Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Dead End: Disability Attorney Tina Laine's Sloppy Forms Lost Our Trust

My wife and I had a very, very negative experience with Tina Louise Laine and would not recommend her. 

Tina Laine bills herself as a social security disability insurance attorney. That may be the case, but I describe her more accurately as simply slow to return phone calls. As far as I could tell, she did not put much effort into my wife's case. (My wife has TBI and is unemployable. She isn't even allowed to drive right now.) Tina Laine met with us once, took our deposit check, and then had me get some medical information from my wife's doctors. 

The forms Tina Laine gave me were copies of copies, which made for a sloppy and unprofessional presentation. I was embarrassed to hand such low quality forms to our doctors.

Her relatively minor effort to help us with our appeal ended in failure. In retrospect, I felt like I did most of the work myself which was mainly gathering together the pertinent documents. In my opinion, she did little to make a difference for us beyond adding these two sloppy forms to our application. In retrospect, the sloppiness of those forms may have been part of the reason we lost our appeal. 

FYI: Her amateur, out-of-date, website gives you insight into the quality of her work. By the way, Tina Louise Laine passed the bar exam in 1986, see The State Bar of California. She graduated from a for-profit law school called Western State College of Law. According to Wikipedia, her alma mater failed to obtain accreditation from the American Bar Association in 1987.

As we appealed the appeal, she was dead wrong about when our new, administrative hearing would take place. It was only due to my efforts that we eventually learned from her that three judges had retired and that my wife's case would be dealt with next year and not this year. This was a total, unpleasant surprise that she did not inform us about until I called her to ask about the untimely delays. 

Tina Louise Laine was also quite rude. She said that I did not tell her the truth about our issues with the IRS. (Due to my wife's unemployment and medical bills, we have fallen behind on our taxes.) Frankly, she never asked about them and never indicated that they were relevant. It was unprofessional for her say I was untruthful and that slip of the tongue cost her our business, loyalty and respect. 

I have a well-deserved reputation for being straightforward and honest. She ended up dropping our case and threatening to keep our deposit, reminding me it was non-refundable. 

As far as I'm concerned working with Tina Laine was an unpleasant chore that cost us a little money and a lot of time and left us with almost nothing of real value.

As we appealed the appeal, she was dead wrong about when our new, administrative hearing would take place. It was only due to my efforts that we eventually learned from her that three judges had retired and that my wife's case would be dealt with next year and not this year. This was a total, unpleasant surprise that she did not inform us about until I called her to ask about the untimely delays. 

Tina Louise Laine was also quite rude. She said that I did not tell her the truth about our issues with the IRS. (Due to my wife's unemployment and medical bills, we have fallen behind on our taxes.) Frankly, she never asked about them and never indicated that they were relevant. It was unprofessional for her say I was untruthful and that slip of the tongue cost her our business, loyalty and respect. 

I have a well-deserved reputation for being straightforward and honest. She ended up dropping our case and threatening to keep our deposit, reminding me it was non-refundable. 

As far as I'm concerned working with Tina Louise Laine was an unpleasant chore that cost us a little money and a lot of time and left us with almost nothing of real value. I am quite surprised to see a number of people praising her at Only the negative on-line reviews reflect my experience. As one person wrote
She lacks in professionalism and compassion.Very unorganized and critical. You walk out of her office asking yourself, "What just happened in there?" Honestly, she comes off as being only interested in money that she can make off your case and is rather RUTHLESS about it. Save yourself the self-image beating and go to another. After all, lawyers like this one are a dime a dozen.
Now that I have more knowledge, I think we are in a position to hire a less sloppy disability attorney or simply handle the matter ourselves. We have a letter from Coastline College that indicates my wife is now unemployable, the DMV will not letter her drive a car. I don't see what the big deal is or why an attorney is even necessary at this point. Tina Laine tried to imply that there were mysterious legal details that would cause her to spend many hours on our case. She refused to even explain one of them so she did not earn my confidence in her abilities or her value. I wouldn't recommend her to anyone. When she accused me of not telling her the truth, I knew she was bad news and did not share our values.

As an interesting side note, I should point out that Tina Louise Laine is a failed Democrat party politician. She tried, unsuccessfully, to secure a seat in the U.S. Congress. She has a lot of Democrat party photos around her office which display her political interests and affiliations. 

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Irrational Questions About Rational Choice: My Most Up-voted Comment on Quora

Inexplicably, I have been allowed back on Quora. I accessed it through my Facebook account and no one seems to have a problem with me any more. I'm not sure how long that will last. Nevertheless, it is interesting to me to see which answers I give seem to spark the most interests. The following exchange is clearly my most popular (upvoted) so far.

Question: Why do people so frequently vote for republicans who are to a great extent against their own interests?
"Me at the Beach," by John Drew,
Self-portrait, oil on canvas, 10' x 10'.

My Answer: I’m an ex-Democrat largely because the Democrat party stopped representing my interests as a member of the white working class. The key issues for me was affirmative action. As a young man, I grew up poor. Nevertheless, I had good grades, I completed calculus in high school and had outstanding SAT scores.

I worked hard and spent many hours in the library working to get ahead while other, wealthier students, partied and used drugs like cocaine and marijuana. My hard work paid off and I got a scholarship to study in England for a year and later got a full scholarship to attend Cornell University as a graduate student.

As I was finishing up my graduate studies and looking for teaching positions it became perfectly clear that Democrat party members did not care whether I found a job or not. They were much more intent on getting jobs for women and members of favored minorities groups. My family was half Armenian and I was the first person on my mother’s side of the family to graduate from college, much less go to graduate school.

Overtime, I became a registered Republican. This was my only choice, in large measure, as I came to realize Democrats saw white working class folks like me as the enemy. They still suggest I benefit from “white privilege” when my experience is that being white harmed my life and my career as an academic.

