(The following is a compilation of 5 e-mails sent in November of 2009 expressing my severe reservations about Pres. Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress, and my intention to step away from supporting them further. It is now January of 2010, and my views have become more hardened, unfortunately.)
I hesitate to levy any criticism of Barack Obama these days because I do not want to get lumped in with the know-nothing knuckle-draggers who are complaining about Obama's attempts to clean up the many horrible messes left behind by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and the gang of near-criminal thugs they led for 8 years. After only 9 months on the job, Obama does not deserve those kind of criticisms.
Many Obama supporters will also find fault with my criticisms of Obama because they will assert that I am impatient and unfairly unwilling to give Obama the time he needs to address all the many faults I have found. I would agree with those supporters, but the things that upset me (and probably don't bother the "tea-baggers," "birthers" and "deathers") are those matters which should have mostly been addressed in the very first days and are definitely not mutually exclusive from getting proper health-insurance reform adopted. I fear that Mr. Obama and I have fundamental philosophical differences that apparently amount to differences with the general direction of the Democratic Party as well.
After only 9 months of his presidency (now about a year), I have concluded that I will not likely vote for Obama in 2012, and I may well vigorously campaign against him, EVEN IF it means that a Republican will be elected. Of course, the passage of time could work to change my mind, but that is not likely if Mr. Obama's errors and omissions, policies and procedures do not also radically change. My fellow progressives and civil libertarians may well follow my lead. We ought not to be taken for granted by so-called "mainstream" Democrats, and we ought not to chow down on the "half-loaf" usually served up our way. Not anymore. To quote Damon Wayans: "Homey don' play dat [no mo']."
Let me be specific:
Since being elected President, Barack Obama has allowed, encouraged or supported the following abominable developments:
1. Renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act;
2. Continuation of the undeclared and open-ended pseudo-wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (stupidly sending more volunteer service personnel to the latter);
3. Continuation of unconstitutional, taxpayer-funded "faith-based" programs;
4. Continuation of Blackwater/Xe Corp.-security for the State Dept. in Iraq and Afghanistan;
5. Continuing to post "occupying" troops in Germany and Japan;
6. Continuing to allow NASA to squander billions of taxpayer dollars researching the unattainable manned mission to Mars;
7. Refusing to investigate allegations of criminal conduct within the Bush Admin.
8. Allowing the unwarranted 2001 Bush tax SUBSIDIES of wealthy folks to continue;
9. Continuation of some semblance of the thoroughly discredited "War On Drugs";
10. Failing to provide unambiguous and focused leadership on health-insurance reform;
11. Overweening effort at "bipartisan" development of health insurance reform in the face of obvious bad faith of Republicans;
12. Acquiescence in compulsion of taxpayers to purchase health insurance from private vendors under penalty of criminal prosecution for tax evasion--utter disregard and mockery of constitutional questions;
13. Acquiescence in imposition of "revenue neutrality" on health ins. reform;
14. Failure to provide clear and firm leadership on healthcare changes, thus allowing both Houses of Congress to approve unconstitutional quagmires, in part due to the Conventional Wisdom of Rahm Emanuel;
15. Continued unconstitutional detention of criminal suspects at Guantanamo and Baghram AFB without DUE PROCESS: access to counsel, precise criminal charge, reasonable bond and speedy trial. Art. II of the Constitution does not allow what has been going on--not for Bush, not for Obama.
15. Promotion of Conventional Wisdom of trickle-down "free-market capitalism" in unconditionally shoveling out trillions of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street while ignoring 10%-plus US unemployment, depressed consumer spending and the resultant illiquidity of small businesses;
16. Failure to establish aggressive, effective regulation of banking and business activities, especially in the area of antitrust enforcement; and
17. Maintenance of bean-counter economic mentality through continued association with Goldman Sachs alumnus Robert Rubin and his seemingly corrupted acolytes, Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner.
This is as comprehensive a list of my gripes as I can now fashion, but it may not be exhaustive. Obama is just too solicitous of the bad-faith Republicans in our midst, and he is not going to be well-served by such an approach, in my opinion. Bill Maher asked a few weeks ago, "What is it about the White House that turns [its occupants] into assholes?" Why is Obama breaking my heart like Bill Clinton did? I have overstayed my welcome in "Heartbreak Hotel"!
As I said earlier, I realize that MY list of concerns is not generally shared by the raving-idiot White Trash questioning Obama's birth certificate and drawing invidious, absurdly illogical comparisons to Hitler and Stalin, drawing Hitler" moustaches on his photos. I have been a general-practice lawyer for over 36 years, and I know something about what concerns me, while most of the others are just ignorant twits foaming at the mouth about what they DON'T know.
I daresay the Republicans have done a good job of controlling the debate and protecting their "brand" of reduced taxation (and a collapsed domestic federal state), while the Democrats desperately grope in vain for a brand to call their own. For many years I toiled as a county Democratic chair and supporter. I worked the polls on election days, often in the rain. I organized and hosted many fundraising events, many at my own expense. I donated a lot of money (for me) to candidates, often in vain. I shared joy in electoral successes and took most of the blame for local failures. I was a proud Democrat when it was VERY unpopular to be one. But, I have no regrets or shame.
Nevertheless, the state and federal leaders of the Democratic Party chose to mostly ignore my pleas to adopt the "brand" of aggressively promoting personal liberty and constitutional restraint. Silly me! I thought those objectives were fairly consistent with what I believed the Democratic Party mostly stood for, though at one time the Republican Party (despite Richard Nixon) had mostly stood for those principles, at least until Ronald Reagan predictably caved in to the "Religious Wrong." I came to realize that the important thing to most Democrats was not a philosophical consistency (like the Republicans) but merely winning elections--beating Republicans, then doing as we pleased thereafter.
