(The following was published by the Richmond Times-Dispatch as "Correspondent of the Day" on Sunday, June 28, 2009. The writer holds a BA degree from Randolph-Macon College, 1968, a JD (law) degree from Washington & Lee Univ., 1973, was a teacher of elementary science and math, 1968-69, a teacher of "Real Estate Law" at Germanna Community College, ca. 1981, 1983 and holds a Certificate in "Auto Mechanics" (summa cum laude) from J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College, 2007.)
I generally agree with the conclusions and recommendations of Heywood Fralin and Thomas Farrell in their June 21 piece about state support of "higher education," in which they include colleges, universities and, most importantly, community colleges. I specifically agree that the number of persons schooled in math, science, engineering, healthcare and other technical disciplines should be a state priority.
I have three reservations, however, about their recommendations. First, I am leery of too much direct business involvement in basic research if businesses choose to fund such. We must all be concerned that such funding sometimes influences the outcome of the research, and that is unacceptable.
Second, not everyone is suited for matriculation to a bachelor's degree, and there are electricians, plumbers and other technicians without bachelor's degrees who are making good money and providing much-needed services. I think Fralin and Farrell emphasize the attainment of a "degree" too much, though I agree about cutting the costs thereof. There are engineers and other advanced technically-trained people who cannot find jobs now, which certainly makes no sense to me. In addition to associates' degrees, the community colleges also offer "certificates" (referenced in their article) that consist of valuable and useful technical training for many who don't care to get a degree.
Third, we must break the self-serving monopoly that the education schools now hold over public-school teacher licensing. All public-school teachers, regardless of their level of education or expertise, must complete various "education" courses and periodically take them in summers in order to qualify for and maintain their licenses. EVERYONE I know who is familiar with these courses deems them a joke, and it is absurd that someone with a masters degree in math cannot be automatically licensed to teach in the public schools unless and until he or she completes the requisite "education" courses.
Thank you.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
ALIEN PRESIDENT
(The following was sent as an e-mail response to YET ANOTHER idiot rant about Obama's birth circumstances being not "natural born" as required under the US Constitution. A blurb about the DONOFRIO v. WELLS case was circulated this 6/26/09 and a question was raised about a scholarship application at Occidental College. It was asserted that Associate Justice Antonin Scalia had recently announced that the US Supreme Court would hear the DONOFRIO case, and that Obama had used the name "Barry Soetero" to apply for a foreign-born scholarship at Occidental College.)
Be advised as to the following:
1--Individual Supreme Court justices do not officially announce the docket. That is handled by the office of public information or the Clerk. If Scalia was saying it OUGHT to be heard, then that is just wishful bleating on his part.
2--The Supremes dismissed the Donofrio case back in December (12/8/08).
3--The information about the filing and deliberation of the Donofrio case is from last year.
FURTHER:
4--the burden of proof CLEARLY has been on those asserting that Obama was born in another country. Despite repeated challenges to do so, no one ever raising this issue of Obama's suspect birth circumstances has ever produced ANY documentation to contradict the Hawaiian birth certificate (see above) published on the Web about a year ago.
I do agree that the issue of a candidate's birth circumstances is legally relevant if there is ANY reasonable question about it. I do find it interesting that no one challenging Obama's constitutional qualifications has ever raised or acknowledged the same issue (to my knowledge) with regard to the FACT that John McCain was born in the vicinity of the Panama Canal Zone when his parents were living there. Somehow, somewhere, that was "deemed" (I know not by whom) to be a "natural born" place, though it is CLEARLY outside of the contiguous boundaries of the US. Foreign-born children of US service personnel and diplomats are USUALLY considered NOT "natural born," even though they are US citizens. The Panama Canal Zone did not exist when Article II (Section 1) of the Constitution was written! I don't believe there was even a standing army then! I don't believe the US Supreme Court has ever ruled on the "natural born" validity of births in the Panama Canal Zone because I think McCain is the first candidate young enough to have been born there.
Why did John McCain REPEATEDLY get a "pass" on this issue all last year but Obama did not? Might it have had something to do with SKIN COLOR???? I certainly think so, based upon the people who were raising the issue in my presence.