At every turn of my life Democrat party policies have made my journey more painful and more difficult. Due taxation policies, I pay more than other people because I have chosen to marry and stay married. Due to housing policies, I have been left with a high mortgage in an expensive housing market. Due to government set asides for minority contractors, I have lost business to companies run by favored minority groups and women. It goes on and on. The Democrats are not on my side.

I would be irrational to vote for the people who have brought down on me so much hatred and discrimination. Even worse, as a student of political economy, I know that the end result of socialism in the U.S. will not be a second Sweden. Instead, it would be a second Venezuela. It would be a place where the ruling elite enriches itself (like the Clintons and Obamas), the most productive people bail out and hide their wealth, and the people supposedly helped by socialism end up picking through the garbage looking for scraps of food.

Trust me. I’m voting Republican because I know it is in my best interest to do so. I think the whole premise of this question is wrong.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Bad Choices: What is Barack Obama's View of Bernie Sanders?

I knew the young Barack Obama while he was a student at Occidental College. As I have reported elsewhere he was a Marxist revolutionary back in the winter of 1980.

See, Articles: Meeting Young Obama

There is no evidence of Obama having some sort of conversion experience so it seems likely that he is still committed to some form of socialism and a major effort to redistribute the wealth.

My take is that he did not think that Sanders could win and that he thought the best hope for preserving his legacy was to support Hillary Clinton. Ultimately, however, his heart was with Bernie Sanders.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Bad Book: What Will We Remember About Barack Obama's Dreams from My Father?

Aside from Obamacare, I think Barack Obama is best known for his book, Dreams from My Father.
This book was extremely important to his early political career in Chicago. Over time, many people took the book literally and it became a way for people to learn about Obama in such a matter that it empowered him. Many charismatic leaders write books about themselves which end up building their own fame and charisma including George Washington, Mahatma Gandhi, and John F. Kennedy.

This is part of the reason why there is so much intellectual controversy surrounding Dreams from My Father right now, particularly arguments about the extent to which it is historically accurate or is only a historical novel.

To a large extent, I think that presidential historians are coming to the conclusion that the book for which Barack Obama is best know was in large measure a carefully crafted fiction. It included a number of stories in which Barack Obama tried to exaggerate his ties to the African-American community, including claiming he dated black women, which subsequent research has found to be untrue.

According to David J. Garrow’s new book, Rising Star, it appears that Dreams from My Father overstated the closeness of Obama’s parents, understated the time he spend with Frank Marshall Davis, and minimized young Obama’s post-Columbia marijuana and cocaine usage. There are also indications that the young Obama was quite concerned about his weight since he was fat as a child.

All in all, I think that Dreams from My Father will remain as one of the most important of Obama’s legacies, especially since subsequent research has found that much of this first book was highly inaccurate even as it help to form a myth that helped Barack Obama become president.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Tiny Towns: Let's Compare the Quality of Education Received at Williams Compared to a Traditional Ivy League School

Someone on Quora recently asked me the following question: "How would one compare the quality of education received at Williams compared to that of one received at an Ivy League school such as Harvard or Princeton?" There were a number of interesting answers in addition to mine. Nevertheless, here's my take on the advantages and disadvantages of a Williams College education compared to a traditional Ivy League education.

Of course, I am an ex-political science professor who taught at Williams in the 1980s and who was a teaching assistant (TA) at Cornell. My sense is that Williams College provided a higher quality education in the sense that the courses I taught there were designed to make everything absolutely clear, creative, and easy to understand for the students. Compared to my TA experience, I did a much better job of teaching while I was at Williams College.

As I recall, I gave students examples of successful papers, provided clear directions, and picked the best possible reading materials. I was among the top teachers on campus according to the reports I received which compared my student ratings with those of the other professors. While I was at Williams College, I was at the top of my game. I completed my doctoral dissertation while I was there and won the William Anderson Award from the American Political Science Association.

Accordingly, the students I worked with at Cornell and at Williams College were both dealing with the same somewhat exceptional scholar and teacher. The difference is that the teaching at Williams College was much better, I mean ten times better.

That being said, I have to say that Harvard, for example, is much harder to get into than Williams College. Williams is in a God-forsaken, hostile, rural area. It is overwhelmingly cliquish and quite unfriendly to conservative or even Republican perspectives. It is the sort of place where a young Christian or conservative can quickly become socially isolated, even disdained by their fellow students. In my experience, the liberal/leftist students at Williams College seem to have a “you’re either for us or against us” attitude which leaves a lot of the students hating each other by the end of four years.

If you run afoul of the liberal establishment at Williams College you have almost no alternative social or intellectual outlets for yourself. At least at Harvard, where my niece graduated, you have a whole city around you and opportunities to get relief from ideological oppression by venturing off the campus into the larger community. This escape is not possible at Williams College and I think that undermines the quality of education you receive out there.

Of course, Cornell University is also in a God-forsaken, hostile, rural environment. Nevertheless, the college is large enough that there are a variety of students to hang out with. One of the students I worked with as a teaching assistant at Cornell was Ann Coulter. I don’t Ann Coulter would have been happy at Williams College.

So, I don’t know if that helps you much at all. I would say, without a doubt, that the teaching is better at Williams College. Nevertheless, this advantage may not make up - in an educational sense - for the restricted ideological and social life associated with the school.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

What Do Conservatives Even Stand for Anymore?

This somewhat snarky question arose to my attention on Quora. The questioner wrote: "There was a time when conservatives stood for traditional values, smaller government, fiscal responsibility and strong national defense. Yet, many conservatives continue to stand by Trump who napalm those values regularly. Is their sole unifying value in 2017 the shared hatred of liberals?"

