Transforming education into Education

In a post at "Reboot Congress, 'Thoughts on Education'", Darin makes some good observations on the folly of the spending we throw at Education, and the pitiful results, which are utterly unchanged by the amount of resources thrown at the issue. When you look at the chart (from the Cato Institute, which I've included here) - it makes no difference the number of teachers or materials or standards or tests involved, the results are essentially unchanged. It's a good post, and I recommend reading through it, comments also. My post began as a comment there, but in typical long winded fashion, it outgrew the comments box four times over.

Among other things, he notes that,

“…historically educational institutions had a high degree of quality. That past quality has translated into current pedigree and so we wind up with graduates who are credentialed, but not educated…”

Which is true, It used to be that the President of a school or college, was someone who was a master of all the subjects… as in the old term “Head Master”. Now, whether or not they ever taught a class, and that’s 50/50, they are simply administrators, or the “Head Bureaucrat” – not exactly a term of distinction.

The cause of our educational problems however, I've got to differ with a bit.

“The historic quality of education was derived from the fact that educators of yore were at the top of the yet-to-be-named knowledge worker pyramid. Today, they're basically at the bottom--no one fails out of an early education degree and decides to go into engineering. What's happened is that there are a lot more job opportunities for the smartest people so they go work for Google or whatever while the marginal college students tack on the courses necessary to become a teacher as a fall back position.”

That… I’m not so sure of, or while I think that may have applied at the college level, outside of the colleges... not so much. Most of those who worked as teachers were either themselves just out of school and earning some money before getting established in a profession (as did John Adams for a couple years), or the were the classic ‘school marm’ or other parents and members of the community who filled in as needed until they found another to take the position over for a couple years before moving on themselves.

And while it’s true that for unmarried women or empty nester’s, a teacher’s position was the best career option open for them at the time, and that has definitely changed, I really don’t think that’s a key factor in the problem of education today; the position isn’t that intellectually demanding, and meaning no disrespect to teachers, it never was and never need be - any person of good average intelligence and character should be able to handle the job.

I think the problem is more to be found in the materials used in the classroom and the supposed purpose of ‘getting an education’, which has changed, and all of it for the worse. That's where change needs to be made, simply refining what passes for education today, is little different from refining arsenic... the better we get at it, the worse the results will be.

In the time leading up to, and for a while after, our Founders generation, if you had proposed building a school so that kids would learn what they needed in order to ‘get a job’, you would have been drummed out of town or directed to the nearest slave plantation. Such ‘educational’ notions of teaching useful skills were either for slaves, or were what apprentices and other low wage positions were for; Education, on the other hand, was to teach a youth what was important to know about your culture, the important virtues and values needed for someone to be a worthy member of it, and the intellectual qualities which were expected to be mastered in order to contribute to both and to become a master of yourself – a person worthy of and capable of self-governance.

To those ends, the materials which were taught from in schools, were progressively more substantial poems, fables, historical vignettes, and the doings and speeches of great historical characters… above all, they were imaginatively written and interesting, and either were, or age appropriately worked up to being, the hallmarks and masterpieces of western civilization. Aesop’s Fables, Homer, Virgil, Plutarch and so forth, and yes, most definitely, biblical passages as well.

If you’ve ever looked at a textbook, you know that they aren’t that!

In fact the very first targets of the modern ‘progressive’ educational movement, from its beginnings around 1800, the very first things they targeted for expunging from the classroom, was ANYTHING smacking of imaginative writing, especially materials such as Aesop’s Fables, Homer, Virgil, Plutarch and so forth. Their ‘ideas’ were to turn the classroom into a ‘more scientific’ operation, explicitly modeled on the ideas of Rousseau and as they later developed into the behavioral psychology of people like William Wundt, where educations was no longer considered to be educating the character and soul of a student about himself and his civilization, but as producing correct responses and skills from them. The textbooks that were written for teachers in teachers colleges, explicitly stated that the teacher needn’t be familiar with the subjects being taught, they only needed to be able to recite the lessons as if they knew the material, and the lessons would produce the necessary skills and responses in the students.

The experiments in 'animal psychology' and training lab rats has far more to do with what and how our students are being taught today, than anything having to do with what was once thought to be the purpose of Education.

Visit any school, public or private, and you will be able to find that very same ‘guiding principle’ in practice in most of the classrooms.

That is why textbooks are the flat, meaningless and incoherent pap that they are, and the well-meaning efforts of concerned parents and other people to ‘improve’ them, IMHO, are pointless and doomed to failure… if actually Educating their children, rather than producing responses and skills in them, is what they, we, are after, we don’t need more or new and improved versions of what has been in use all along, we need to chuck such things and ideas out entirely.

Look at the Cato chart of performance across the years… the lesson to learn from it is that no matter what ‘strategy’, format or ‘standards’ or tests are followed, or how the classroom is arranged or stocked with various electronic gadgets or graphically enhanced textbooks… the materials taught from, and the purposes of the lessons themselves, are uninteresting, unintegrated and entirely uninspiring. No matter how much money is thrown at whichever part of the modern educational process, so long as the purpose of education is taken to be to impart skills and responses, it will fail. Or as the more cynically minded have said, it has succeeded, succeeded in producing people who cannot hope to be self governing, and who therefore welcome the government stepping into their lives to fill the gap.

Those lines along the bottom of the graph are the very best achievements possible of students who are expected to memorize uninteresting details in order to learn what every student in the nation will tell you are ‘stuff that doesn’t matter to me’. They instinctually know that they themselves, their life and spirit, have nothing whatsoever to gain from what they are being taught. As long as that’s the case, there will be no improvement in the lines along the bottom of the chart.

If you want a good overview of what it once meant to become Educated, and why so many people, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, etc, were able to be self-educated, these two links might be useful.

part iii: An Essay on Liberal Education - Observations upon Liberal Education, in All its Branches by George Turnbull – 1742,

“ ...We have been recommending history as the best basis for building moral instructions upon, yet other arts, which can be rendered subservient to virtue, ought by no means to be neglected. And how proper fables (by which I would be understood to mean, not barely such Aesopic tales as are properly so called, but all fables, allegories, visions, every specious fiction, in short, by which any moral truth may be conveyed into the mind under the ingenious and agreeable semblance of aiming at nothing higher than mere amusement) are to attract the minds of youth, and gain their attention to useful instruction, the unanimous consent of the wisest instructors in all ages of the world, in the use of them, sufficiently demonstrates? In a collection of essays, which abounds with most excellent fables and allegories, this subject is thus discoursed of….”