I came to realize that I no longer belonged in the Democratic Party, so I left in 1995 to avoid supporting Bill Clinton for re-election. Nevertheless, I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and I am proud that America elected him. John McCain and Sarah Palin were losers in such a profound sense, and we are, despite my complaints, better off without them. I daresay John McCain would have been even more disdainful of constitutional restraint than is Barack Obama. His predictable, slutty sellout to the "Religious Wrong" last year after his brave (and costly) exhibition of independence in 2000 was disheartening. No "maverick" there! Sadly, not anymore. I doubt Sarah Palin even knows what the Constitution is! She's been too busy pimping her pathetic, ghost-written book to bother to read it.
But, that was last year. In politics, the past really does not count. Despite her book-selling successes, Sarah Palin is a political nobody, and that will be demonstrated in due course. Barack Obama is now President, and the ongoing policies are his, despite the obvious messes inherited from Bush-Cheney. They are now gone, too. Enough of excuses, already. Obama has to show his own stuff now, and I believe he is failing the test.
Contrary to most Republicans who seek the ruination of the Obama Administration and the destruction of the civil side of the federal government, as well as the further enrichment of rich folks and the abolition of reasonable, lawful restraints on monopoly, I want to see the Obama Administration succeed. I want to see policies promoted that restore the Rule of Law and prioritize the guarantees of personal liberty over the exercise of government power, both objectives being clearly established within the text of the US Constitution. I honestly believe that "success" for the Obama Administration lies in trusting the Constitution, which has been abandoned by most Republicans. Leaders in both parties now cherry-pick the thing horribly. Enough, already! None of us gets to disregard what we don't like therein.
Harry Truman famously said that if you run a pretend-Republican against a real Republican, the people will vote for the real Republican every time! It's time for Obama to lead his fellow Democrats in order to find their spine and their voice, to support true and meaningful government reform and restraint, and to promote individual liberty.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Friday, October 23, 2009
FORGET, HELL YEAH!
Lately we have been treated to various threats and statements from several sources, many from Texas and other parts south, who are again enamored of the idea of seceding from the United States. The presidency of Barack Obama seems to be fueling some of this nonsense. There was also a group of white, land- and slave-owning males back in the mid-1800’s in the American South who thought secession from the United States was a good idea. The latter-day secessionist saints also seem to be mostly white, mostly male and fairly encumbered with property, if not wealth. Unfortunately for some of them, slave-owning is now illegal.
The shared circumstance in both instances seems to be much dissatisfaction with the Fearless Leaders of the federal government in Washington. Many in the Planter Class back in the mid-1800’s were ready to abandon their presumed allegiance to the United States if Abraham Lincoln became President. Many today are rather annoyed at Barack Obama, the first “black” President in the “White” House. Some recent hotheads have associated both the Swastika and the Hammer & Sickle with images of Obama sporting a Hitler-like “toothbrush” mustache. But, we have their assurances they are not racist. Whatever. Maybe they are just dingleberries.
As a Vietnam-Era draft-dodger and life-long Southerner, gratefully if not proudly descended from a long line of non-combatant Southerners who cleverly managed to avoid wartime dangers I have, nevertheless, come to some conclusions about secession and what is generally known hereabouts as the “War of Northern Aggression.” I did have a couple of ancestors who participated in that conflict on behalf of the Confederacy, and the Confederacy is generally thought of as the entity which the Southern states created and joined after “they” seceded from the Union. But, it is well to remember that it was not the people generally who voted to secede from the Union; it was merely the antebellum Southern legislatures that declared secession, and those bodies were selected by, and representative of white, male landowners EXCLUSIVELY! "Nigras," women and redneck sharecroppers need not apply.
I marvel at the way in which the “neo-Confederates" out there today swagger around, clutching their virtual cod-pieces and declaring in manly voices what they are gonna do if whatever does not happen! I think that most of them, though, have no more of a clue of what real deprivation and loss is about (or even war) than did the land- and slave-owning Planter Class of the mid-1800’s, standing around "harrumphing" in their drawing rooms, swilling French brandy and bragging about what THEY were gonna do when "Marse Robert" kicked some Yankee ass. Meanwhile, the poor redneck schmucks who did the actual fighting and dying in the Confederate Army were marching around in wool uniforms in summer and barefoot in winter, enjoying the very real deprivation produced for them by the Noble Cause. It is probably a good thing for the continuation of Confederate myth that THEY never had a vote!
Now, let’s consider the recent ravings of those who, perhaps like Texas Gov. Rick Perry, are thinking about having that state secede from the United States. We have been treated to much ado about the brief Texas history as an independent republic. Do modern-day Texas proto-secessionists really think they will get to retain all those Texas-based federal assets (like Ft. Hood & the Houston Space Center) for free? Just imagine the size of the tax load on Texans to pay for Ft. Hood! It is HUGE! They should have to pay for that stupid border fence, too, and all the post offices! Cash on the (oil) barrel-head! NOW!
What about Texas exports to the remaining US? They just might face heavy tariffs, That way, we in the US can tax their britches off and they'd have no representation in Congress whatsoever! Doesn’t seem like such a good idea to me. What if their oil just pooled around their proud Texas bodies like the waist-level water in Dilbert's Elbonia if they don't sell it to us? We'd also be rid of John Cornyn in the Senate, and no chance of Tom deLay coming back to the House, either. Elderly Texans might also be a bit dismayed to be summarily cut off from Social Security and Medicare. (SS and Medicare just might become solvent again!) So, instead, they can all pilgrimage out to the Alamo to sing "The Yellow Rose of Texas" in unison! Of course, they could always declare war on the US, then immediately surrender and get bailed out, like the Grand Duchy of Fenwick!
I think the "War of Northern Aggression" was about the stupidest thing the Southern legislatures ever foisted on the unrepresented masses. In the end, the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis & Robt. E. Lee were a cruel joke. Some less worshipful historians regard Lee as a liar, a traitor, and a mediocre commander who arrogantly and witlessly gave in to his unbridled ego, manifest in the fiascoes of Gettysburg & Antietam. After all the blood, sweat & tears shed by others, Lee got to slink off to Lexington to become president of Washington College (later Washington & Lee University), from which I graduated with a law degree back in the early 1970’s.