Frankly, I just don’t buy the premise of the question, specifically the suggestion that Trump has “napalmed” conservative values. Look at the evidence:

  • He picked Mike Pence as his vice-president.
  • He has submitted a budget that cuts back dramatically on domestic spending.
  • He is making efforts to reduce the regulations that have been strangling the economy and reducing income to the federal government.
  • He seems to be pretty aggressive in both funding and respecting the military.

Republicans are at their strongest level of political power since the 1920s and Trump has managed to win over the white working class in a manner that will make it difficult for Democrats to win again at the national level for at least a generation.

I think the unifying factor here is defending the interests of the white working class. As long as Democrats vilify the white working class, I do not think they will have much opportunity to win significant power at either the state or federal level.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Living History: Reading David Garrow's Rising Star - The Making of Barack Obama

I’m still reading through David J. Garrow’s new presidential biography, Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama. Already, however, I can report that he cited a number – but not all – of my American Thinker articles. Garrow recommends reading them in chronological order.
The worst that he can say about me is to suggest that by reports are perhaps similar to those of other potentially reliable ex-Communists. He indicates, correctly, that I was a Tea Party activist. All things considered, it looks like I got off light -- at least compared to Garrow's rather harsh treatment of Barack Obama. Garrow goes out of his way to indicate that Obama married Michelle, in large measure, because he needed a black wife in order to have a smooth political career in Chicago. It turns out that Obama was sleeping with both Michelle and an ex-girlfriend during his second year at Harvard Law School.

Garrow documents my previous role as an academic. For example, he reports that I completed my Ph.D. and taught at Williams College. I have to think the late presidential history James MacGregor Burns who was a colleague of mine at Williams College would be proud of me today. At least prouder of me today than Michelle Obama is of Barack Obama.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Unsafe at Any Speed: Should I Go to Williams College?

I’m a former Williams College political science professor. I highly recommend avoiding it. It is, of course, highly rated by U.S. News & World Report.

This is why I was once proud to teach there and why I suppose so many are still interested in attending it. Its frequent number one ranking, however, conceals a number of problematic aspects of the college which should factor into your decision-making regarding whether or not you should go to Williams.
First, it is ridiculously cold and isolated geographically. My stomach still turns into knots when I remember what it was like to drive from the airport in Albany, NY into Williamstown, MA. The only route was a thin, two-lane highway. In the winter it was covered with ice and snow. The roads to both the north, south and east were also windy, tiny and inadequate. While I was teaching there one of my students died in a winter car accident. The road to the east was so bad that it had what they called a Deadman’s Curve, and it was indeed a place where there had been frequent accidents and deaths. Even in town, I remember the roads were narrow and dangerous. During my first year on the campus, one of my colleagues in the political science department was killed in a car accident as he made a short one-line commute back to his home.
Second, it is unbelievably cliquish. Because the campus is small and isolated you will quickly find that living there means that you are quickly identified, sorted out, accepted or isolated, and conveniently locked into place. For those who settle in the area, the rule of thumb is that you are not accepted by the locals until you are a third generation inhabitant.
The social pressures for ideological conformity are immense and thoroughly enforced on the campus. In particular, Williams College has a long-standing hostility to conservative students, speakers, and scholars. If you are a Christian, a Republican, a conservative or even a middle of the road liberal Democrat, then I highly recommend you find another place to study unless you want to endure four years of hostility and stigma.
The school has recently been in the news for banning conservative speakers including the relatively innocuous Suzanne Venker.
Third, if you are interested in parties and the opposite sex, then I also recommend against attending Williams College. At this school, being in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship is discouraged by the social pressures which assume that such relationships are unhealthy and probably interfering with one’s academic advancement. The women who were interested in men, in my experience, were mainly interested in dating older men who had good jobs and good careers in nearby urban areas like New York or Boston. For the life of me, I cannot remember if any of the students I taught while I was there from 1986 to 1989 even went out on dates.
The social environment has apparently gotten even worse since I taught at Williams College by new rules and bureaucratic policies which appear to me to place young men at danger of being labeled as rapists simply because they had consensual sex with a girl who has been drinking. If I had a son, Williams College would be among the last places on Earth I would send him for school. As far as I am concerned Williams College is an unsafe environment for young men.
Fourth, the geographic isolation means there is little to do that is fun or interesting off campus. I remember being so bored while I taught there that I would get in my car and drive to the top of the nearby Mt. Greylock to enjoy a view of the surrounding area at the height of 3,491 feet. The nearby city of North Adams is an extremely depressing, poor, rotted out post-industrial population center.
Fifth, perhaps because there is so little to do in the area, the school has a bad reputation for out-of-control drug use. It was, in fact, once rated among the top ten druggiest colleges in the nation.
Ironically, when I taught at Williams College, one of the students I most enjoyed mentoring and working with as an adviser turned out to be one of the very top drug dealers on campus.
Sixth, I believe there is a lot of mental illness on the campus. I think it is an unhappy place because of the bad weather, the substance abuse, the atheism, the cliques, and the low social IQ’s of many of its bright, but immature inhabitants. It is the sort of place where young, unstable students flame out and end up taking five years instead of four years to finish their college educations. One ex-president of the college, Harry C. Payne, jumped to his death from the eighth floor of a hotel. While I taught at Williams one of the science professors killed himself by releasing deadly gas in his airtight car. As I recall a second professor also killed himself around that time although I did not remember the details. Maybe I was just teaching there at a bad time.
Finally, I would observe that the U.S. News and World Report rankings seem to be heavily dependent on a school’s endowment. I can confirm that Williams College is awash in money. There are plenty of resources available there to the students and the faculty. Thanks to all this money, it is a wonderful place to spend the summer if you are there when the students are gone and the community is packed with movie stars and celebrities who are part of the Williamstown Theatre Festival.
To be sure, not all my memories of the place are negative. I finished up my award-winning thesis while I taught there. I had good friends in the local community and incredible spiritual support from folks I met off campus including an inspiring Quaker group which met up north in nearby Vermont. (Although, come to think of it, I ran my car off the road and into a ditch while driving back from a meeting.)
My neighbors were some of the friendliest and nicest people I have ever known. The students, by far, were the best part of my campus experience. It was fun to teach such bright, energetic young people. Nevertheless, knowing what I know now, I would never have accepted a job there. I got sucked in by the prestige and underestimated how much I would miss a safe, sane, high quality of life.
My recommendation? Look for another college or university. Preferably a college or university near a big city where you can get lost, enjoy some anonymity, and lead a healthy, balanced life. Williams College is a great place to visit over the summer, but a terrible place to spend four years of your life.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Monday, May 8, 2017