And for higher education, and our utter lack of it today, especially in institutions of higher education, “Education of the Founding Fathers of the Republic” by James J. Walsh, 1933

"What would seem to be undoubtedly the most important group of documents for the history of education during the colonial period in this country, but also for a full generation after the Declaration of Independence, has been strangely neglected or profoundly misunderstood. These are the so called Commencement theses printed on broadsides (large sheets of paper some 20x24 inches) and comprising lists of Latin propositions, one hundred or more in number, in logic, grammar, rhetoric, as well as in natural, mental, moral philosophy and mathematics. The thesis sheets were printed for distribution among members of the audience who on Commencement morning might choose to take part in the Public Act which was held as the culminating exercise of the examination..."

If we don't even recognize our current system of education in either of those descriptions of Education, which were once upon a time commonly held, and which enabled our Founders generation to become our Founding Fathers generation... maybe there's a clue there that we should pay attention to?

With this last comment though, I mostly agree,

"Well, that's how I think the education bubble will pop. In practice, what will happen is that a town or city facing a huge budget hole will notice a free alternative and implement it while firing their teachers and education administrators. That process will repeat, if the free alternative adequately meets the educational needs of the community, so maybe the bubble has a slow leak instead of just popping. "

The materials - all that are needed - are available for free right now, through the Internet. If you read through those two links above and note what they reference, you can google them up and download what was considered to be the absolutely necessary materials of a good Education, through places like Gutenberg.org, the Online Library of Liberty, and more. But those materials still need to be utilized by someone familiar with how to teach them, and unless you have the time and inclination for Homeschooling, you're going to need to pay someone who can. When we find a way to enable real teachers to provide their services, and include parents in participation with them, and provide the materials in such a way that the teachers themselves can Teach as they see fit, where they wish, and how they wish, and Parents can send their kids to those ones who most reflect their values and wishes... then we'll see a revolutionary change in Education.

When teachers can combine face to face teaching, as well as various tiers of participation across the Internet, and are able to earn a substantial income from it in the same way that actors and athletes do, through relatively cheap tickets sold individually... but to a lot of individuals... then we will see the transformation of our system of education into one that helps to provide an Education,,, as well as turn teachers from opponents of Capitalism into eager participants in the Free Market and free speech.

I'm working on one set of software that may lead in that direction... agonizingly slowly... but I'm trying. However, the real difference in Education itself will not come from any new technology, or quantities of materials, bodies or standards which continue and even accelerate what is being followed now; our system of education will only be transformed into a system which provides Education... when it returns to that as being its primary purpose.

Remember... It Matters

Remember that on December 7th, 1941, in the midst of negotiations to preserve peace, those we negotiated with, attacked us.

Remember that sometimes negotiations for peace are simply preparations for war.

Remember that those who serve are always at risk of having the ultimate price demanded of them - and they have agreed up front to pay it for you.



 

Remember that at Pearl Harbor 69 years ago, Americans were reminded that the freedom to be on the left or right, is not free.

Remember to honor them, and to honor that which you share with them, the liberty and freedom of being an American.

These are lessons to learn, and to remember.

Remember... it matters.

Thinking Through the Popular Vote Machine - Damned if they didn't, Damned if they did.

Well it's beginning to sound like proregressives are starting to get rattled. They actually seem worried that We The People might begin considering repealing the 17th Amendment. If We do... well then, IMHO, our work will be nearly complete. But realistically that is a ways off yet, and as Brian J. Noggle noted not too long ago, it won't be easy,

"... this is going to be a hard sell to the American public which has come to believe that the key to an open government is more and more transparency and direct accountability of officials, where more and more citizen votes means better and better government. "

Leaving aside the issue of Federalism (which I do think is the larger and more important concern), I'll take a whack at the flip-side of the political machine's favorite 'reform', the Popular Vote. The "Popular Vote" argument is that anything but direct democracy takes away peoples right to express themselves, and the proregressive's are quick to jump onto that bandwagon.

"“For nearly one hundred years, we the people have picked our Senators. But Ken Buck proposed a radically different idea. Buck said he wanted to rewrite the Constitution to let state legislators pick our Senators instead of voters. That’s right. Ken Buck actually proposed ending our right to vote for our own Senators. Rewriting the constitution? Ending our right to vote? Ken Buck's just too extreme for Colorado.""

I've a question for the promoters of the "Popular Vote": Why do they want you to have so little influence?
They say that everyone should have a right to cast their vote for their U.S. Senator. Well, why just one (legal) vote? Just one single solitary vote amongst millions? How much of a voice does a face in a crowd have? Why do they want those of you who have concerns about your state, to have so little influence over the election of your United States Senator?

What do I mean?

Well, thanks to the 17th Amendment (which, btw, DID rewrite the Constitution), a Senator no longer needs to worry about a handful of state representatives - yours - they no longer need to worry about those people who intimately know the real interests of your state, holding them accountable for their votes in D.C. No, now they only have to worry about using a political machine to mouth attention getting sound bytes to millions of voters at a distance, knowing full well that if they can convince enough wealthy contributors to fund plastering their (too often) meaningless drivel around the state, they won't ever have to engage in anything more substantial than having to smile on a tractor, or in a diner, or even blatantly mislead you (yes Mr. Blunt, we will remember) - so they can collect your vote and then cast those votes their machines wealthy contributors will appreciate.

On the other hand, with the old way, the system which our Founding Father's set up, before the 17th Amendment, a Senatorial candidate had to work hard to convince a relative handful of people - Missouri has 34 Senators and 163 Representatives - that they could, and would, do what those knowledgeable people considered to be in you and your state's best interests.

And two of those legislators were answerable to you,. That means that once upon a time you had an opportunity, through your State Senator, to be one of only several tens of thousands (80,000 in my district) and one of only ten or twenty thousand people your State Representative had to answer to (19,000 in mine) – in comparison to being only 1 out of millions, that is a significant difference - and both of your legislators votes, and their influence among their fellow legislators, would be of significant concern to anyone who wanted to be your United States Senator.

In other words, if you were concerned about an issue affecting your state, you could easily make your State Rep & Sen uncomfortably aware of your position. Most state capitols are only a couple hours or less drive away, it's not too difficult to set up an appointment to see your State Senator or Representative, or even just to drop in on them when in session, as I have done. When out of session they probably live in a neighborhood near by, my outgoing Rep lives 2 subdivisions away, and the one who will take his term limited place lives just around the corner from me and my State Senator lives just a few miles away; setting up a meeting with one or both of them, or even just picking up the phone and calling, is not that tough.

