Update from the Heartland
No.322
4.2.08 – 10.2.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.322
4.2.08 – 10.2.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Well, now this an interesting twist . . . In the aftermath of Super-Dooper Tuesday, Governor Mitt Romney decided to suspend his presidential bid . . . then there were 1½ wannabes on one side and 2 on the other. It sure does appear that John McCain will be the Republican nominee. This turn of events cannot make the Democrats feel very comfortable with their two leading candidates slogging it out in an essential dead-heat that might not be resolved until August. I wonder how debilitating a protracted primary campaign will be. The actual campaign (from Labor Day to the election) may be quite entertaining.
Given all the whining and whinging from so-called conservatives about the approaching nomination of Senator John McCain, I wanted to attempt an understanding of their puzzling statements that they would vote for anyone but McCain, or even not vote at all, which I think verges on immature ridiculousness. Apparently, there are many reasons the uber-Right despise McCain – he is a moderate who has proven his ability to reach out to the opposition and find compromise solutions, and they know they cannot control him or make him toe-the-line. So, I picked one of their major examples and jumped in. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) [AKA McCain–Feingold or Shays-Meehan] {PL 107-155}. The BCRA amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) [PL 92-225], the Communications Act of 1934 [PL 73-416], and other portions of the United States Code, "to purge national politics of what [is] conceived to be the pernicious influence of 'big money' campaign contributions." The bill sought controls on the increased importance of 'soft money,' the proliferation of 'issue ads,' and the disturbing findings of a Senate investigation into campaign practices related to the 1996 federal elections. McCain–Feingold was immediately tested in court. The list of suits and counter-suits exceed the capacity of this humble forum; the 12 diverse cases became McConnell v. Federal Election Commission [540 U.S. 93 (2003)] before the Supreme Court. The Court offered up a complex, convoluted decision affirming part and striking down part of BCRA. The Court accepted controls on soft money, while they thought the restrictions upon broadcasting companies was too broad and thus unconstitutional. We can argue the wisdom or appropriateness of McCain-Feingold, yet one fact remains undeniable -- the legislation attempted to bring some order and discipline to the presidential election campaign financing process. We can also argue whether campaign finance reform is even warranted. The main objection hinges upon freedom of speech, which in this case is like trying to preserve the OK Corral at High Noon. Free speech can be injurious, and that is the challenge we face -- how do we resolve contests without bullets and blood in the street? Where do we draw the line to protect the greatest possible freedom while we prevent or reduce the likelihood of injury? Solutions to our most pressing societal problems demand compromise. This perpetual anti- / pro- nonsense does absolutely nothing to achieve workable solutions. The list is long – campaign finance, abortion, Social Security, gun control, health care, substance abuse, immigration reform, prostitution, child abuse, et cetera ad finitum. As long as we allow these political party hacks to continue their hard-line, intransigent stance – my side is right, your side is wrong – we will never find a solution because neither side will budge. With recalcitrant, starkly polarized opponents, often the best solution is one that has both sides equally angry. That said, this approach tends to work on most topics other than national security, law enforcement, or warfighting. I know there are some who receive this Update who can and hopefully will argue against McCain-Feingold for us; so let’s here it.
Another of the lightning rod issues with McCain and Republicans are his votes against the Bush tax cuts. I do not know why McCain voted against the cuts, but I do know that if I had been in the same position, I would have voted against them as well. The fiscal equation for personal, business and government is actually quite simple – revenue minus expenses = net. When net goes negative, the government borrows. McCain’s point was a tax cut in the face of a global war was insanity. I have always been a small government person, so for me, tax cuts should reduce revenue and reduce the size of government. That is what I expected with George W. Bush. Instead, we got a President who was unwilling, unable or uninterested in telling Congress (Republican controlled until 2006, I must add) no to the largess of pork-barrel, earmark spending that did not contribute to the war effort. Again, I invite anyone to explain how tax cuts without spending reductions are a financially responsible action.
An evolving thought . . . I have often wondered why so many American citizens do not vote. Perhaps, they are lazy, or do not care, or have other priorities on Election Day. I have and continue to maintain that voting is every citizen’s duty, obligation, and responsibility; and yet, as we have discussed [321, 322], more than a few of our comrades use the most superficial criteria, if they vote at all. Here is a radical notion, perhaps we should have a qualification test, kinda like a driver’s test, to ensure a minimum competency regarding the construction and operation of government as well as an understanding of contemporary issues. If not, my authority to vote would be rescinded until I can pass my competency test. Oh I know, the history buffs are rapidly typing out their condemnation and reminding my of the South’s ‘Jim Crow’ laws, designed to exclude American citizens with dark skin pigmentation.