Robert E. Lee was a graduate of West Point and a US Army officer for a long time prior to the Civil War. A lot of my fellow Southerners and W&L Alumni will be very angry for my asking, but is not Lee a traitor for violating his solemn oath as a US military officer to support and defend the US against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC? Is not Lee very lucky he avoided prison and got to move to Lexington instead? Apparently, Lee never explained his rationale for taking up arms against the nation he was sworn to defend. I asked a book-writing historian about that once. The revisionist historical hagiography we have been subjected to over the years has effectively protected the legend of Robert E. Lee as a principled gentleman warrior who was merely out-gunned.
I am not anti-Lee; I think he was a very interesting person. But I am not a worshipful Southerner, either. If Lee is as great as most Southerners think, then he ought to be able to withstand some objective examination. For a change.
Secession may seem like a good idea if, as I frequently am, one is very annoyed with a government that often seems unresponsive to one’s concerns. But it is a really stupid idea, and it is an idea best not visited out loud lest one be mistaken for an idiot.
The shared circumstance in both instances seems to be much dissatisfaction with the Fearless Leaders of the federal government in Washington. Many in the Planter Class back in the mid-1800’s were ready to abandon their presumed allegiance to the United States if Abraham Lincoln became President. Many today are rather annoyed at Barack Obama, the first “black” President in the “White” House. Some recent hotheads have associated both the Swastika and the Hammer & Sickle with images of Obama sporting a Hitler-like “toothbrush” mustache. But, we have their assurances they are not racist. Whatever. Maybe they are just dingleberries.
As a Vietnam-Era draft-dodger and life-long Southerner, gratefully if not proudly descended from a long line of non-combatant Southerners who cleverly managed to avoid wartime dangers I have, nevertheless, come to some conclusions about secession and what is generally known hereabouts as the “War of Northern Aggression.” I did have a couple of ancestors who participated in that conflict on behalf of the Confederacy, and the Confederacy is generally thought of as the entity which the Southern states created and joined after “they” seceded from the Union. But, it is well to remember that it was not the people generally who voted to secede from the Union; it was merely the antebellum Southern legislatures that declared secession, and those bodies were selected by, and representative of white, male landowners EXCLUSIVELY! "Nigras," women and redneck sharecroppers need not apply.
I marvel at the way in which the “neo-Confederates" out there today swagger around, clutching their virtual cod-pieces and declaring in manly voices what they are gonna do if whatever does not happen! I think that most of them, though, have no more of a clue of what real deprivation and loss is about (or even war) than did the land- and slave-owning Planter Class of the mid-1800’s, standing around "harrumphing" in their drawing rooms, swilling French brandy and bragging about what THEY were gonna do when "Marse Robert" kicked some Yankee ass. Meanwhile, the poor redneck schmucks who did the actual fighting and dying in the Confederate Army were marching around in wool uniforms in summer and barefoot in winter, enjoying the very real deprivation produced for them by the Noble Cause. It is probably a good thing for the continuation of Confederate myth that THEY never had a vote!
Now, let’s consider the recent ravings of those who, perhaps like Texas Gov. Rick Perry, are thinking about having that state secede from the United States. We have been treated to much ado about the brief Texas history as an independent republic. Do modern-day Texas proto-secessionists really think they will get to retain all those Texas-based federal assets (like Ft. Hood & the Houston Space Center) for free? Just imagine the size of the tax load on Texans to pay for Ft. Hood! It is HUGE! They should have to pay for that stupid border fence, too, and all the post offices! Cash on the (oil) barrel-head! NOW!
What about Texas exports to the remaining US? They just might face heavy tariffs, That way, we in the US can tax their britches off and they'd have no representation in Congress whatsoever! Doesn’t seem like such a good idea to me. What if their oil just pooled around their proud Texas bodies like the waist-level water in Dilbert's Elbonia if they don't sell it to us? We'd also be rid of John Cornyn in the Senate, and no chance of Tom deLay coming back to the House, either. Elderly Texans might also be a bit dismayed to be summarily cut off from Social Security and Medicare. (SS and Medicare just might become solvent again!) So, instead, they can all pilgrimage out to the Alamo to sing "The Yellow Rose of Texas" in unison! Of course, they could always declare war on the US, then immediately surrender and get bailed out, like the Grand Duchy of Fenwick!
I think the "War of Northern Aggression" was about the stupidest thing the Southern legislatures ever foisted on the unrepresented masses. In the end, the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis & Robt. E. Lee were a cruel joke. Some less worshipful historians regard Lee as a liar, a traitor, and a mediocre commander who arrogantly and witlessly gave in to his unbridled ego, manifest in the fiascoes of Gettysburg & Antietam. After all the blood, sweat & tears shed by others, Lee got to slink off to Lexington to become president of Washington College (later Washington & Lee University), from which I graduated with a law degree back in the early 1970’s.
Robert E. Lee was a graduate of West Point and a US Army officer for a long time prior to the Civil War. A lot of my fellow Southerners and W&L Alumni will be very angry for my asking, but is not Lee a traitor for violating his solemn oath as a US military officer to support and defend the US against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC? Is not Lee very lucky he avoided prison and got to move to Lexington instead? Apparently, Lee never explained his rationale for taking up arms against the nation he was sworn to defend. I asked a book-writing historian about that once. The revisionist historical hagiography we have been subjected to over the years has effectively protected the legend of Robert E. Lee as a principled gentleman warrior who was merely out-gunned.
I am not anti-Lee; I think he was a very interesting person. But I am not a worshipful Southerner, either. If Lee is as great as most Southerners think, then he ought to be able to withstand some objective examination. For a change.
Secession may seem like a good idea if, as I frequently am, one is very annoyed with a government that often seems unresponsive to one’s concerns. But it is a really stupid idea, and it is an idea best not visited out loud lest one be mistaken for an idiot.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
UNH! GOOD GOD!
(The following is substantially derived from a recent e-mail to a friend, 10/15/09.)