If for some reason your legislators tried dodging you, with the help of a few others across your area - people concerned and informed about an issue - you and your fellows could quickly make yourselves known to them.
Vocal local voters are a big concern to State politicians - not so much to those in D.C.

The point is, any reasonable citizen can easily make their views known to their state legislators, and through simple phone calling and emailing efforts at little or no cost, you could have a very significant voice in the election of your United States Senator.

But... as it stands now... you are stuck with being just one anonymous vote amongst millions in an argument of soundbytes.

Did these ‘popular vote’ enthusiasts ever think of that? If so, knowingly relegating your voice to relative insignificance... don't they have some explaining to do?

If they didn't think of that... if they're that uninformed (might I suggest beginning with Federalist #'s 51, 62 and 63, to start with) about a topic they actively – and ignorantly - promote - that makes them the fools that sound byte politics were designed to move the masses with.

Like I said.

They're Damned if they didn't think of it... and they should most assuredly be Damned if they did.
(Originally posted at "24th State")

More Stupid Talk About Death Panels and Do-Goodery

My Sister-in-Law was all atwitter last week about the 'stupid' people in her state who voted for Michelle Bachmann, who she says is just stupid too. One of the things, in her humble opinion, that made Bachmann unquestionably stupid, was her saying things like there were going to be death panels in the healthcontrol bill.
Well... Paul Krugman stepped in it a bit this week with his comment,

"some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes"

Which would seem to be 'stupid' enough, but I think his explanation for it on his blog (very appropriately named "Conscience of a liberal") is, if anything, even more illuminating and damning at the same time.

"Death Panels and Sales Taxes
I said something deliberately provocative on This Week, so I think I’d better clarify what I meant (which I did on the show, but it can’t hurt to say it again.)
So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that
(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care
(b) we’ll need more revenue — several percent of GDP — which might most plausibly come from a value-added tax
And if we do those two things, we’re most of the way toward a sustainable budget.
By the way, I’ve said this before.
Now, you may declare that this is politically impossible. But medical costs must be controlled somehow, or nothing works. And is a modest VAT really so much more implausible than ending the mortgage interest deduction?
So that’s my plan. And I believe that some day — maybe in the first Chelsea Clinton administration — it will actually happen."

Krugman notes he's said things like this before (which I guess makes it all better), and others, myself included, have noted what Newsbusters notes, that many others have said the same thing before... though not on the campaign trail for some reason... such as,

"This budget balancing approach was similarly advocated by former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich in 2007:

We're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die."

What the do-gooders like my Sister-in-law, and several of my old friends, don't want to consider or be slowed down by in their rush to do good unto you and me, are those very things which the bean counters and bureaucrats will be in charge of handling in the end, after those do-gooders have rushed off onto their next enthusiasm. And those bean counters and bureaucrats, having been given the power to do so by the do-gooders, will be left to simply take it upon themselves to make those decisions (life or death ones) based less upon considerations of Right and Wrong or the Rights of those involved ("and really, 'right'? 'wrong'? Rights?! How old fashioned!"), than on satisfying their own pressing political expediencies of "... medical costs must be controlled somehow, or nothing works...".

Simply put, your concerns for your life and those of your loved ones, are going to be given minimal concern, in order to ensure that those things which are of concern to the bean counters and bureaucrats are kept in order so that they can 'make the trains run on time'.

Perhaps it's stupid of me, but that doesn't ease my mind one bit, but it does neatly sum up the conscience of a leftist: do whatever it is that makes you feel kind, good and swell, and either ignore the possible consequences or hunker down and say 'it's for the common good', and let the bureaucracy clean up after you.

On behalf of the stupid people, I'd like to ask the smart people if that seems a particularly smart or even sensitive thing to do?

Hmmm?

Veterans Day 2010 - Thank You

Well I'm one aggravated pack rat (aka 'slob') today. I had an idea for a post for Veteran's Day which required pictures of my Grand Father's, Dad & other relatives... and I knew just which pictures I wanted... but what with my unique D&T filing system (Dropped and Thrown) I couldn't find them at all. I suppose if I find them later, I can add them in then. Arghhh.
My Dad's Dad, Floyd Harvey, served in WWI, which was what Veteran's Day began as: Armistice Day, marking the end of the 'War to end all wars'... but as that swell idea failed to take hold, it was later transformed into Veterans Day.

My Mom's Dad, Leo Kuter, worked WWII from Hollywood as an Art Director at Warner Bros., he helped make a bunch of morale boosting movies with John Wayne, Cary Grant, Errol Flynn, etc, helped keep their spirits up and the homefires burning. I've got some of his memento's... like the phone book for the U.S.S. Hornet, which they did some of the filming on for one of the Errol Flynn movies, I think.

The one picture I did find was of him, Ginger Rogers and his cousin Gen. Laurence Kuter, who had a fair amount to do with the formation of the U. S. Army Air Corps and it's bomber strategy, and later the Air Force and NORAD.

My Dad was an officer in the U.S. Army Airborne, and as a paratroop instructor had the odd position of training his younger brother, Jerry, to fight in Korea.

... Ryan, a few years later



Ryan on his Uncle David's ship...

 And though technically my son Ryan, now in the Air Force won't qualify as a Veteran until he's out... still... Father's privilege, I'll include him too.

My Father In-Law helped keep our nuclear missiles at the ready as a Sgt. in the Air Force. My Brother In-Law who served in the Navy during Desert Storm.

But it goes wider than family, my best friend David was in the Air Force, and had a hand in investigating what went wrong when planes went down, which he continues as a civilian, in helping to design planes so that they stay in the air.

His Dad, who just passed away, flew B-17's in Europe during WWII... under my Grand Father's cousin, come to think of it.

Our good friend Sam who was one heck of a Sgt ('Gunney' is the only name I can ever remember, but that was an early grade) in the Marines, recently retired.

How many others, friends... friends of friends... they are us, how can we not remember them?

Now if I can just find the rest of the pictures and the thread of the idea I originally had for them.... I think it was partly... how in the heck can we possibly forget our Veterans? They are, and were, a part of our lives, part of our community, what may be more important is that they remembered us. Remembered those of us they knew, and those they'd never know, and put their lives on the line to defend all.

Remember them, and honor them, they are a part of your life and had a hand in making your life possible, a life with Liberty and Freedom to make any life you're capable of living, possible.