Waiting for Garrow: New Obama Biography Due This Week

Those of us who want to reduce President Obama’s future influence in American politics are looking forward to the release of David J. Garrow’s new 1,400 page opus, Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama. Although Professor Garrow is a Bernie Sanders donor, he has a reputation as an honest, straightforward historian. This reputation is the result of his balanced and even somewhat damaging Pulitzer Prize winning book on Martin Luther King, Bearing the Cross (1986).

John Drew with David Garrow in Laguna Niguel, CA.

While some journalists have already received preliminary copies of Rising Star, most of us will have to wait a little longer since the book will be released on May 9, 2017. As for me, however, I have been waiting to read Garrow’s book since December 2011.

I was one of the 1,000 people who Garrow interviewed, a number he repeatedly refers to when he wants to present his book as the new, gold standard for Obama biographies. Garrow’s book is competing for this honor against David Remnick’s The Bridge (2010) and David Maraniss’s Barack Obama: The Story (2012). Neither Remnick or Maraniss interviewed me even though they interviewed almost all of the students I knew at Occidental College between 1979-1981.

I have always found this odd since my face-to-face observations of young Obama’s radical ideology were reported -- prior to the publication of either book -- by Ronald Kessler in a NEWSMAX article that appeared in early February 2010. See,

Later, my complete report of Obama’s commitment to a leadership role in a coming, inevitable Communist revolution appeared in an article I wrote called “Meeting Young Obama” that was published in American Thinker in February 2011. See,

Maraniss’s failure to interview me seems particularly misguided since my first impression of young Obama has been accessed and cited by so many other authors. So far, it has appeared in Glenn Beck’s “Liars” (2016), Jack Cashill’s “Deconstructing Obama” (2011), Stanley Kurtz’s “Radical-In-Chief” (2010), Paul Kengor’s “Dupes” (2010) and “The Communist” (2012), and Michael Savages’ “Trickle Up Poverty” (2010).

Accordingly, I was suspicious when I first heard from Garrow by e-mail because my story had been so neglected by previous mainstream historians. In an abundance of caution, I checked out his YouTube videos and then asked him to give me a call so I could be sure I was talking to the real Pulitzer Prize historian and not some deranged Occupy Wall Street protester. Over the phone, we agreed to meet at my home in Laguna Niguel.

As a political scientist, I have spoken with presidential historians before, including the late James MacGregor Burns who was a colleague at Williams College. However, I had never been interviewed by one. 

I was surprisingly nervous.  As Garrow sat in my living room, I almost dumped a full glass of ice tea on him.  It was also surprisingly unpleasant to remember my youthful days as a recent Occidental College graduate who was dating a girl, Caroline Boss, who was still a senior at Occidental and who was so close to young Obama that Maraniss claims she was one of the most significant composite characters included in Obama’s Dreams from My Father (1995).  I prepared for the interview by sorting through old photographs and rereading about 30 cards and letters from that era of my life. 

As it turned out, Garrow was something of a gossip. He entertained me with news regarding the fate of my old friends and acquaintances:  who got married to who, who succeeded in life and who failed. I also found out Garrow plays an awkward role in informing people of the deaths of those who used to be in their social circles.  In my case, Garrow revealed one of the Occidental College radical leaders I knew best, Gary Chapman, 58, had died of a heart attack the previous December.

During the recorded interview, my aim was to stress my credibility and to get as much of my story as I could into the historical record. I shared with him evidence of my relationship with Boss including some photos and a romantic card she sent me.

Over time, it became clear that while Garrow was familiar with my American Thinker piece on young Obama, he was much more interested in tracking down the community which surrounded Obama at Occidental and by all accounts continued to support and stay in touch with him right up to his election as president.

Sensing his true interests, I surprised him by bringing out an old, tattered, green address book which included Boss’s phone numbers and addresses in both the U.S. and Europe. He seemed positively giddy about it.  He wrote down nothing and instead he read out loud from my address book into his recorder.

I did speak to him off-the-record too, but only about sexual matters, the sort of unseemly things which would be embarrassing to air but still would help him understand the intimate social connections of Obama’s Occidental College friends. He indicated to me that his next stop would be Washington state where he would interview Caroline and her husband, Tom, who had also been a student at Occidental College.

After we were done, I remember Garrow was gracious enough to pose with me for a photo. It turns out his wife, Darleen, had been waiting for us in a car while the interview took place. As she took the picture, I praised her husband for his status as a Pulitzer Prize winning biographer. She seemed a little jaded by my compliment and less effusive than me in praising his worthwhile accomplishments.

At this point, I am not at all confident I had much impact on Garrow’s book.

I listened to a radio interview he gave to Jamie Weinstein and he flatly dismissed any suggestion that young Obama was gay, Marxist, Muslim or a beneficiary of the writing and editing skills of Bill Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist. Using the broadest possible definitions, in contrast, I see the young Obama as all four. I am waiting to see if the mainstream media will use Garrow’s book to short-circuit future attempts to create an honest account of Obama life, an account which should rightfully end his political influence.