We have a bevy of interesting news articles from our British cousins this week. I thought I would offer them up with links and a short comment for your cogitation and rumination. As always, I invite anyone to comment on any topic as they wish.
First up:
"Children of nine may get sex advice packs"
by Toby Helm and Sarah Womack
The Telegraph [of London]
Last Updated: 6:31am GMT; 28/01/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/28/nsex128.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_28012008
Since parents refuse to teach their children, the State intends to press the issue, or at least encourage parents to do what parents should be doing.
Second:
"Day trip to Auschwitz for pupils from every school"
by Alexandra Frean
The Times [of London]
Published: February 4, 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article3300819.ece?&EMC-Bltn=LOXCF1
The British Government requires two, 16-18 year old students from every school in England to visit the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Poland, to ensure the next generation remembers what happened 65 years ago. The article also provides a link for an extraordinary website to preserve our memory.
http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/new/index.php?language=EN&tryb=start&id=675&menu=g
Third:
"Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits"
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones
The Telegraph [of London]
Last Updated: 1:52am GMT; 04/02/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_03022008
This movement may seem fair, but it implicitly becomes State sanction and encouragement of polygamous marriages, and provides an enticement for others to follow suit and claim expanded benefits, like welfare benefits based on child headcount encouraging brood-mare, welfare mothers. What free, productive adults choose to do in private is not my concern or a matter of State interest. However, private choices should not, and I will say must not, enable unfair or unequal benefits.
Fourth and last:
"Does Islam fit with our law? -- Is a clash of civilisations looming? It’s now time to find the links rather than the conflicts between English and Islamic law"
by Ian Edge and Robin Griffiths-Jones
The Times [of London]
Published: February 5, 2008
http://timesonline-emails.co.uk/go.asp?/bTNL001/mWBP4L8/qNK7ML8/uNSC46/xC0HDL8
The challenge of societal heritage dilution has overrun all the Western democracies; this is the British version; the same phenomenon applies to the United States.
Nations are formed for the common good, for collective security, and for the preservation of fundamental principles the bind its citizen together. The relationship of The People to the government especially among democratic countries grows from the “consent of the governed” in some form. Further, certain protections are afforded individuals as a bulwark against zealous or capricious government agents and to give the individual the means to resist majority rule as might be imposed. As with all things, there are exceptions – eminent domain being a prime example. While I think of myself as a student of the Constitution, I can make no claim to scholarly expertise; yet, as with most topics, I do have an opinion I believe relevant. So many questions before our contemporary body politik seem to emanate from the constant and continuous struggle in defining the position and permeability of the boundary between public and private, between the citizen and the State. The political spectrum, it seems to me, ranges from pure Federal through state and local government to extra-governmental communities, and at the other end rests the private conduct of the citizen. There are (or at least should be) near-exclusivities at either end of the spectrum. The Federal government, as reflected in the Constitution and the Logan Act of 1799 [1 Stat. 613] [280], negotiates with foreign governments; private citizens are excluded. On the other end of the spectrum, the individual citizen’s private conduct should be beyond the government’s reach. The right to privacy was first articulated by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)] [166, 189]. We could argue, as the Court tip-toes around in Griswold, that a citizen’s right to privacy is a fundamental right, beyond the Constitution and thus protected by the 9th Amendment. The 9th Amendment is mentioned quite infrequently in Supreme Court rulings; perhaps, there are no substantive reasons for the paucity of citations, however, the fact remains. My opinion . . . unenumerated or undefined rights appear boundless and thus difficult to interpret, e.g., where do we draw the line between permissible, tolerable and unacceptable? Why is this question important? A presidential candidate’s Supreme Court appointment bias is, whether most citizens recognize it, a critical parameter for our evaluation. My struggle with finding the balance between the State and the citizen, between public and private, and how a Supreme Court justice sees that balance, led me back to a moment of history. The operative buzzword among Republicans and conservatives regarding judges and justices is ‘strict constructionist.’ What defines a ‘strict constructionist’ regarding judicial interpretation of the Constitution and our body of laws? I think they mean a judge who interprets the words of the Constitution and the law in the strict, literal, ‘as intended’ manner. In this question, my curiosity drove me back to the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. 393 (1856)] ruling {241 pages, in a day when documents were handwritten or hand set type}. The words of the Scott decision reflect the gargantuan struggle in judicial interpretation of our laws, the Constitution, and our highest societal principles. Every sitting justice on the bench in 1856 wrote an opinion in the Scott decision; two justices dissented from the Court’s opinion. Among the arguments of jurisdiction, territorial governance, the related body of law, authority and intent, we can sense a powerful undercurrent of consequences. Just imagine if the Founders made slavery an overt issue in 1787? I think we can all agree that if the Scott decision had gone the other way, the Civil War would have begun in 1856 instead of 1861. The Founders may have and probably did think that “All Men are Created Equal” applied only to free, Caucasian, adult males and perhaps even further narrowed to property owners. Such an interpretation is understandable in the light of common societal attitudes, morals and values at the time. However, I think we can also see the inconsistency of such a narrow ‘strict’ interpretation with the ideals upon which this Grand Republic was founded. Then, the ‘strict constructionist’ argues, yes, but the Constitution was amended by the ratification process to broaden the definition of citizen (14th Amendment) and to realize women’s suffrage (19th Amendment). Some of the ‘strict constructionists’ suggest we should amend the Constitution properly, to define a citizen’s right to privacy, if we believe it is that important. In his dissenting opinion in the Scott case, Associate Justice Benjamin Robert Curtis wrote, “[U]nder the Constitution of the United States, every free person born on the soil of a State, who is a citizen of that State by force of its Constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States,” as he argued for Dred Scott’s status as a ‘native born’ citizen. In contrast, Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, writing the Court’s opinion, said, “No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate race (those with dark skin pigmentation), in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted.” The justices of who sat on the bench of the highest court in the land in 1856, rationalized and justified slavery in the light of the lofty ideals of the Declaration of Independence and a few snippets in the Constitution. They attempted to put themselves in the heads of the Founders. Taney's thinking was narrow, specific and quite literal. The judicial apprehension reflected in the Scott decision can also be seen in the paucity of rulings citing the 9th Amendment – the notion of The People possessing undefined rights beyond the Constitution must incite judge’s to convulsion. So much of our law depends upon the interpretation and the scholarly perspective of the justices. When you see the State as supreme, the Scott decision is easily achieved. When you see The People as preeminent, you see Dred Scott as a native-born citizen without the 14th Amendment to tell you so. So rests the challenges of our day.
Comments and contributions from Update no.321:
“‘I have always wondered how one rationalizes reaping the benefits while condemning the process by which the benefits are protected.’ Don't we all wonder that, Cap. I have been mystified by this for years. The only logical explanation is that there must be some shorted circuitry involved somewhere.”
My response:
And, I doubt any of those so inclined would care to attempt an answer. Like so many of the “anti’s”, a holier-than-thou position is easy to defend.
Another contribution:
“Wow ... I actually was able to take the time to really read the entirety of your update. Just the other day I commented to [my husband] that it's too bad money is such a factor in campaigning/running for President. It sure takes alot of great potential Presidents out of the loop. There are so many people like yourself that are knowledgeable of current and past world events, and have great ideas of what the country needs and how to manage war, terrorism, etc. Too bad people like you could not run for President. If only campaign money were not an issue. Not that you would WANT to be President, but you and people like you that have such great knowledge and ideas, should have the opportunity to get out there and debate and be an option for the peoples' choice. Has the Presidential race ALWAYS required huge campaign funds? I sure find it highly limiting to providing the people what they truly need. I guess right now I am leaning toward McCain but even McCain has his negative points. And Hillary just makes me SHIVER to think of her having the presidential role.