So thanks to these, and all Veterans, for helping to give me the liberty to misplace my valuables, and the luxury of that being the most aggravating thing I've got to deal with today. It may not be much, but I'm doing what I can to preserve and defend what you, for a time, wrote a blank check on your lives for.

Thank you Veterans. Thank you, and God bless you.







From Thomas Jefferson to you: Get Out And VOTE!!!

Two hundred and nine years ago, after a bitter campaign against his once, and future friend, John Adams, an election that would cause our faint hearted pundits of political correctness to faint dead away, Thomas Jefferson gave his first Inaugural Address. In that address there are several points that would be well worth it for us to remember as we go to the polls in this election. (You are going to the polls today, right? If you are not sure of your answer, let me give you a tip: Get Out And Vote! Get Your Friends and Family Out To Vote!)

From Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

4 Mar. 1801

...During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question...."

We've had despicable funnymen such as Bill Maher describing Americans as dogs, capable of recognizing little more than inflection, fear and dominance, and at other times yearning for a strongman to just make things happen.

Let such fools
"stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. " and believe like Jefferson, that "I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth.", and for those such as Reid, Pelosi, Frank and Obama, who wish to place themselves on high and dictate to us how we should behave, regulate what we can sprinkle on our food and how we should be allowed to behave, repeat to yourselves , and to your wouldbe Regulatory Overlords,

"Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

And history has answered that question, answered it in the French Revolution, in Nazi Germany, the USSR, Maoist China, North Korea and Cuba. The answer is that where there is no sanctity of property or rule of law, there are only the decrees of men seeking to do good unto their fellows - and the only progress that will be found there will be that of the growth of political prisons and rivers of blood.
Jefferson continues, counselling our forefathers to restore both honor and sanity:

"...Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe: too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter--with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities....

That last has got to bear repeating again and again, especially today,

Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

That IS the sum of good government, and if those we've elected to it have forgotten it, days like this November 2nd I think were made for them... and for you - IOW Get Out And Vote!!!
Our third President continues with some sage advice for our present President and Congress:

"...About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations..."

[Leftists steel your hearts and prepare to endure the spewing of such strident extremism as might set your Tea Pot to boil!]

"...Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people--a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety..."

And finally, this, a reminder to the voters, and those voted for alike - reality and expectations rarely meet and part friends:

"...I repair, then, fellow-citizens, to the post you have assigned me. With experience enough in subordinate offices to have seen the difficulties of this the greatest of all, I have learnt to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man to retire from this station with the reputation and the favor which bring him into it. ...

Quit pining for perfection, work with what you've got, and then work to improve it, rinse, repeat. And always...

Get Out And Vote!!!

Trick or Treat!!!

Halloween theme for our Dept. at the office: Wal-Mart Shoppers.

Note the addition to the costume accessories in my cube that some folks might find reallllllyyyy scary... a Wal-Mart Shopper with a Constitution!

Happy Halloween and Trick or Treat folks, and stock up for Voting November 2nd - time to start cleaning up!

Boo!!!

A fun bunch of people to work with:

Racists Start Your Engines!

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,' if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder."

President Obama speaking to Univision

Huh. Who knew that 'getting beyond race' meant firing the starting pistol for the race of the races to begin? Pardon me for my lack of PC, but to make a political exhortation to an American electorate, beginning with,

"...If [fill in YOUR favorite race here]'s sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,'...

... there is no other way to describe that in this day and age, but as racist. It means, in and of itself, that

"We are all racists now, and it's important that the races we like [for now], punish those races we are opposed to!"

I’ve often gotten short tempered at simple dumb, bigoted and/or prejudicial statements being taken and cast as racism... I mean, stupid is sometimes just stupid, it isn't always necessarily malevolent... but this one – from our President – takes the cake. This is not only nominally racist in content, but is purely racist in those 'principles' which must be held, affirmed and believed in, in order to have thought of it, and to have said it.

I now drop those few shreds of reservations and presumptions of innocence towards Owebama which I'd managed to cling to... bitter as it might be to admit, the President of the United States of America, is a racist.

I can't tell you how painful it is to say that.

Four Funerals for Free Speech

What is free speech?
Does 'Free Speech' come with no constraints or responsibilities whatsoever?

Is anything and everything made permissible as long as you assert you are doing it as an expression of your 'Right to free speech!'?

As a refresher, here is our First Amendment,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And here I'll provide some links which present, and represent it, with commentary that is relevant to that aspect of thinking which our Founders had in mind when they demanded that the Constitution be accompanied by a Bill of Rights in order to be ratified. Relevant selections of history, philosophical thought, informal commentary, and early supreme court decisions on each aspect of the First Amendment and how it applies in regards to 'Free Speech', 'Religion' and 'Petition and Assembly'.

Given our world today, a time when a government organ like NPR (supposed private corporation status aside, it's an abomination of, and a direct violation of all Americans Rights to Free Speech in and of itself) can fire people for exercising their right of reasonable discussion, and also a time when pure thugs and demagogues hide under color of authority in order to abuse the First Amendment rights of their fellow citizens in order to push their own political agenda... you had better begin reading, studying, discussing, and god dammit, FIGHTING for these Rights - or kiss them goodbye.

When does one person's 'Free Speech' infringe upon the Rights of another to peaceably assemble?
When is the exercise of the Right to peaceably assemble and to engage in free speech and the exercise of ones religion, appropriate, and when must those very Rights be defended against an onslaught by others purporting to be exercising those very same 'rights'?

A political Right is something which sustains your Right to engage in the actions and speech you choose to engage in – so long as your actions do not infringe upon another's – when they do, then the exercise of what you supposed to be your rights, is in fact infringing upon the rights of another, and when that happens, while you may be going through the outward appearance of exercising those rights, you are in fact only using them to abuse the rights of another.

And there is no Right to do any such thing.

In a land robbed of Education, such distinctions, once commonly understood to simply be examples of prudent reasoning, are shoved aside under the banner of a literalist secular fundamentalism allowed to masquerade as ‘legal reasoning’. Those few instances where legitimate Rights are defended, are simply battered away at, again and again, until they are bludgeoned into submission and our real Rights are eventually declared unconstitutional. And once this sort of thing is allowed to happen, routinely, then those few instances where regular people and communities do attempt to stand up for their Rights and for simple civil decency (Ground Zero Mosque anyone?), will be rolled over by truly despicable monsters.

That is what is happening under our very noses, and it is being defended by that institution dedicated to making a mockery of our Constitution and of our Individual Rights, the ACLU, which has just succeeded in bullying the small the town of St. Peters MO into withdrawing it’s ordinance banning protests in the area of a funeral.