Note: This article was originally published in American Thinker on May 8, 2017.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Forgiveness and the Shack: Remembering My Old Antagonist, The Late Timothy E. Cook

Trish and I watched The Shack last weekend. I think the movie's emphasis on forgiveness is timely and well worth reflecting upon, especially for me as I review my negative experience as a young academic teaching at Williams College in Massachusetts.

I have to admit that I have been guilty of wishing ill upon those who misrepresented the quality of my work as a young man simply to get rid of me. This habit seems particularly pointless right now because I recently learned, to my surprise, that one of the people I have hated the most, a tenured political science professor named Timothy E. Cook, had died of cancer over a decade ago. He was only 51. By dying so young, Cook inadvertently added to the perception and scientific evidence that gay married men live substantially shorter lives than straight married men.

As I recall, Cook had the honor of being the first openly gay tenured professor in the political science department at Williams College. (At the time, I remember about 25% of the department was gay.) At the high point of his career, Cook served as the Treasurer of the American Political Science Association (APSA). I remember being impressed with Cook's organizational skills, disgusted by his poor personal hygiene, and unimpressed with how his loud and proud Democrat party activism was only barely disguised by the thin veneer of being an objective political scientist. I vividly remember the Republican students on campus shared with me that Cook had turned a standard statistics course into an unrelenting leftist/feminist indoctrination seminar.

When I got news of his death, I was confronted with the unshakable reality that those who are the object of our hate are entirely unaffected by it.

As the story line in The Shack recommends, I am supposed to start on the path of forgiveness by reliving the insults I suffered due to Cook and his leftist allies at Williams College. The part of their behavior that bothers me the most is that they sought to diminish the quality and significance of my biggest academic achievement at the time, my doctoral dissertation. As you may know, they didn't fire me. They just took me off the tenure track and offered me another paid year to find another teaching position. The excuse I received from the department chairman is that my dissertation research was not up to the standards of the department.

I suppose that in a nation in which young Republican students are bullied by their leftist peers, it should not be surprising that the institutional dissing of my doctoral dissertation would still be in the news 28 years later. I was a little surprised myself to learn that if you Google the phrase “political science at Williams College” about 20% of the first 10 articles refer explicitly to my story of abuse and woe. I guess my critics can diminish me as much as they wish, but still the irrepressible algorithms speak for themselves.

The way Cook disparaged of my doctoral dissertation still ticks me off years later, especially as I recall the sheer difficulty of my journey. As I recall, I wrote the majority of my award-winning thesis while living in poverty, working as a gardener, and surviving without the safety net of health insurance. Completely without family support -- emotionally or financially -- I endured anxiety, jumpiness, hyper-vigilance and chronic depression. My thesis was initially rejected by the most senior political scientists at Cornell University, including Theodore J. Lowi. At first, no one thought it was possible that a graduate student could unwind and straighten out forty years of settled science on the origins of the welfare state. Accordingly, I still bristle when anyone tries to minimize achievements which brought me to the nation’s #1 liberal arts college, secured the highest possible recognition from the APSA, and got published by the same publisher used by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

You can check out a review of my published work, the same one dissed by the political science department at Williams College, in the following article, Thomas R. Barton, “Exploring Human Dimensions of Welfare Reform,” The Journal of Intergroup Relations, Winter 1996-97. Here is the portion of the review that refers to me and my contributions to successful edited volume.
While the authors in Welfare in America set out an ambitious goal for themselves which ultimately disappoints, The American Welfare System: Origins, Structure, and Effects, edited by Howard Gensler, does not make such an attempt and is ultimately a more satisfying read. 
The American Welfare System is not a usual collection of pieces written by several different authors, as is the case with Welfare in America. In Gensler’s collection, the first nine chapters are written by John Drew; the next three by Gensler; and the final chapter is written by D. Eric Schansberg. 
Drew’s section, which is the bulk of the book, is entitled “The Origins of the American Welfare System.” In his section, Drew provides an overview of several theories of the emergence of the United State’s welfare system and offers his own explanation. Other explanations of the emergence of our system, which he discusses, include conflict theories, working class organization theories, and evolutionary theories. Drew contends that all of these explanations have ignored or overlooked the importance of children’s programs, our changing views on children, and child labor laws in influencing the development of the welfare system. 
Drew’s chapters trace the historical development of the welfare system, with an emphasis on children and child labor laws, from Colonial America through the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935. Gensler’s section, entitled “The Structure and Effects of Welfare” examines the country’s current income maintenance system and concludes that it is fundamentally inadequate. Based on his examination of Department of Commerce and the Census’ Current Population Survey data, he further concludes that “The American social safety net is full of holes” (p xii). Gensler and Schansberg argue that the country needs to adopt a negative income tax system. 
Overall, I found Drew’s contributions to be the most interesting and important. He rightly concludes that histories of the social welfare system have tended to ignore or downplay the importance of child labor legislation in the formation of mother’s pensions and ultimately the Social Security Act of 1935. The historical chapters of this book make an important contribution to our understanding of the history of welfare in the United States.
This thesis seems to have a life of its own as it ends up being cited by scholars almost immediately after I wrote it. See, for example, by Paul E. Peterson and Mark C. Rom, Welfare Magnets: The New Case for a National Standard, (Brookings Institution Press, 1990). For the record, the thesis was credited in other publications as well:

Theda Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, (Harvard University Press, 1992).

Skocpol, Theda, et al. “Women's Associations and the Enactment of Mothers' Pensions in the United States.” The American Political Science Review, vol. 87, no. 3, 1993, pp. 686–701.,

Andrew J. Polsky, The Rise of the Therapeutic State. (Princeton University Press, 1993).