“In regards to Miss rich, but poor, Britney Spears ... yes, she may have had dysfunctional parents (for what good that broad term covers), but so do MANY kids who overcome and make proper decisions in life. Once Britney turned 18 she was turned over full time to agents and managers, which was no better than having dysfunctional parental control prior to turning 18. The agents and managers never really had Britney's best personal interests in mind ... they probably never had children themselves, I am not sure but I would guess that is the case. Everything involving Britney revolved around money and the making and controlling of it. Her mother went along with it, probably because she saw that Britney enjoyed the business and the attention it gave her. But once Kevin Federline came into her life, everything especially seemed to change. I imagine he was a big influence on the decisions she next made. She fired long time managers, who may have been the best thing for her ... she 'popped' out two children (enabling a stronger financial hold for Mr. Federline), then she was involved in divorce for whatever reason ... I imagine Mr. Federline was lacking a good family life himself and had no proper skills in maintaining a good marriage. But now Mr. Federline is given custody of the children ... he is not in the spotlight and his actions are not publicized. Who knows what HE does with the children ... maybe the paparazzi should be following HIM around. I am so glad poor Britney is out of the public eye for a while. She needs a GOOD celebrity psychologist to help her see and understand what she is experiencing, and to help her face life and her responsibilities. Her finances SHOULD be put on hold, including the amounts that are paid out to Mr. Federline for 'child support.' You are right that maybe Britney, just as Angelina Jolie did several years ago, needs to experience the anguish much of the world experiences just dealing with making enough to put food on the table each day etc. Perhaps that would be the best treatment for her once she is rid of the chemical addictions."
My reply:
Campaign financing is a huge problem. Like earmarks, the current system invites corruption, abuse and the power-elite. No wonder the Republicans rail against McCain-Feingold – certainly not a perfect law, but a worthy attempt. Today, only the monied elite can afford to run for Federal office. The turning point for expensive campaigns could be marked by several milestones – public access to television, the 24-hour cable news, and the Internet. This current campaign example demonstrates the insanity and exclusionary aspects at their very worst. Hopefully, we will learn a lesson from this campaign cycle, and do something to reign in the injurious elements.
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. Britney’s parents did not do their primary task very well in preparing her for adulthood, but the agents and managers only care about today’s gravy train; pushing her personal life into the world-wide media serves their purposes, certainly not hers. That said and as you say, she is an adult under the law and fully responsible for her actions, or lack of same. Yet, I think she has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she is incapable of managing her affairs, in this case, hiring & firing those who serve her. Unfortunately, I think she has dug the hole far too deep and will need a whole lot of help extricating herself. In many ways, her course of self-destruction was set in her youth, by her parents and those who influenced her early years.
A different contribution:
"I did not read your piece very critically nor thoroughly.
"My idea about legislation is that it should be labeled/titled whatever fits the subject of it the best.
"But there should be NO way for anyone, from Either side of the aisle, to propose and by legislative deception/manipulation/coercion/bargaining under Present rules, try to insert by amendment, (whatever) anything NOT directly having to do with the subject bill. NO chance for Pork. No chance for any congressman or senator to slip something in, having nothing to do with the Bill, which would benefit THEIR constituency, nor any other congressman's or senator's constituents. The Bill is about "X." Period. Yea or Nay. (Yes, the $$$$ necessary to fund this proposal "X" could be debated and then resolved----as could the means by which it would be done-----etc).
"Some then want to fall back on the notion that they should now be taken care of in any number of ways by our Government. I say NO.
"Yes they will be out on the streets, trying to find a meal and a place to sleep tonight in some shelter, or finding themselves under a cardboard box in some alley. Sorry 'bout that. I don't care.
"They started out the same as me. But chose other paths. Yes "CHOSE." Don't give me that Crap about opportunities, single parent homes, bad neighborhoods and bad role models.
"I made MY choices early, as life choices do have to be made, and I am glad I had good advice from people and family who Knew and cared. I avoided a lot of grief in life that way.
"That is how life goes, and I feel NO need nor compassion for pulling them up out of their misery. THEY got themselves there. Let them get themselves out. It can be done. People have.
"Your piece has much more. I have not addressed it. Some I have not even read through.
"Youthful Dress codes:
"Back when I was a teenage boy, tight Levi jeans, a western/semi-western shirt, and what I want to say at this moment were logger's boots were in. Heavy duty boots. And as the trend grew, a strap of leather across the instep. I think then called 'Engineer' boots. I had a pair for maybe 40 years. They were well made. Also, as Elvis, or maybe just before him came 'in,' our hair got longer and more coiffured.
"Girls wore a number of underslips, (whatever) under fairly long skirts. Maybe halfway down from knee to ankle. Thus spreading everything out like in Civil War times. They walked home after school in groups, two's or alone, kinda leaning back, with their books cradled in their arms and the arms kinda crossed across their fronts. Still they managed to make sure their hips kinda swayed side to side at each step."