“As expected, the St. Peters Board of Aldermen voted Thursday night to remove a ban on protests near funerals.

The city's ordinance had been similar to a state law that was struck down by federal judges earlier this year. A letter from the ACLU of Eastern Missouri on behalf of members of the Westboro Baptist Church prompted the board to repeal its ordinance.

Westboro members are known for protesting at the funerals of soldiers. They hold signs saying God hates gay people and celebrate the death of soldiers as God's judgment for what they believe is this country's tolerance of gays.

The ACLU won a recent federal court battle with the city of Manchester over its funeral protest law, and its letter pointed out several other cities that repealed their ordinances.”

That this issue is even discussed with any pretence of legitimacy is disgusting enough.That it is done by the ACLU on behalf of the Westboro Baptist Church purportedly defending their ‘right’ to protest at the funeral of a fallen soldier... should properly induce a seething rage in the hearts of anyone who truly values their freedom and liberty.

Last Friday was senior night at my son's High School football game. Parents of seniors escorted their son's before the start of the game as they were announced, and their immediate goals after graduation were announced, some were going to college, some into the military, etc. Before the start of the game where they had planned to play the school fight song, there was instead the announcement that the flag was flying at half mast for a graduate from the previous year, had just been killed in Afghanistan... and into that hush a young girl sang, without accompaniment, the "Star Spangled Banner", which was one of the most moving renditions I've ever heard - no dry eyes were to be found in the stands or the field.

That young man was laid to rest today... and it is to be claimed that some group of thugs has a Right to subject his family to abuse, has a Right to disrupt their right to peaceably assemble to bury their son who fell in defense of his nation, has a Right to disrupt the free exercise of their religious observance in funeral of their son?

There is NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE involved here, there is no such thing as a Right to violate the Rights of others, there is nothing here but an exercise of pure bullying under the color of the supposed authority of constitutional law. Disgusting and despicable. Particularly so because the well funded coffers of the Anti Constitutional Leftist Union subverted the rights of the people of St. Peters not in a court of law, but through the threat of financial burden that would follow their lawsuit.

"St. Peters Alderman Tommy Roberts echoed comments by four other aldermen that he was voting for the repeal only because of the money the city would have to spend to defend the law.

"If these despicable people would've showed up in protest at my dad's funeral, one of them would've gotten their ass whipped," he said. "I'm opposed to this, but we don't have the money to fight the ACLU on this. I am going to have to vote in favor of this for the sake of the taxpayers."

Aldermen Gus Elliott and Dave Thomas voted against the repeal. Elliott said he believed protesters were trampling on the First Amendment rights of mourners."

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story commented upon almost this very issue over a century ago, on how it applies to our First Amendment Rights, and how the pretence of such actions as being the exercising of real rights, was in fact an assault upon them, that...

“"...Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." That this amendment was intended to secure to every citizen an absolute right to speak, or write, or print, whatever he might please, without any responsibility, public or private, therefor, is a supposition too wild to be indulged by any rational man. This would be to allow to every citizen a right to destroy, at his pleasure, the reputation, the peace, the property, and even the personal safety of every other citizen. A man might, out of mere malice and revenge, accuse another of the most infamous crimes; might excite against him the indignation of all his fellow citizens by the most atrocious calumnies; might disturb, nay, overturn all his domestic peace, and embitter his parental affections; might inflict the most distressing punishments upon the weak, the timid, and the innocent; might prejudice all a man's civil, and political, and private rights; and might stir up sedition, rebellion, and treason even against the government itself, in the wantonness of his passions, or the corruption of his heart. “[emphasis mine]

Justice Story correctly foresaw that if some errant bunch in society took to such methods as do the ACLU and their likeminded compatriots in Phelps's Westboro bumpkins churls, then it would certainly be disastrous for society at large and for the Rights of all those within it.

“Civil society could not go on under such circumstances. Men would then be obliged to resort to private vengeance, to make up for the deficiencies of the law; and assassinations, and savage cruelties, would be perpetrated with all the frequency belonging to barbarous and brutal communities. It is plain, then, that the language of this amendment imports no more, than that every man shall have a right to speak, write, and print his opinions upon any subject whatsoever, without any prior restraint, so always, that he does not injure any other person in his rights, person, property, or reputation; and so always, that he does not thereby disturb the public peace, or attempt to subvert the government. It is neither more nor less, than an expansion of the great doctrine, recently brought into operation in the law of libel, that every man shall be at liberty to publish what is true, with good motives and for justifiable ends. And with this reasonable limitation it is not only right in itself, but it is an inestimable privilege in a free government. Without such a limitation, it might become the scourge of the republic, first denouncing the principles of liberty, and then, by rendering the most virtuous patriots odious through the terrors of the press, introducing despotism in its worst form.”

"Introducing despotism in its worst form" - truer words....

Ladies and Gentlemen of We The People, your treasured First Amendment Rights are being subverted under the thin pretence of exercising them, in order that they might be destroyed and done away with, in government, in the media, in the courts and in our schools.

That is what is being done, and you know it. Don't you.

In less than two weeks you have a chance to begin setting this situation aright by Voting on November 2nd, but that is Not Enough. You, YOU have a responsibility to stand up for your Rights and those of your fellows, you have a responsibility to take whatever civil action you find yourself capable of, to work, to expend effort towards defending your Rights.

You have a responsibility to learn about your Constitution, a responsibility to understand what your Rights mean and a responsibility to put people into - or remove them from - positions of power and influence in your government, in your school, in the public press and in your daily lives, otherwise you will face funerals for free speech in each of those four corners of your world.

Get off your duffs and do something about it - or it will be surely be lost.
(Cross posted at 24th State)

Decimating the Press Corps(e)

The Pressorian Guard thins it's ranks.
I made a slightly tongue in cheak post last week, from a video of the Chicago press corps (or to be sensitive to Obama, 'press corpse'... hmmm... sorta fitting) did their best to shield Rahm Emmanuel from hostile questioning, comparing them with the Roman Praetorian Guard, I called them the "Pressorian Guard".
NPR, fresh with $1.8 million in donations from George Soros (gotta love the quote: "NPR’s new project, called Impact of Government" - WHAM!), is apparently taking that title to heart, defending not just the knights of the PC realm from the press, but their sacred leader, Political Correctness itself, from being accosted by the inconvenient Truth.