Howard Gensler, "The Effect of Race and Sex on Welfare Benefits," Cato Journal, Fall/Winter, 1995 Vol. 15 No. 2.

Judith Sealander, Private Wealth and Public Life: Foundation Philanthropy and the Reshaping of American Social Policy from the Progressive Era to the New Deal, (JHU Press, 1997).

Kriste Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood: The U.S. Children's Bureau and Child Welfare, 1912-46, (University of Illinois Press, 1997).

Elliott J. Gorn, Mother Jones: The Most Dangerous Woman in America, (Macmillan, 2002).

Scott W. Allard, Competitive Pressures and the Emergence of Mothers' Aid Programs in the United States, The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2004.

Thomas A. Krainz, Delivering Aid: Implementing Progressive Era Welfare in the American West, (UNM Press, 2005).

It has also been mentioned nearly 30 years after I wrote it including in a relatively new book, Megan Birk, Fostering on the Farm: Child Placement in the Rural Midwest, (University of Illinois Press, 2015).

Objectively, the dissertation that Williams College dismissed as inadequate was actually one of the extremely rare doctoral dissertations which still gets cited by other scholars 30 years after its publication. I only wish I had this information in 1989. I might have believed him when Theodore J. Lowi told me, “You don’t realize you’re a great political scientist.”

I distinctly remember Cook suggesting to me, at a faculty event, that Williams College could ruin my career and my life if I did not play by their rules. I remember telling him, with complete confidence, that there was nothing they could do to hurt me. In retrospect, I was wrong. They could hurt me. It would have been nice at the time, however, to know that Cook would be dead 17 years later. As Trish says, my current frustration is probably because I inadvertently missed out on a whole decade of knowing that he pre-deceased me. With her help, let the healing begin.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

How Low Will It Go? Trustee/Donor Au Pair Scandal Rocks Globalists at Williams College

As you may know, Joey Shaista Horn ’87 has resigned as a trustee of Williams College in the wake of a court decision in Norway to punish her and her husband for the mistreatment of two Filipino au pairs. This court decision was part of a larger effort which ensnared the Horn's and two of their neighbors in a clear cut violation of Norway's laws governing immigration and human-trafficking.

The new Horn Hall at Williams College is named after Ragnor '85 and
Joey Shaista Horn '87, a wealthy couple convicted of crimes in Norway.
The puzzle, of course, is why the board of trustees consented to naming the new Horn Hall after this nefarious couple even though news of their arrests was freely available as early as December 2014.

As far as I can piece this together, Joey Shaista Horn ’87 is not some out-of-touch, hands-off trustee. Instead, she seems deeply involved in the business of the college, particularly in terms of efforts to bring more international students, such as herself, to the campus. (When she was a student, she was president of the International Students Club and performed Indian classical dance.)

In one of the college's webpages, she is said to have "led the charge" to bring more international students to campus. See,

A Library Re-imagined from Williams College on Vimeo.

Based on my experience with non-profit boards, I suspect that Joey Shaista Horn ’87 is indeed, as one of her au pairs described her, a perfectionist. It seems reasonable to me that this character flaw is one of the reasons she held on to her position as a trustee even as her husband was resigning left and right from his board-level commitments. She seems less willing than her husband to admit she made a serious mistake - punishable by incarceration and fines - and to accept the consequences of her poor decisions and lack of empathy. I think a healthier person would have resigned immediately, citing personal reasons, knowing the consequences this scandal would have for Williams College's reputation.

It may also be that Williams College tolerated (or even excused) Joey Shaista Horn's contemptible behavior out of a misplaced sympathy for her cultural heritage.

Unfortunately for her Filipino au pairs, not all aspects of Indian culture are as pleasant as the classical dance routines Joey Shaista Horn brought to campus in the late 1980's. Sadly, Indian culture has made it tolerant of holding the largest number of enslaved people in the world. As I understand it, a little over 18 million people — about the population of Chile — are still victims of contemporary slavery in India.

Frankly, I do not think it makes sense to neglect the contribution of Indian culture to her behavior. The au pairs report that they felt like "slaves" while they were in her household. Her own husband indicates that she was the one responsible for administering the au pairs. She certainly did not pick up her calloused attitude toward her au pairs from anything she learned in either European or American culture.

My guess is that she lasted as long as she did because she is a powerful board member, that she held on to avoid embarrassment, that her globalist vision is perfectly aligned with her fellow trustees, and that they were willing to cut her some slack because demanding her resignation would remind us all that cultural diversity is not necessarily a good thing, especially when one's received culture is relatively tolerant of the enslavement of others.

In more painful irony, it turns out Joey Shaista Horn ’87, who was based in Singapore when she came on board, was the very first international trustee. See, She was, initially, a triple affirmative action victory – Indian, female and international. In retrospect, I think she will soon be regarded as one of the trustee’s biggest mistakes. Maybe there should be a special trustee position set aside for the morally bankrupt/recently incarcerated?

NOTE: As a professional fundraiser myself, I would start picking away at this tangled mess by asking who on the development staff knew about her arrest in December 2014? I suspect that the folks who were taking credit for her $10 million gift had little incentive to shine the light on her creepy backstory.

In a recent article in the student-run, Williams Record, two reporters found that the trustee chair, Adam Falk and the development staff all knew about the Horn's arrest prior to accepting their $10 million naming rights gift for Horn Hall. You can now also open a copy of Joey Horn's post resignation explanation letter. From the article, it is clear that Adam Falk has lost his moral compass because he does not seem to get why a track-record of lying, criminality and abuse disqualifies someone from having their name proudly displayed on a student residence hall.

Finally, I suspect we will see that she is involved with other trustees at Williams College in ways that have nothing to do with the school. She may, for example, have been using her trustee position to market investment products to other trustees. It is entirely possible that she has entangled herself in their other business or charitable work too.

