government benefits as "free,"
yet legislators, even the most conservative, appear to have no problem in accepting
federal largesse for doling out as long as they have to put little down on it,
regardless of how poorly and perversely it addresses a public policy goal.

So, Landry
has thrown in towel over this obstinacy and now intends to apply for the funds.
It's no surprise that liberal Democrats in the Legislature would want to expand
this way the size and power of government – and strengthen the bonds of beneficiary
dependency upon them that aids them in their quests for power and privilege – but
for conservative Republicans, to this point without any dissent, to go along
with this is a betrayal of principles they claim to follow.

There may be more layers to this. It may have been
a tradeoff with Landry for their support on other aspects of his agenda, but
that begs the question why it's something conservative legislators would value
in the first place. Do they really believe a few-strings cash benefit addition
will help? Do they really think this is the best use of a few million bucks
compared so many other far more legitimate needs? Do they really think that if
they didn't go along with this appeal to baser instincts within their constituencies
– the more "free" stuff showered on voters, the more voters like them and the better
their reelection chances – that this is an issue that effectively could be used
against them in future elections?

Maybe it all comes down to the liberal populist political
culture ingrained into state politics just so pervasively shaping every facet
of public policy (especially when it involves "the children"), even for self-proclaimed
conservatives. If so, it will be a long, extended haul for conservatives in the
public to flush away that destructive worldview.