Juan Williams should have read my post. Juan, a throw back to the old left, made the mistake of thinking that honest discussion was a virtue and that feelings weren't crimes, let alone expressing them.
As he describes his termination,

"...she continued to ask me what did I mean and I told her I said what I meant. Then she said she did not sense remorse from me. I said I made an honest statement. She informed me that I had violated NPR’s values for editorial commentary and she was terminating my contract as a news analyst.
I pointed out that I had not made my comments on NPR. She asked if I would have said the same thing on NPR. I said yes, because in keeping with my values I will tell people the truth about feelings and opinions.
I asked why she would fire me without speaking to me face to face and she said there was nothing I could say to change her mind, the decision had been confirmed above her, and there was no point to meeting in person. To say the least this is a chilling assault on free speech. The critical importance of honest journalism and a free flowing, respectful national conversation needs to be had in our country. But it is being buried as collateral damage in a war whose battles include political correctness and ideological orthodoxy.
"

What he may finally be discovering, is that feelings, whims, desires, are all the left has to stand on... and force it's only response to their being challenged.

"I said, 'You mean I don't even get the chance to come in and we do this eyeball-to-eyeball, person-to-person, have a conversation? I've been there more than 10 years, We don't get to have a chance to have that conversation?"

Correct. Orders from above. Fired.

This is me wearing my shocked face.

Here's Juan wearing his.

But the bottom line is as NPR itself said (a functionary arm of the government), that what Williams had said was "...inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR...", which is exactly so. He told the Truth. Obviously he had to go.

The Bellmont club (HT Julie) has an interesting take on that statement by NPR:

"See? That sheds light on everything, but only if you realize that the key to understanding these non-explanations is to grasp that they should be self evident. They implicitly assume that if you “don’t get it” then there must be something wrong with you. If you require elucidation then some critical sensitivity is lacking from your make-up, just as it was absent from Larry Summers, Ginny Thomas or Juan Williams. An inability to recoil instinctively, or worse a desire for reasons signifies a reptilian stain in your bosom, which if it doesn’t make you want to rip it out, means you are the equivalent of a dead soul, lacking in some basic quality. The reactions to modern blasphemy immediately recalls the passage in Matthew which says, “then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.” What further need have we of witnesses? And that is that."

Sums it up rather well.

The Praetorian Guard is dead, Long Live the Pressorian Guard!

The Press was supposed to be the guardians of the Republic, the so called unofficial Fourth Estate, to keep those in government honest and answerable to We The People.

Well apparently the Media are making a move to become a more ‘legit’ and official operation, they can be seen in this video reported on by Dana Loesch at Big Journalism, to be visibly making a move to become a new adaptation of the Caesars Pretorian Guard.

Ladies and Gents, I give you the Pressorian Guard:


(Ummm... note to the would be Caesars - might want to read up on how willing the old Praetorian Guard was to only protect power, rather than taking some of it for themselves. Just sayin')

The Beauty within American Government

Humor me here as I divert my posts on regulatory law, into riffing off of two recent short posts by Bill Hennessy, 'Drowning Beauty' and 'Is Glenn Beck helping?', that have been rattling around my attic, I want to try to tie them all together here.
In the first he notes that totalitarian regimes typically either destroy or hoard beauty,

"...it’s important to remember what’s at stake in America, in the world, this election: beauty.


Totalitarian regimes despise beauty. They bury it in palaces where the rulers roam, their cancerous eyes raking over someone’s masterpiece the way raw sewage pollutes a clear stream after a pipe’s failure...

I heartily agree with this, and then he notes something which isn't often recognized, that "high art" never made a big splash in our popular culture, because for Americans, we've never lacked it or needed to have it boxed and displayed in the standard artistic forums; it'd be like selling snow to Eskimo's, it already fills our daily lives around us. This is an important point which the typical 'intellectual' is blind to in so many ways.
Beauty doesn't require museums and halls in order to exist in our lives - don't get me wrong, they can enhance, deepen and spread beauty, but they are more of a magnifier of it, not it's source, as those who promote such venues like to presume. Bill notes that,

"...In free America (remember it?) high art never made it big because such beauty surrounded everything. Little country churches with their Godly whiteness graced the eye, their choirs the ear, with a love no painting or opera could equal...."

It's an extremely important subject, one I hope he posts more on soon.
I've posted on this more than a few times on also, and it's something which I think should be front and center in all of our minds, particularly during elections, because just as the eggheads miss the beauty which surrounds us, we typically miss the impact that high art has on the beauty the egghead fails to see. To see what I mean, next time you are driving around town, take note of the twisted metal lumps put up in our parks and labeled as 'Art'. The magnifying ability of 'high art' goes both ways, and it goes so much further than simple aesthetic tastes and appeals, if you can diminish and corrupt what would be thought of as a beautiful sculpture, painting, play or symphony, then the peoples ears begin to long less for their choirs, and their eyes fail to see the grace in their churches.
Bill say's "If freedom dies, beauty hibernates", and I'll say that the reverse is also true, if beauty hibernates, freedom dies.
The Good, the Beautiful and the True are a package deal; you can't slight one, without degrading the others. Fellows like Antonio Gramsci knew that first and foremost in order to reduce America, they would have to make us less good as a people; his recommended assault path to the Soviets and sundry leftists, was to target the Art world because he knew that a regard for Beauty and a regard for Justice, go hand in hand - degrade one, and you degrade the other. This was a once commonly understood concept that has been noticeably absent from our schools for decades, if not downright opposed in them.
(Hmmm... wonder if that's important? Seen a textbook lately? Is 'Beauty' a word that pops into mind? How about with what used to be the foundational 'texts' of education, Homer? Virgil? Aeschylus? Shakespeare? I'll try to avoid getting distracted here, but a word to the school reformers seeking to 'improve' the textbooks: if you expect blood from a stone and don't get it, how the stone is being squeezed, probably isn't the issue which should concern you. Moving on.)
Relevant to this, here's something from one of the posts I made on this a while back, Forgotten Beauty and lost Justice,

"...from an essay at the excellent Art Renewal, Good Art, Bad Art:
Is it a coincidence that that fall was followed by the most blood soaked series of tyrants and wars the world has ever known? Such a coincidence would require a strong belief in coincidences - I don't buy it - the two are related. Deeply..."