I predict her downfall will ensnare other trustees - as well as faculty, administrators and development staff - as it becomes more and more clear which of them knew about her dark side and which of them failed to confront it.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Greedy for Globalism: Williams College Trustee Joey Shaista Horn '87 Sentenced for Au Pair Abuse Crime

The evil, globalist influences at Williams College in MA are now slightly more visible. It turns out that Ephblog is reporting that Joey Shaista Horn '87 -- one of trustees of this previously prestigious institution -- is now going to jail.

A Library Re-imagined from Williams College on Vimeo.

She and her husband Ragnor Horn '85 will be jailed five months as punishment for their mistreatment of two Filipino au pairs. For more complete details on this case, please check out the English language article in News In English: Norway. According to an article in Ephblog, Joey and Ragnor were exploiting both young women: 
The Oslo City Court has sentenced a wealthy Norwegian investor and his wife to five months in prison each, in a case that has highlighted abuse of Norway’s au pair program. It’s supposed to serve as a cultural exchange for young people from abroad but the couple, aided by two neighbours, was found guilty of fraudulently and illegally using two young women from the Philippines as au pairs at the same time, and putting them to work as their low-paid household help.
In a related development, two of the Horn's neighbors, who had helped the Horns illegally bring the two young women to Norway, were convicted under Norway's human trafficking laws. During the trial in January 2017, the two au pairs reported that they felt like “slaves” and “in prison” in the Horns’ home. In a bizarre twist, Ragnor threw Joey under the bus, and then drove it back and forth over her, when he told the court that economic gain was “never a factor” in regarding the au pairs and that Joey Shaista Horn '87 had been responsible for administering them. According to one of the au pairs, Joey was “a perfectionist” who humiliated her.

What is especially nauseating to me is that Joey Shaista Horn '87 was involved in the political science department when I taught at Williams College in the late 1980's. As a student, she majored in biology with a concentration in Middle Eastern studies. In a time when the school is bending over backwards to bring more foreign students to Williams College, she had impeccable credentials since she had been the president of the International Students Club and performed Indian classical dance.

I do not remember her at all. After she graduated from Williams College, she went on to take her MBA at Yale in 1991 and has worked in a variety of roles in investment banking according to Bloomberg. She sits on a number of corporate boards.

She is of Indian decent and has apparently taken to heart the cultural traits which are the most dysfunctional aspects of Indian culture, a culture which seems to turn a blind eye to both prostitution and human-trafficking. See, As a biographical statement from the office of the president indicates, the folks at Williams College have been celebrating her globalist credentials for a while now:
Having grown up in Paris and New York and lived as an adult in Singapore and now Oslo, Norway, Joey is one of the college’s more globally minded trustees. She is of Indian heritage and came to Williams as an international student, and she met and eventually married another international Eph—her husband is Ragnar Horn ’85.
Joey Shaista Horn '87 has been highly involved with the school according to its own publicity. for example, she joined the Board of Trustees as an alumni trustee in 2009 and was appointed as a term trustee in 2014. She served as an associate class agent, co-head agent and co-chair of her 25th reunion. She was involved in the Teach It Forward campaign as co-chair of the Women’s Leadership Giving Committee. Amazingly, she served as volunteer for the Windows on Williams program which is designed to encourage students to make an early decision in favor of the school. The school gave her the Frederick C. Copeland Award in 2012, in part, because of her efforts to "lead the charge" to increase the number of foreign students at Williams. You cannot make this stuff up.

The embarrassment for Adam Falk, the school's president, must be intense right now. The school's newest residential building, Horn Hall, is named after them. Here is a fawning article in a 2008 Williams College report that included information about this couple's globalist credentials including their residence in Singapore:

Horn Hall, as you might expect, is named after them because they funded this new residential hall with a $10 million gift to the school.

Joey Shaista Horn '87 has been a Williams trustee since 2009 where, it seems, she has been able to promote her lack of empathy and vision for anti-American globalism to a generation of Williams College students. The details of the Williams College trustees objectionable behavior are also reported in Ephblog today: 
The au pairs’ testimony was almost entirely at odds with the Horns’, according to media reports. The Horns claimed they considered the women members of their family and had tried to help them. They admitted to having surveillance cameras in their home but claimed they were not focused on the women while they worked. Mrs Horn, who was represented in court by one of Norway’s most famous defense attorneys, John Christian Elden, also confirmed the required use of face masks, but claimed that “was common in Asia” and was only required in the kitchen by one of the women who “coughed so much.” 
Evidence prosecutors referred to in court, however, included a chatting exchange Mrs Horn had with a friend that revealed her referring to her household help in derogatory terms and accusing her of coughing on the food or while in the bathroom. Mrs Horn told her friend the au pair would have to use both a face mask and disposable gloves while in the home or with Horn’s children. 
The conversation used as evidence in court also recorded Mrs Horn telling her friend that she had threatened to send the au pair back to her “straw mats in Manila.” Mrs Horn defended herself by saying it had been a “private conversation” with an old friend and that she actually “loved straw mats” and had one in her own home that she used for yoga.
From my perspective, the more pertinent issue is whether or not the U.S. and Williams College are ready for the globalist values of Joey Shaista Horn '87. As a matter of integrity, Williams College should return their gift and allow someone else, someone with better and more humane values, have the honor of their name on that building. Simple as that. If Williams fails to take action, the students on campus should begin protesting this outrage.

I am pleased to report that the day before an earlier version of this article was published -- and later promoted through my Twitter account -- Joey Shaista Horn '87 resigned from the Board of Trustees of Williams College. Now, all Adam Falk needs to do is return her $10 million gift and scrape her family's name off the new residential hall. Someone should also be asking why it took about two weeks for Joey Shaista Horn '87 resign?