It is hard to believe that James Brown is now dead. When I went to see James at the "Pavilion" in Charlottesville, Virginia just before his death in or about 2007, he was 77 years old, and he was so frail by then, it was obvious he could not drop to the stage singing "Please, Please!" nor do the "James Brown" anymore. I waited in vain, but I can't do those dances anymore, either.
As a randy teenager, I was crazy about James Brown, and I would go see him anytime he was appearing in Richmond, Virginia where I finished high school back in the early 1960's, and even later. James even appeared at my college one weekend. I spent many a night up in the "nosebleed" section of the Mosque balcony in Richmond, being one of about 10 white folks in the whole place, watching James, dropping to his knees, sweating like a horse, with his shirt off and screaming "Please, Please!" into the mike, and the crowd is going apeshit!
Then, one of his sidemen would come from offstage with James's cape, put it gently around his shoulders and help him up off the stage, then assist him pitifully hobbling offstage. As James would reach the side of the stage, he'd FLING the cape off, run back to the mike, grab it and pull it down onto the stage in a kneeling position again, again hollering "Please, Please!" into the mike. This would happen three or four times, and by the end there was such a frenzy in the audience that I feared the balcony would collapse!
I kid you not!
About 25 years before James died, some friends and I were sitting in the bar of the Richmond Marriott one evening having a drink. My friends had fixed me up on a blind date with a friend of theirs. (She did not even have a seeing-eye dog!) We noticed that James Brown was giving an interview nearby. He was to do a show at the Richmond Coliseum later that evening.
I was fidgeting and gibbering about getting James's autograph. About 20 years earlier, I had seen James Brown in the Atlanta airport and had forfeited an opportunity to get his autograph then. At the time, wearing an absolutely beautiful gabardine tan suit and matching cape that contrasted with his extraordinary dark skin, he was surrounded by a bevy of middle-aged black women who were fawning all over him, and this white boy knew better than to intrude on that scene. James was grinning from ear to ear, and I was not going to try to get in the middle.
So when the interview was over at the Marriott, I went over with a pen and Marriott cocktail napkin to ask James Brown for his autograph. There was this very long, deadly pause while James just stared at me with glittering eyes! It was eerie! He seemed stoned "out of his gourd" on something. FINALLY, after an excruciatingly long pause, he moved in slow-motion, took my pen and the napkin and scrawled his signature thereon, appending the phrase "Rocky III" or something like that, being the movie he had then recently completed with Sylvester Stallone wherein he had debuted his song, "Living In America." I quickly excused myself and went back to our table, but my blind date was EXTREMELY nonplussed by my groupie adulation and, needless to say, we never got together again. It seemed she could not wait for the evening to end thereafter, but I had James Brown's autograph, so I did NOT GIVE A DAMN!
Michael Jackson ripped James off with his vaunted "Moonwalk," which was nothing more than a warmed-over "James Brown" or "Camel Walk" that James perfected. A performance by James Brown in his prime was just amazing stuff. I have most of his records and CD's. I saw it all. I was there. I am so eternally glad I was. Many times.
There will NEVER be anyone like James Brown ever again. Not even close. He was a true musical pioneer.
UPDATE: I have performed karaoke a couple of times yet have never tried to do so seriously. I know that my straightforward rendition of a good song would never measure up to the expectations of any audience, regardless of the amount of alcohol it might have consumed! But I have, in fact, performed Madonna's first hit, "Like A Virgin" in the style of James Brown, and it has been rather well received!
Unh! Good God!
It is hard to believe that James Brown is now dead. When I went to see James at the "Pavilion" in Charlottesville, Virginia just before his death in or about 2007, he was 77 years old, and he was so frail by then, it was obvious he could not drop to the stage singing "Please, Please!" nor do the "James Brown" anymore. I waited in vain, but I can't do those dances anymore, either.
As a randy teenager, I was crazy about James Brown, and I would go see him anytime he was appearing in Richmond, Virginia where I finished high school back in the early 1960's, and even later. James even appeared at my college one weekend. I spent many a night up in the "nosebleed" section of the Mosque balcony in Richmond, being one of about 10 white folks in the whole place, watching James, dropping to his knees, sweating like a horse, with his shirt off and screaming "Please, Please!" into the mike, and the crowd is going apeshit!
Then, one of his sidemen would come from offstage with James's cape, put it gently around his shoulders and help him up off the stage, then assist him pitifully hobbling offstage. As James would reach the side of the stage, he'd FLING the cape off, run back to the mike, grab it and pull it down onto the stage in a kneeling position again, again hollering "Please, Please!" into the mike. This would happen three or four times, and by the end there was such a frenzy in the audience that I feared the balcony would collapse!
I kid you not!
About 25 years before James died, some friends and I were sitting in the bar of the Richmond Marriott one evening having a drink. My friends had fixed me up on a blind date with a friend of theirs. (She did not even have a seeing-eye dog!) We noticed that James Brown was giving an interview nearby. He was to do a show at the Richmond Coliseum later that evening.
I was fidgeting and gibbering about getting James's autograph. About 20 years earlier, I had seen James Brown in the Atlanta airport and had forfeited an opportunity to get his autograph then. At the time, wearing an absolutely beautiful gabardine tan suit and matching cape that contrasted with his extraordinary dark skin, he was surrounded by a bevy of middle-aged black women who were fawning all over him, and this white boy knew better than to intrude on that scene. James was grinning from ear to ear, and I was not going to try to get in the middle.
So when the interview was over at the Marriott, I went over with a pen and Marriott cocktail napkin to ask James Brown for his autograph. There was this very long, deadly pause while James just stared at me with glittering eyes! It was eerie! He seemed stoned "out of his gourd" on something. FINALLY, after an excruciatingly long pause, he moved in slow-motion, took my pen and the napkin and scrawled his signature thereon, appending the phrase "Rocky III" or something like that, being the movie he had then recently completed with Sylvester Stallone wherein he had debuted his song, "Living In America." I quickly excused myself and went back to our table, but my blind date was EXTREMELY nonplussed by my groupie adulation and, needless to say, we never got together again. It seemed she could not wait for the evening to end thereafter, but I had James Brown's autograph, so I did NOT GIVE A DAMN!