"The art of painting, one of the greatest traditions in all of human history has been under a merciless and relentless assault for the last one hundred years. I'm referring to the accumulated knowledge of over 2500 hundred years, spanning from Ancient Greece to the early Renaissance and through to the extraordinary pinnacles of artistic achievement seen in the High Renaissance, 17th century Dutch, and the great 19th century Academies of Europe and America. These traditions, just when they were at their absolute zenith, at a peak of achievement, seemingly unbeatable and unstoppable, hit the twentieth century at full stride, and then ... fell off a cliff, and smashed to pieces on the rocks below."

The 19th century poet and critic, Matthew Arnold, famously (though mostly forgotten today) recorded his thoughts on travelling across America in the mid 1800's in "Civilization in the U.S", and he described it as it being a drab, ugly landscape, devoid of "Sweetness and Light", and though he scored with this one,

"It is often said that every nation has the government it deserves. What is much more certain is that every nation has the newspapers it deserves."

, I think his prejudice led him astray with this,

" What really dissatisfies in American civilisation is the want of the interesting, a want due chiefly to the want of those two great elements of the interesting, which are elevation and beauty. And the want of these elements is increased and prolonged by the Americans being assured that they have them when they have them not. "

I think he missed something, which Bill caught the edge of in his post, that beauty is not only to be found in paintings, opera's and local architecture, it is also in, and more substantially so (though less easily identified) in the manners, habits and culture of the people, and visible in

"...Little country churches with their Godly whiteness graced the eye, their choirs the ear..."

, and these are potent enough to outshine the selected objects on display in even the finest of galleries.
Which brings me to his second post from a while back, that has been popping up in my mind now and then, "Is Glenn Beck helping?". Now, I'm not really interested in hearing anyone's opinion on Glenn Beck, pro or con... but I suppose I've got to at least give a quick blurb myself, and will say that for several years people I worked with had tried to interest me in him to no avail. His humor mostly annoyed me, his occasional political comments were usually too shallow for interest and too often even when he was correct, it was for no more reason than a stopped clock has for being correct twice daily.
But IMHO (!), Beck has been making some remarkable, though uneven, headway since starting his show on Fox. I gave a cheer when I first heard him say Woodrow Wilson was a monumentally bad President, and I nearly came out of my chair to hear him say on Nat'l T.V. that the sainted Teddy Roosevelt was a bad President as well. Finally someone else said the obvious! It's been fun watching Beck do something very rarely seen these days, especially for a public figure, not only has he changed his mind, but he's visibly, continually, revising positions, as he has discovered more and more information and history - whether and how much he has left to go, is beside the point - watching someone actually learn is a thrill, pulling along millions of viewers with him - priceless. And his continual refrain of: "Don't take my word for it... look it up yourselves!" while pointing them to the sources where they can go look it up for themselves at, that warms the cockles of my ever-linking heart.
I do wish he'd get the heck past the 'Wilson was an evil dude' kick though. And although I did once hear him mention William Godwin (very much closer to the source of the spread of modernity’s sickness), that one mention was all, and his pre-20th century interests seem to be confined to the figures of the Founding Father's only.
I don't want to spend any more time on those other sources here (see the "Greatest Hits" in the right sidebar of my blog for more), I'll just mumble out 'Godwin, J.S. Mill, Bentham, Condorcet, ROUSSEAU, Descartes, and then back out through Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Pierce, Dewey...' and move on.
What I would like to say in response to Bill's question,

"But does Beck’s presentation help or hurt?...I love Glenn, but he needs to offer solutions. Bring on guests who give people a path to survival. Offer some hope that America will return to a Constitutional Republic sometime in our lifetimes...."

, is that incomplete as his foundation is, redundant as his Wilsonian sniping is, and myopic as his focus upon only the leading figures of our Founding Father's era is, and shallow as some of his advice might be, yes, what he is saying, matters.
Beyond the enthusiasm I have for his relentless exposing of Proregressives follies and evils, the fact is that he has been far more effective than any school or agency has been in stirring up some semblance of real educational reform among Americans - their own. The point of his daily jaunts has been to focus people on what is the true beauty and ultimate point of America - not our Constitution (and you know how much I revere that document), but in rekindling the idea of, and desire for, Self Government.
For all of our calls for tax cuts and legislative repeal, if in the end we do not find our way back past public and national politics, to the desire and insistence upon being a self governing people, it will all be for naught, and will only usher in a new, slicker, better packaged tyranny to take the place of the present one.
Making people aware of what lays behind the problems we're facing is extremely important, and it is the only way to restore us to ourselves, and so yes, even though he offers no specific plans, I think that he is helping, and I'll give you a recent example of what I mean.
Government of the other, by the other and for the other... is ugliness incarnate.


That old once and future tyranny is just itching to ride in among us on the exact same horse it came in on with T.R. & Woodrow Wilson, merely saddled differently. Several of us saw that horse, and it's road apples, earlier this week when two "Prop B" activist's (sorry, I didn't get their names) brought their passive aggressive act to a group discussion at Tea Party Headquarters.
During the discussion we were having on the roots of our current situation, they said they'd really like to talk to us about the "Prop B Puppy Mill" issue; several people replied, no thanks, we'd looked at that and didn't think it was a good issue or in any way worthwhile or of interest to us.
They immediately pulled the

"Oh! You are so Rude! Why won't you be tolerant and allow us to takeover your quaint discussion with what we know you should be talking about?"

tactic.
I managed to listen for a few minutes more while they made their points and passed around their talking points, listened while they patronizingly denied that there was any validity to any of our groups responses with a condescending "That's simply not true", and assured us that all Prop B was, was a few very, very, necessary regulations needed to correct a dire situation (which the previous regulations somehow didn't correct), it was "a People's initiative!" and so of course it would not restrict anyone's freedoms or cost any more money to carry out, and these additional regulations would simply make all of our lives better, and spread happy puppies across the land.
Well... hearing anyone talk up the wonders of regulatory law clicks my un-mute button pretty quickly, so I asked them if they could point to a single area where such regulations had ever actually worked, a single area where regulations didn't spawn more regulations and deprive us of more of our freedoms - and their answer was:

"Yes, the field I work in, Bartending. Regulations covering selling alcohol and the amounts a person can drink. Those are great examples of regulations that have worked."

Blink.
Had she never heard of Prohibition? Was she aware that in several states all liquor is sold in govt stores only? How about DUI's? These are examples of what has worked and not creeped and grown into all areas of life? Seriously? And when she attempted to talk over me and change the subject, I'd had enough, stood and used my best outdoor voice to remind her that,

"You're free to bring up your foolishness here if you want to, but you're bringing it to a group whose purpose for gathering is centered around opposition to our expanding government and opposition to more and more regulatory control over our lives... and you bring in a proposal for MORE regulations to our discussion, and attempt to cow and control our discussion to conform to your agenda, and then have the nerve to whine about how unfair we're being to your pro-regulatory views, and all the while denying any validity to our opinions and comments - and you expect hushed tones and respectful acceptance? Please ... grow up, get over it, and feel free to move on."