As a capital campaign adviser myself, I suspect the school procrastinated in severing its relationship with her until Ephblog raised the visibility of her conviction and sentence. This case, by the way, has been on-going since 2014 so the administration at Williams College must have known about the seedy side of this errant trustee long before they opened the doors of the new Horn Hall to a new generation of erstwhile social justice warriors.

As I observed in one of my own Ephblog posts, "The larger issue is that Joey Shaista Horn '87 is a proven liar, a criminal, and an abusive employer, all qualities that make her unsuited to serve as a Williams College trustee. I don’t think that the Williams College that hired me in the 1980’s would tolerate someone with her criminal record, much less name a building after her." Hopefully, the revelations regarding this disgusting human being will cause others to ask serious questions about Williams College and its dysfunctional values. No one should lie about or mistreat au pairs.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Valentines Day: Teaching Romance at Williams College

I still think that one of the best things I ever did at Williams College was a Winter Study called “Decisions, Decisions.” Even though it was politically incorrect, I included a session on how to choose a spouse.

At this time, I was already sensitive to the left-wing extremists on campus — as an ex-extremist myself — and I was pleasantly surprised by the degree to which students signed up for the course and the extent to which they were fascinated by the topic of finding a marriage partner.

I remember asking among my fellow faculty members who had the happiest marriage on campus and I invited that couple to come in and address my Winter Study class. I used the same techniques I taught in that class to find Trish, and we have been married 20 years now this February 22.

My tips? Make a list of all the qualities you are looking for based on what you’ve liked or disliked about previous love interests. Create a detailed description of the person you are looking for…I mean detailed. Next, take action. Ironically, some of this maybe up to the girl. My future wife, for example, called me first and invited me to an innocuous, mutually interesting event.

The best advice, as always, comes from Charles Murray: “Consider marrying young. Be wary of grand passions. Watch Groundhog Day repeatedly.” For an alternative point of view, the one I actually followed as a young man, check out the new musical, La La Land.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Feels Good Man: Getting Ready for the Meme Wars

It looks like the last election was settled, in part, by people who learned to create memes, little cartoons and photos designed to make a telling, irreverent political point. I thought I'd give it a shot and see if I could create some GIFs and install them here. What do you think? I think they are catching but a too busy and distracting for my tastes.

As you may know, I'm an unabashed fan of Patrick McGoohan and of his iconic The Prisoner television series. I remember watching the first episode with my father and my brothers on our black and white television set when I was about 11 years old back on June 1, 1968.

As a baby boomer, I'm still fond of McGoohan's classic line: "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered!" This GIF is made up of four separate photos which appear at the slowest pace I could establish.

Below, here is a quick clip from one of my Augustine 25 logo videos. I made this using the free tools at Animoto. This GIF is a simple film clip that is repeated endlessly.

Here's a completely a political series based on the still life painting I did over the course of 2016. As much as I was distracted by the presidential election, I'm glad I still set aside time to get better at painting vases. 

If you would like to make your own GIFs for free, please check out the website I used to create these examples at

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Which President is Most Like Trump? I Vote Jefferson

As someone who once taught courses at Williams College on the presidency, I suppose I should The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House.
chime in. One of the simplest models on predicting presidential performance comes from James David Barber's book,

He evaluates presidents along two variables: Are they active or passive, and are they - for lack of better words - happy or sad. In this model, Trump falls into what Barber sees as the most useful quadrant, active-positive. This places Trump among previous active-positive presidents like Thomas Jefferson and F. D. Roosevelt. In many ways, it might be useful to explore the parallels between Trump and Jefferson to see what might happen - good or bad - under an "America First" president.

Here's a useful link regarding Barber's model,

As I initially explored the idea of a Jefferson and Trump comparison, I was intrigued to see that I was not among the first to take this connection seriously. For example, Rhys Jones wrote an interesting article on this topic in History Today, just prior to the election, called "Donald Trump and the Election of 1800." He makes is clear that Trump has tapped into a theme of anti-globalization that would have been attractive to many of our Founding Fathers, including Jefferson. Comparing the two, he writes:
Both consider the US to be a world unto itself. In 1803, Jefferson purchased the vast Louisiana territories from Napoleon at the fire sale price of two cents per acre. The resulting westward expansion enabled him to re-orientate America away from its eastern seaboard, away from Atlantic trade, and towards the promise of a simpler future, in which traditionalism and localism would take precedent over global commerce. Jefferson often referred to America as an ‘Empire of Liberty’, a continent that would mind its own business, safely cocooned from the complicated politics and warfare of Napoleonic Europe. These same instincts for isolationism fixate Trump and his base. In his disregard for NATO and adherence to economic protectionism, Trump imagines that America can – literally – wall itself off from the outside world.
 Likewise, Jones sees Jefferson's powerful anti-elitism as another key similarity with the out-spoken and often outrageous Trump:
And while Jefferson was not a rabble-rouser like Trump, he certainly indulged the politics of populism. During a series of agrarian revolts in Massachusetts in 1787, which threatened to violently overturn local government, Jefferson applauded the rioters. ‘A little rebellion now and then is a good thing’, he wrote. The revolt was stimulated by economic hardship among the rural population who demanded financial relief and the printing of paper money – sentiments that earned Jefferson’s sympathy.

All in all, Jefferson advocated states' rights over the federal government. Like Trump, he focused on cutting the size of the federal government and reduced its spending (even on the military). He paid $15 million for the Louisiana Purchase, and neatly doubling the nation's size while he was in office. Like Jefferson, Trump as the opportunity to grow our nation's wealth and status: "Big League." Thanks to Barber's insight, there is a good chance that Trump has what it takes to win this fight too.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.