Michael Jackson ripped James off with his vaunted "Moonwalk," which was nothing more than a warmed-over "James Brown" or "Camel Walk" that James perfected. A performance by James Brown in his prime was just amazing stuff. I have most of his records and CD's. I saw it all. I was there. I am so eternally glad I was. Many times.
There will NEVER be anyone like James Brown ever again. Not even close. He was a true musical pioneer.
UPDATE: I have performed karaoke a couple of times yet have never tried to do so seriously. I know that my straightforward rendition of a good song would never measure up to the expectations of any audience, regardless of the amount of alcohol it might have consumed! But I have, in fact, performed Madonna's first hit, "Like A Virgin" in the style of James Brown, and it has been rather well received!
Unh! Good God!
ULTRA VIRES
(The following is taken substantially from an e-mail recently sent to a friend about the health-insurance bill emerging from the US Senate Finance Committee.)
ULTRA VIRES.
That is a Latin legal phrase referring to unauthorized conduct, usually in the context of a charity not acting in a charitable manner. I use it here to raise the issue of whether or not the Senate Finance Committee has gone "off the rails" in its zeal to pass a bill that allegedly provides "universal" health insurance coverage by mandating, under penalty of law, that all persons initiate and carry private health insurance at their own expense.
Over the years, we Americans have become conditioned to the US Congress pretty much doing whatever it wishes in regard to passing laws. So many of us, this writer included, have occasionally thought that merely stamping one's foot or snapping one's fingers is all that is needed to justify federal legislation to remedy some perceived problem.
However, the Founders were quite concerned (with much energy focused from the former Colonies) that the central government to be created by the US Constitution be restrained and limited in its powers to act. It was not until the later 1930's that the US Supreme Court began to allow the US Congress wide latitude in asserting its authority under the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce (the so-called "Commerce Clause"). It was not until 1913 that the Congress could levy nonapportioned (income) taxes by virtue of the ratification of Amendment XVI.
Thus, the rumors recently circulating about the Senate Finance health-insurance bill are troubling to me. Supposedly, it will REQUIRE each of us to maintain private insurance, and most people will just go along with that because they think it sounds like a good idea. Last I heard, however, the health-insurance mandate will be enforced by the IRS, with the same penalties attached thereto as for tax evasion, INCLUDING imprisonment! Taxpayers will have to declare, under penalty of law, their health-insurance status when they file Form 1040. I can hear it now:
"Well, golly, Festus, at least evr'body will HAVE health insurance!!"
Universal coverage. Yee-hah. It's what everyone wants, right? Who would object to that? So Congress will pass the law that President Obama will sign, and--SHAZZAM!--it happens like magic! Like the law criminalizing the consumption of alcohol by college students. Not a very effective law, I daresay. Part of my concern is with the many who cannot afford private health insurance yet won't qualify for a subsidy and will thus be in violation of that penal mandate if it passes. They go to jail if they don't have health insurance or they go to jail if they lie about it. Catch-22. The well-to-do and those with good jobs need not worry.
I fail to understand how that provision will pass constitutional muster. I find no such authorization in the Constitution for the Congress to levy such a private-benefit "tax." I also fail to understand why this issue has not been raised by the cheerleading pseudo-journalists out there. Many would dismiss this as a typical lawyer esoteric rant, but many of those pseudo-journalists allegedly have law degrees. Another part of their problem is that they also have big fat health insurance programs furnished by their employers, so they don't need to share the worry with the rest of the world.
I think it is quite a stretch to say the health-insurance penal mandate is authorized under the (interstate) Commerce Clause. If that be the case, as insurance has been traditionally regulated by the states as a NON-federal matter, does that now mean the states have been thus pre-empted from insurance oversight? If so, we should lobby for application of the federal antitrust laws to insurance companies. Their recent unified declared threat to spike insurance premiums if the Senate bill passed is ample evidence to me of illicit collusion. The states have utterly failed to prevent that collusion because most health-insurance companies are so big and strong they can "steamroll" state regulatory agencies.
This is all just amazing to me. That this criminal penalty has apparently been reported out of the Finance Committee, and NO ONE bothers to ask what is its constitutional authority just overwhelms me. Not one single pseudo-journalist nor Senator bothered to ask within my hearing. It really upsets me that this country is full of knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Bobbing Heads just going along with any nonsense that comes down the congressional pipeline, if it seems like a "good idea."
ULTRA VIRES.
That is a Latin legal phrase referring to unauthorized conduct, usually in the context of a charity not acting in a charitable manner. I use it here to raise the issue of whether or not the Senate Finance Committee has gone "off the rails" in its zeal to pass a bill that allegedly provides "universal" health insurance coverage by mandating, under penalty of law, that all persons initiate and carry private health insurance at their own expense.
Over the years, we Americans have become conditioned to the US Congress pretty much doing whatever it wishes in regard to passing laws. So many of us, this writer included, have occasionally thought that merely stamping one's foot or snapping one's fingers is all that is needed to justify federal legislation to remedy some perceived problem.
However, the Founders were quite concerned (with much energy focused from the former Colonies) that the central government to be created by the US Constitution be restrained and limited in its powers to act. It was not until the later 1930's that the US Supreme Court began to allow the US Congress wide latitude in asserting its authority under the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce (the so-called "Commerce Clause"). It was not until 1913 that the Congress could levy nonapportioned (income) taxes by virtue of the ratification of Amendment XVI.
Thus, the rumors recently circulating about the Senate Finance health-insurance bill are troubling to me. Supposedly, it will REQUIRE each of us to maintain private insurance, and most people will just go along with that because they think it sounds like a good idea. Last I heard, however, the health-insurance mandate will be enforced by the IRS, with the same penalties attached thereto as for tax evasion, INCLUDING imprisonment! Taxpayers will have to declare, under penalty of law, their health-insurance status when they file Form 1040. I can hear it now:
"Well, golly, Festus, at least evr'body will HAVE health insurance!!"