They had no interest in the purpose of our discussion, they never had any intention of debating or even discussing our concerns about their Prop B, they were only interested in our accepting and complying with what they had to tell us, and finding that that wasn't going to happen, they stammered about for another couple minutes, then with a farewell of how conservative they actually were and how rude we all were, they finally left.
Reason is not their focus, force is. The purveyors of regulatory laws in particular, and big government in general, are not content with principled laws that are reliant upon judgment to live by and apply, they want to define every last particular of what they think is best for us, whether it's 50 and not 51 puppies per owner, or restricting campaign ads before elections, or telling us what we can and cannot eat, they are unwilling to allow you to govern your own life, and they are eager for the institution of government to define your every thought and act for you.
And that's it in a NutShall, their answer for every problem and grievance, is for more regulation, and when those regulations fail to reform us into better drones, then they will demand even more regulations and more control being given to the government, and for us to give up more responsibility for our own actions and manners - their goal is that our responsibilities should be given and ceded to an external central government, instead of strengthening and reinforcing the truly American form of government: Self Government.
And this was where I saw that Beck is in fact helping. From our discussion group, a dozen or so very typical working class people, with one or two who fancy themselves 'better educated' (yeah, that'd be me), I heard coming from them over and again about "The 5,000 year leap", "Frederich Bastiat" and "The Federalist Papers", and not just the names, but quotes and concepts, and how they applied to and opposed the fundamentals of the activist's puppy mill bill.
Thought I'd died and gone to heaven.
The Path Home


That was beautiful, and with this group I know for a fact that the content of their responses, where they found the sources for them themselves, were largely the work of Beck. He not only mentioned those sources they drew on, but he has been pushing people to read them themselves - and they did, and they are, and THAT is our path home, not through detailed action plans, but by rebuilding the structures within us all for Self Government. Of course those detailed action plans will be needed for the tactical wins, but because of Beck, they don't need to come from Beck, because of what he has pushed people to rediscover and recreate with themselves.
Those action plans will come, and are coming, either from themselves, or from people like Bill Hennessy, and the people are able to see, understand and recognize the need for them, and that rediscovery is driving this election as it will the future elections and propositions to come. We would have no place to take America back to, if we are not prepared within ourselves to refound and defend it, and I think Beck is very much helping to prepare the ground for that.
Self Government is the key to America, and it is the key to our morality, to our economic system, and to our Constitution, if we seek and insist on governing ourselves, the rest will follow and we will have and be a self correcting system of government, if not - then we are doomed to becoming just another run of the mill country, defined by it's borders and 'heritage', no more exceptional than any other.
But we are not that.
The source of American exceptionalism is found in the eternal and universal ideas of liberty and Natural Law, and in our desire and willingness to be a self governing people. For all that Socrates got wrong, he got that part right, Self Governance is the key to being able to entrust government with the power it necessarily must have, and it is the only path to true freedom and liberty.
There is no contradiction here, only a good and self governing people can withstand the rigors of freedom and liberty. The basis of our Federal Government, as well as our State, County and Municipal governments, is the individual ability, willingness and responsibility of the people to govern themselves. As the quote popularly attributed to de Tocqueville puts it:

"America is great because she is good. If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great

That is where we have been attacked, that is where our schools attack us most, always turning our eyes from what is good and beautiful within ourselves and towards more and more centralized, removed, anonymous authorities, and ever further removed sources (now pushing us towards an "I.B."!). We must be a moral, self governing people, jealous of our rights and privileges, and insistent upon restricting the power which external governance can have over us, going any further beyond what is needed to uphold and defend everyone's individual rights - We The People must be that, or we will cease to be.
When Matthew Arnold travelled across our land, he made the mistake of looking for outward appearances and displays of beauty, and he failed to see where the greatest most glorious beauty of America lays, all around and shining through each of us, the American choice for Self Government, and the beauty of it still, even today, shines out through,

"...Little country churches with their Godly whiteness graced the eye, their choirs the ear, with a love no painting or opera could equal..."

From sea to shining sea, that is America, the Beautiful.

The First Monday in October

On the 1st Monday in October, the current Supreme Court Justices, nine in number, of the Supreme Court of the United States of America will meet and convene, hearing cases as they apply the the Constitution of the United States of America, and ruling on, and delivering opinions on their merits and constitutionality.

These Nine Justices, are the ones who hear and rule upon how laws will affect your liberty and freedom.

One of them, Sonia Sotormayor infamously said,

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life…"

And as I said before:

"The problem with Sonia Sotormayor’s “Latina” comment isn’t that it’s racial, but that in seeing reasoning human beings, as defined by their genes, excludes character and reasoning, to say nothing of Constitutional reasoning (which IS her and their point) from the matter altogether."

Another Justice, Elena Kagan, wrote an academic paper advocating for policies to redistribute Free Speech. And advocated before the Supreme Court which she now sits upon, that, it would be a swell idea to give a regulatory agency power over the 1st Amendment (which she is now charged with defending), trusting that... it's highly unlikely... that they'd ever actually limit anyone's Right to Freedom of Speech (but just in case... it was needed, they should have power over it).

"The gov't view is that although 441b does cover full length books, that there would be a quite good as applied challenge applied to any attempt to apply 441b in that context, and I should say that the FCC has Never applied 441b in that context, so for 60 years a book has Never been an issue. "

I don't have the stomach tonight to go through the worst Justice on the court , Stephen Breyer (or at least he was until the two latest came along - he may be eclipsed by them - I've posted on him several times before, he's simply awful), or the others on the left or 'center' of the court.

I'll just say Thank God for these guys - Justice Thomas and also Justice Alito and Justice Roberts... and I suppose Justice Scalia as well - they are all (note: Four is less than Nine, and Four is less than Five also) that's standing between your liberties being defended by a written constitution, and their defense being cast as a 'living document' able to mean whatever those who want to find a particular meaning in it - like Kagan, Sotomayer & Breyer - which happens to fit what they'd like it to mean.

Am I fear mongering? Damn right I am.

Here's the Article of the Constitution which defines the Supreme Court, click the links, learn the meaning behind them - you're gonna need it.

Article 3

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.