I'd be interested in seeing the arguments that Panama Canal Zone births are "natural born."
5--There will also have to be affirmative proof of some sort that Obama was the person who applied for financial aid under the name "Barry Soetero." I have heard of this issue, but I have never seen any such proof. If someone else by that name surfaces, then all of those who have raised this issue will have to eat a big bowl of shit, and I am going to feed it to them! If Obama is guilty of scholarship fraud, then let the chips fall where they may. Seems to me that examination of the Occidental College yearbook for the year in question ought to disclose either a student by that name or none at all. Have the desperate whiners tried to FIND a "Barry Soetero"? Not that I have heard about. What do the folks running Occidental College have to say about this? I have not heard any confirmation. All you report is the circumstances of a transcript in the name of "Barry Soetero." BFD.
THIS NONSENSE ABOUT OBAMA'S BIRTH CIRCUMSTANCES IS UTTER RACIST TRIPE. YOU AND ALL THE DESPERATE TWITS NEED TO PROVE IT OR QUIT CIRCULATING THIS CHICKENSHIT. Find something meaningful AND SUBSTANTIVE to criticize, like Obama's refusal to release the tortured detainee photos, or his ridiculous continuation of "faith-based" taxpayer fundings. Only the American people have been blissfully ignorant of the multiple crimes committed by, and the rancid incompetence of the Bush Admin. There is plenty real stuff out there.
Monday, June 8, 2009
UNDECLARED WAHRUH
(The following was originally submitted as a letter to the editor in response to an article in the Louisa, Virginia Central Virginian, but it never ran. It has been slightly modified since.)
With regard to the undeclared War On Terror conducted, first, by President George Bush and now by President Barack Obama, it must be recognized that the United States is supposed to be governed strictly by laws and not by the whim of a mere majority of politicians, or even voters, The US Constitution MUST control how war is waged by our country, regardless of the methods used by other nations. War involves death and injury to persons and property. Those are drastic, lasting consequences, not to be taken lightly by those of us privileged to avoid them.
The events of the past 6 or 7 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, though heavily funded by Congress, are not declared wars. As many argue, those conflicts may well be "war," but they are patently illegal, just as the Vietnam "War" and the Korean "War" were also illegal. The last declared war involving the United States was World War II, almost 70 years ago. Only the Congress has the power to "declare war" under Article I. There is no explicit power under Article II for the President to "conduct" war.
The US Supreme Court ruled during the Vietnam conflict that the military funding of that conflict by the Congress was the "equivalent" of a declaration of war. Our Supreme Court gets to define what the law "is," as Chief Justice John Marshall said long ago, but the "equivalency" analysis is still utter nonsense. Powerful political arguments about terrorism and Communism, in due course, have been raised in support of those undeclared wars. Even if valid, those arguments are utterly irrelevant to a constitutional analysis of what is empowered under the Constitution and what is not.
The Tenth Amendment (*) makes it clear to me that there are no implied powers for the President nor for the Congress. That Amendment has been frequently (and mistakenly) regarded as the "states' rights" amendment, but it is totally silent as to "rights." Powers are either granted to the Federal government or they are not. While military personnel certainly have the "right" (or power) of self-defense in an emergency situation, sustained conflict amounting to war, especially in a foreign place, cannot be lawfully conducted by the President under the rubric of the "commander-in-chief" clause in Article II, absent a congressional declaration of war. That is just rank imperialism, and the people of other countries know it to be so.
So long as the power structure in our government continues to "bless" these noxious lies, as it has so far, it will be so. We, the people cannot do a thing about it if the courts are unwilling to "call a spade a spade, and not a shovel." Our sole remedy is to vote out those who disregard the Constitution, but these current "wars" are popular, so long as they do not jeopardize or personally involve the comfortable and the powerful. To oppose these conflicts is to be branded a coward or traitor for not "supporting the troops." These conflicts vicariously feed a powerful "playground" instinct in us civilians for revenge and world dominance. The Usual Suspects will continue to be re-elected, and undeclared imperialistic "wars" will continue, to our ultimate regret I predict. Meanwhile, thousands of our troops and civilians in other lands will continue to be killed or maimed for life, needlessly. That is not "support" for the troops.