Universal coverage. Yee-hah. It's what everyone wants, right? Who would object to that? So Congress will pass the law that President Obama will sign, and--SHAZZAM!--it happens like magic! Like the law criminalizing the consumption of alcohol by college students. Not a very effective law, I daresay. Part of my concern is with the many who cannot afford private health insurance yet won't qualify for a subsidy and will thus be in violation of that penal mandate if it passes. They go to jail if they don't have health insurance or they go to jail if they lie about it. Catch-22. The well-to-do and those with good jobs need not worry.
I fail to understand how that provision will pass constitutional muster. I find no such authorization in the Constitution for the Congress to levy such a private-benefit "tax." I also fail to understand why this issue has not been raised by the cheerleading pseudo-journalists out there. Many would dismiss this as a typical lawyer esoteric rant, but many of those pseudo-journalists allegedly have law degrees. Another part of their problem is that they also have big fat health insurance programs furnished by their employers, so they don't need to share the worry with the rest of the world.
I think it is quite a stretch to say the health-insurance penal mandate is authorized under the (interstate) Commerce Clause. If that be the case, as insurance has been traditionally regulated by the states as a NON-federal matter, does that now mean the states have been thus pre-empted from insurance oversight? If so, we should lobby for application of the federal antitrust laws to insurance companies. Their recent unified declared threat to spike insurance premiums if the Senate bill passed is ample evidence to me of illicit collusion. The states have utterly failed to prevent that collusion because most health-insurance companies are so big and strong they can "steamroll" state regulatory agencies.
This is all just amazing to me. That this criminal penalty has apparently been reported out of the Finance Committee, and NO ONE bothers to ask what is its constitutional authority just overwhelms me. Not one single pseudo-journalist nor Senator bothered to ask within my hearing. It really upsets me that this country is full of knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Bobbing Heads just going along with any nonsense that comes down the congressional pipeline, if it seems like a "good idea."
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
BUSTA MARS!
NASA is on a giddy spending spree. NASA has lots of help. Ever since President George W. Bush triumphantly declared (like “Mission Accomplished”) that the United States was “going to Mars,” the fist-pumping, chest-thumping, hyper-patriotic, yee-hah yayhoos have been addled by the jingo-bells going off in their heads and enthusiastically, if witlessly, serving as the “Amen” chorus for such a venture. Media types have also been caught up in the frenzy, morphing into pom-pom cheerleaders right before our eyes, and not many politicians, journalists or voters are willing to go out on a limb and suggest that the Emperor is buck-nekkid.
Americans (like George W. Bush) are still bloviated over the accomplishments of the Apollo missions. Most Americans seem to believe that a trip to Mars is just a bit longer than a trip to the Moon, and we have already done that, so no big deal, right? Yet, the lessons of Apollo 13 are utterly lost on us despite the fine movie of it made not too long ago. “Bidness” as usual. Failure (despite Apollo 13) is not an option for America.
NASA is a giant vampire tick that should have been pulled off the US tax-paying “dog” and burned a long time ago. NASA has been understandably fretting about the waning days of the shuttle missions, but Bush breathed new life therein with the Mars mission proposal, enabled by the know-nothing appropriating complicity of the Congress. Just how much taxpayer money has been spent to date on the manned mission to Mars? Does anyone REALLY know? Does it matter? President Obama has so much other controversy on his plate right now, that giving NASA a reality check is not likely high on his priority list, PLUS it won’t make him very many friends if he were to do that. NASA occupies almost deity status in the United States, and any politician who takes that agency on does so at his or her peril.
What is going on here? The mission has been officially declared, so the only thing left to do is to figure out how to build the technology to get ‘er done. It seems that no one (besides myself) has sat down and calculated just how long it will take for a manned mission to go to Mars, visit the planet for 3-4 days, then turn around and come home. There seems to be no appreciation for the realities, the main one being that such a mission will likely take between 18 and 32 months, given an average traveling speed of about 30,000 mph, and no one, it seems, has asked the basic, simple question of how can 3-6 people of disparate backgrounds live together in harmony for that period of time in a space the size of my bedroom, if that big?
I don’t know any THREE people I could spend 18 months with in such a confined space without KILLING them, if they had not already killed me first! I can hear it now: “Tom, if you fart one more time, I will beat your brains out!”
Get real! This mission is utter nonsense! There are no people on this planet who can go through the rigorous astronaut training and manage to accomplish such a mission. No one has the guts to simulate such an environment without fearing imprisonment for torture. Perhaps we should ask some of the Islamic detainees (ALLEGED terrorists) to volunteer for the mission in return for their freedom, like the “Dirty Dozen.” They are about the only humans anywhere who have experienced the likely conditions of confinement in a small space that would simulate what the Mars mission would be. “Gitmo” to Mars!
Congress needs to drive a big stake through the heart of NASA—now. The American taxpayer needs to be relieved of this run-a-MUCK agency that desperately searches for ways to piss away hard-earned tax dollars on nonessential stuff. The various LEGITIMATE scientific efforts being pursued through NASA space missions can be accomplished by out-sourcing them to other agencies or to the private companies that will be allowed to exclusively profit from those discoveries at taxpayer expense anyway.
There will NEVER be a successful manned mission to Mars. NEVER! How much taxpayer money is the Congress going to spend to find out this fundamental truth?
Americans (like George W. Bush) are still bloviated over the accomplishments of the Apollo missions. Most Americans seem to believe that a trip to Mars is just a bit longer than a trip to the Moon, and we have already done that, so no big deal, right? Yet, the lessons of Apollo 13 are utterly lost on us despite the fine movie of it made not too long ago. “Bidness” as usual. Failure (despite Apollo 13) is not an option for America.