I also firmly believe that the reported multiple instances of wanton, indiscriminate torture of detainees whose individual guilt has not been determined were not really for the purpose of extracting information but instead for imposing harsh and brutal and vengeful punishment on the detainees merely because they are "different," and especially because they are not "Christian." Recent polls of many vicious Americans still supporting torture confirm this. America is predominantly a mean, nasty, hypocritical pseudo-Christian culture, rotten to the core.
Those who approve of the current foolishness going on in the Middle East, need to read (and vote) the Constitution. That is the unavoidable starting point. We should "support the troops" by bringing them all home. Now.
(*) AMENDMENT X: The powers not delegated to the United State by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
With regard to the undeclared War On Terror conducted, first, by President George Bush and now by President Barack Obama, it must be recognized that the United States is supposed to be governed strictly by laws and not by the whim of a mere majority of politicians, or even voters, The US Constitution MUST control how war is waged by our country, regardless of the methods used by other nations. War involves death and injury to persons and property. Those are drastic, lasting consequences, not to be taken lightly by those of us privileged to avoid them.
The events of the past 6 or 7 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, though heavily funded by Congress, are not declared wars. As many argue, those conflicts may well be "war," but they are patently illegal, just as the Vietnam "War" and the Korean "War" were also illegal. The last declared war involving the United States was World War II, almost 70 years ago. Only the Congress has the power to "declare war" under Article I. There is no explicit power under Article II for the President to "conduct" war.
The US Supreme Court ruled during the Vietnam conflict that the military funding of that conflict by the Congress was the "equivalent" of a declaration of war. Our Supreme Court gets to define what the law "is," as Chief Justice John Marshall said long ago, but the "equivalency" analysis is still utter nonsense. Powerful political arguments about terrorism and Communism, in due course, have been raised in support of those undeclared wars. Even if valid, those arguments are utterly irrelevant to a constitutional analysis of what is empowered under the Constitution and what is not.
The Tenth Amendment (*) makes it clear to me that there are no implied powers for the President nor for the Congress. That Amendment has been frequently (and mistakenly) regarded as the "states' rights" amendment, but it is totally silent as to "rights." Powers are either granted to the Federal government or they are not. While military personnel certainly have the "right" (or power) of self-defense in an emergency situation, sustained conflict amounting to war, especially in a foreign place, cannot be lawfully conducted by the President under the rubric of the "commander-in-chief" clause in Article II, absent a congressional declaration of war. That is just rank imperialism, and the people of other countries know it to be so.
So long as the power structure in our government continues to "bless" these noxious lies, as it has so far, it will be so. We, the people cannot do a thing about it if the courts are unwilling to "call a spade a spade, and not a shovel." Our sole remedy is to vote out those who disregard the Constitution, but these current "wars" are popular, so long as they do not jeopardize or personally involve the comfortable and the powerful. To oppose these conflicts is to be branded a coward or traitor for not "supporting the troops." These conflicts vicariously feed a powerful "playground" instinct in us civilians for revenge and world dominance. The Usual Suspects will continue to be re-elected, and undeclared imperialistic "wars" will continue, to our ultimate regret I predict. Meanwhile, thousands of our troops and civilians in other lands will continue to be killed or maimed for life, needlessly. That is not "support" for the troops.
I also firmly believe that the reported multiple instances of wanton, indiscriminate torture of detainees whose individual guilt has not been determined were not really for the purpose of extracting information but instead for imposing harsh and brutal and vengeful punishment on the detainees merely because they are "different," and especially because they are not "Christian." Recent polls of many vicious Americans still supporting torture confirm this. America is predominantly a mean, nasty, hypocritical pseudo-Christian culture, rotten to the core.
Those who approve of the current foolishness going on in the Middle East, need to read (and vote) the Constitution. That is the unavoidable starting point. We should "support the troops" by bringing them all home. Now.
(*) AMENDMENT X: The powers not delegated to the United State by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