NASA is a giant vampire tick that should have been pulled off the US tax-paying “dog” and burned a long time ago. NASA has been understandably fretting about the waning days of the shuttle missions, but Bush breathed new life therein with the Mars mission proposal, enabled by the know-nothing appropriating complicity of the Congress. Just how much taxpayer money has been spent to date on the manned mission to Mars? Does anyone REALLY know? Does it matter? President Obama has so much other controversy on his plate right now, that giving NASA a reality check is not likely high on his priority list, PLUS it won’t make him very many friends if he were to do that. NASA occupies almost deity status in the United States, and any politician who takes that agency on does so at his or her peril.
What is going on here? The mission has been officially declared, so the only thing left to do is to figure out how to build the technology to get ‘er done. It seems that no one (besides myself) has sat down and calculated just how long it will take for a manned mission to go to Mars, visit the planet for 3-4 days, then turn around and come home. There seems to be no appreciation for the realities, the main one being that such a mission will likely take between 18 and 32 months, given an average traveling speed of about 30,000 mph, and no one, it seems, has asked the basic, simple question of how can 3-6 people of disparate backgrounds live together in harmony for that period of time in a space the size of my bedroom, if that big?
I don’t know any THREE people I could spend 18 months with in such a confined space without KILLING them, if they had not already killed me first! I can hear it now: “Tom, if you fart one more time, I will beat your brains out!”
Get real! This mission is utter nonsense! There are no people on this planet who can go through the rigorous astronaut training and manage to accomplish such a mission. No one has the guts to simulate such an environment without fearing imprisonment for torture. Perhaps we should ask some of the Islamic detainees (ALLEGED terrorists) to volunteer for the mission in return for their freedom, like the “Dirty Dozen.” They are about the only humans anywhere who have experienced the likely conditions of confinement in a small space that would simulate what the Mars mission would be. “Gitmo” to Mars!
Congress needs to drive a big stake through the heart of NASA—now. The American taxpayer needs to be relieved of this run-a-MUCK agency that desperately searches for ways to piss away hard-earned tax dollars on nonessential stuff. The various LEGITIMATE scientific efforts being pursued through NASA space missions can be accomplished by out-sourcing them to other agencies or to the private companies that will be allowed to exclusively profit from those discoveries at taxpayer expense anyway.
There will NEVER be a successful manned mission to Mars. NEVER! How much taxpayer money is the Congress going to spend to find out this fundamental truth?
Friday, October 9, 2009
MANNYBOYZ' CERTAINTY PRINCIPLE
(The following is substantially taken from an October 9, 2009 e-mail to a friend who shared two recent book reviews from the NY Times by Emily Bazelon and Alan Dershowitz.)
I found Emily Bazelon's NY Times review of Barry Friedman's book about the US Supreme Court, The Will of the People, interesting. She seems to concur with the notion that it is OK for the Supreme Court to align itself with popular opinion over time. Perhaps I am misinterpreting that, and I do not disagree that happens, but it should not be the defining OBJECTIVE for the Court.
Lately there has been a lot of sturm und drang over the issue of expansion vs. contraction of individual liberties. I was watching a recent TV show about the issue of "gay" rights and was reading about it in the paper, too. Going through the courts in Texas now is a case concerning a gay couple married in Massachusetts seeking a legal divorce in Texas where they now live. Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson are OPPOSING the divorce, thus seeking to force the gay married couple to remain married in Texas, where gay marriage is otherwise illegal. The ironies abound. Perry and Hutchinson say the Texas constitutional provision limiting MARRIAGE to "hetero" men and women prohibits the Texas courts from taking up a divorce action. The trial court rejected this argument, saying that it was a denial of equal protection, but the Texas Attorney General has intervened and is appealing.
Given that ALL states have ratified the US Constitution, I fail to see how any state can now assert a POWER over any person in the US (citizen or not) to deprive him or her of equal protection and due process of law, REGARDLESS of sexual preference. Legally recognized marriage is a state civil proceeding subordinate to the US Constitution, though it might also be a private religious proceeding free of such legal considerations. However, many secular "rights" and privileges pertain to married couples that mere "partners" don't enjoy, like joint tax return filings and attendance at medical bedsides. I think that homosexuals already have a right to civil marriage, same as any other person. I don't think a state can prohibit two unrelated consenting adult humans wishing to marry, and I don't think the Constitution needs any amendment, UNLESS the US Supreme Court fails to properly enforce the Constitution, as it so miserably failed in KELO vs. NEW LONDON, the eminent domain case that has everybody clucking. I decided to actually look up and read the KELO case. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority Opinion, and he based it on an earlier Supreme Court decision allowing the seizure of private property on the island of Oahu in Hawaii, the MIDKIFF case.
Now, no one who has EVER expressed an opinion about KELO to my knowledge, orally or in writing, has EVER mentioned MIDKIFF. MIDKIFF flew completely "under the rader" when it was decided. Nobody raised a stink then, and it involved approximately the IDENTICAL issues that the KELO case presented. So, I read MIDKIFF, too.
It could be argued that the KELO majority were EXACTLY RIGHT to assert that the judicial precedent of MIDKIFF was controlling. It held it was OK for government to seize private property and turn it over to other private interests (paying "market value" for it, of course), SO LONG AS a public PURPOSE" was being served. MIDKIFF involved the State of Hawaii breaking up what was described as an "oligarchy" of private ownership of land on Oahu, where only 10-15 families owned about 75% of the island. So, the ownership of those lands was forcibly redistributed, and the US Supremes said that was a permissible use of the "takings" clause (5th Amendment).
The logic used by the majorities in both MIDKIFF and KELO sought to equate that wishy-washy "public PURPOSE" with the express constitutional standard of "public USE." I personally think the Founders were literate enough to have known the difference, and I think they did not use "purpose" on purpose! Unfortunately, that does not prevent modern-day semi-literates from trying to "improve" on their works.
So, in KELO, not a single alleged "liberal" on the Supreme Court voted to protect Mr. Kelo's home from being seized by the City of New London, Connecticut and being torn down for a PRIVATE (not "public") "redevelopment" project that never got built! They all outvoted the alleged "conservatives," and Mr. Kelo lost his home.
Ironically, one of those "conservatives," Justice Clarence Thomas, sided with Mr. Kelo and said that MIDKIFF was bad law and should be overturned. I agree with him, though that's probably the only time I will likely do so!
This absurdity was nullified by many legislative acts later on.
One of the most trifling, reprehensible acts ever committed by President George W. Bush concerned his support for amending the US Constitution to prohibit gays from getting married. As a TV speaker noted, it was the first time in the history of our country (other than, arguably, the institution of Prohibition) that the amending process had sought to take away rights rather than to expand them. Over the years, the Supreme Court had become ever more hostile to personal liberty. Until Ronald Reagan became President, there was a pretty solid history of expansion of personal liberties and of secular government. Not anymore, and that, to me, is the telling aspect of the evolution of constitutional interpretation. Retrenchment of personal liberty is unbecoming to the United States of America.
Justice Antonin Scalia has been in the news lately regarding the case of the war memorial cross out in the Mojave Desert. He said on "First Monday" [October 5, 2009] during oral argument that, amazingly, he did not see that cross as being some overt Christian symbol, that it was "merely" a war memorial, no big deal. The Jewish lawyer for the ACLU said he'd been in some Jewish war-dead cemeteries and had seen no crosses there, and Scalia got pissed off! He sarcastically noted that it was impractical to create some hodge-podge amalgam of religious symbols as proper memorials, so why not a "mere" cross? How could ANYBODY object to that? Scalia, being the arch-conservative intolerant bigot that he is, fails to consider the OBVIOUS solution, to put up a secular-type memorial instead, such as an obelisk, which happens to be an ancient Egyptian religious fertility symbol abstracting a penis!! (Maybe Scalia does not like obelisks because they imply him being a dickhead!)
I find Antonin Scalia to be a Wrong-Wing, hyper-Catholic bigot. However, he may well be the smartest Justice on the Court, but he is a pernicious, evil influence thereon. He thus gives credence to the observation by Bazelon that "judicial review [may well] alter the meaning of the Constitution...." Though John Marshall observed in MARBURY vs. MADISON that the Supreme Court says what the law "is," I have always wanted to believe that the Court did not change the meaning of the Constitution so much as to change people's notions of what it says and means, but Scalia tries my patience! (So did Sandra Day O'Connor!)
There are now five devout Catholics on the Supreme Court: Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito. I think this was intentional on the part of "alleged" conservatives who put them there, and it is very dangerous. Only Kennedy (now considered the "center"!!) seems to have any inclination to preserve civil liberties. The rest usually will back the state against the individual most any time (though some did not do so in KELO).
As I have ranted many times, the 10th Amendment (the so-called "states' rights" amendment, a phrase and concept that appears NOWHERE in the US Constitution) recites only acknowledgment and allocation of LIMITED powers for the United States; the 9th Amendment recites that there may well exist other RIGHTS besides those enumerated in the Constitution. It seems to me that, analogous to Werner Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle" regarding quantum energy states (momentum) and quantum matter states (position), a power and a right cannot occupy the same legal "space" at the same time, so powers must ALWAYS defer to rights, as the latter preceded the former in time and importance, according to most of the Enlightenment thinkers. We in the US celebrate the notion that the government's democratic POWERS are derivative of the RIGHTS of the people who, as individuals, have collectively chosen to be so governed. I shall, henceforth, refer to this as the "MannyBoyz' Certainty Principle"!
Bazelon observes that there is an "argument that judicial review is bad for democracy." I think too many people nowadays obsess about the US being a "democracy," implying that the majority is always right and can do whatever it pleases. The Founders were smart enough to create not an out-and-out "democracy" but a republic based on democratic principles, thus forcing the majority to assert its will through a layer of representatives with minds of their own, sworn to support the Constitution, but SUBJECT TO limitations on the power of the majority to enforce its will on "lesser" beings. An unelected co-equal branch of government, the judiciary, serves to check the power of the majority which controls the other two branches of government, by enforcing those checks and limitations. Unlike what George W. Bush seemingly thought, "democracy" is not an end unto itself but is merely a tool to be used to enable our manner of governance. I think that is a critical distinction that is lost on too many people. Sometimes, the majority does NOT get to do what it wants. Thankfully. The idea that the majority might be so limited is anathema to a lot of ignoramuses.
******************************
As for Alan Dershowitz's review of the thus-titled book about Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis by Melvin Urofsky, it is hard for me to read anything written by über-Zionist Dershowitz and not start foaming at the mouth. He is utterly repugnant, even when I agree with him! I wonder how much Brandeis, a self-proclaimed Zionist, would approve of Zionism today if he could witness what is now going on in the West Bank. I am just amazed that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Likud have once again assumed power in Israel, though they do not now enjoy the support of a clear majority and must make coalitions with other interests.
I know very little about Brandeis, but I do believe that there is a paucity of "mere" lawyer representation on the Supreme Court. Way too many people and politicos and pundits believe that one must have judicial experience to be on the Court. I think Lewis Powell was the last pure lawyer on the Court, but he was a "corporatist" suspect, I am sorry to say. He did live to regret his decision upholding the Virginia "crimes against Nature" statute against homosexuals, not that his ex post facto regret served to end the hate and discrimination against homosexuals. Thurgood Marshall also made his reputation primarily as a lawyer, and he was the last (& only recent) justice to have defended a death-penalty case as a lawyer. We have too many judges on the Court as it is. We do need more lawyers thereon.
I would hope that a lawyer of Brandeis's stature who gained a position on the Court these days might be an aggressive defender of civil liberties, but given the current complexion of the US Senate, with worthless, invertebrate piffle like Virginia's Mark Warner there (self-described "raging moderate"--ha-ha), I doubt we shall see any counterbalance to Antonin Scalia's fascist influence anytime soon.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY, 10/1/09
We all have pieces of our miserable, stupid hearts buried in the forgotten graveyard of lost opportunities.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
TO WHAT DEGREE?
(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.
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.
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)