My reply:
Congress: I certainly agree as noted. I doubt few in Congress have the [chutzpah] to enact such focused rule changes. I have no problem whatsoever for a senator from Alaska proposing a bridge to nowhere, serving only a very small, local population; that’s all well and good; where I get my hackles up is when it is hidden from public view and debate. Most of these yayhoos in Congress do not want public scrutiny – too constraining. If enough of us speak up, it might change, but I am not so naïve to think it could happen in my lifetime. I would love to be pleasantly surprised.
What I failed to add in my WPA proposal was constraints. If I choose to accept government shelter (warm cot, community shower, etc.) and sustenance (2-3 nutritional meals a day), then it is only fair and reasonable that I live by dictated rules. If I choose not to work for the benefits, then I should be confined to a camp or facility, so I do not become an additional burden on society. If I do choose to work, I do the government’s work to the best of my ability; if not, then I revert to non-work status. The same would apply to substance abusers; I would be happy to pay for their drug(s) of choice, as long as they remain in an established, protected facility, and no longer a hazard to society. The cost would be far less than all the collateral damage done by non-productive and/or self-destructive citizens.
. . . and this follow-up:
"You would be ok about paying for drug user's drugs if they remained in established, protected places where they were no threat to society? Well---would you then just give them their drugs and let them kill themselves slowly with NO medical help? What purpose would any medical help have, and who would pay for that?
"I say let the homeless go. We cannot save them really, nor should we try. Education early on and continuing is maybe where $$$ should go, but not a penny to re-hab, re-education, etc. "
. . . and my follow-up reply:
To your points, short answer: yes! Obviously, I do not mean ‘pay for’ personally; my meager income would hardly cover one hardcore addict. If you look at the true cost of the abysmal ‘war on drugs,’ welfare programs, and such, ample funds are already available; we just should spend them on a different approach. Regarding the intoxicants portion of my WPA proposal, I truly believe that State-licensed intoxicants would eliminate the blackmarket, smuggled, drug trade and the associated criminal sub-culture that services that demand. I learned a long time ago and the hard way that individuals who succumb to abuse of intoxicants do so by choice, and there is nothing that can be done to stop them. The only known limiter is when they, as distinct, sole individuals, decide they have hit rock-bottom and choose to cast off the shackles of drug abuse; until that moment, there is nothing the rest of us can do. I am only an anecdotal expert, but the majority of users seem to be ‘functional users;’ very few abusers are truly destructive. To my thinking, a functional user can get their drug(s) of choice free from the government as long as they confine their use to the facility where they are protected and society is protected, and the destructive ones can have as much as they wish with informed consent. I also believe that every individual has unalienable and fundamental rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. If their free choice is the oblivion of drugs up to and including death, then so be it – that is their chosen exercise of our most fundamental rights, and their choices should be respected. At least they will not hurt innocent people in the process and will not be forced to violent crime to feed their choices.
Re: medical help. I am fully supportive of providing professional medical and psychological help to anyone who wishes to avail themselves of those services. But, that must be the individual’s free choice; anything other than that is a form of coercion or imposed ‘treatment’ and will never be successful. I am all in favor of helping those who truly seek help.
Re: homeless. I put them in the same category as substance abusers. There are probably a myriad of reasons individuals enter the category of homelessness. IMHO, some seek to remove themselves from the burdens of productive society -- their choice. In my WPA proposal, they can perform necessary, unskilled, public work projects, like road-side clean-up, painting curbs, manual labor in support of construction, et cetera. If they choose not to work, then they should remain in the facility, so as not to be a further burden on the rest of society, i.e., no panhandling, taking up library seats, trashing public or private property, et cetera. If they choose to remain free from the facility, then they must not interfere with productive society; to do otherwise, they take what comes in the wilderness or they could be ‘institutionalized.’
I am in favor of helping those who wish to be helped, but I feel no compassion for those who simply seek the proverbial ‘free lunch.’ If any of this seems Draconian, so be it. But, the bottom line is, I have no desire or interest in redeeming lost souls. The church can handle that without our help. And, for the record, I am not in favor of the President's faith-based initiative as I have written [271, 290] for a host of reasons.
A related comment:
“‘How does one rationalize the benefits while reaping the process?’ Bloody brilliant point! I have wondered that so many times. That and when people whine that the more terrorists we kill, the more we create. Using that logic, we should have stopped our advance through the Pacific after Leyte Gulf, when the Kamikazes started showing up. After all, the closer we get to Japan, the more of those suicide pilots we would be creating. When someone is determined to kill you, you need to get them before they get you. Yeah, the bad guys may use some of this stuff as a recruiting tool, but let's face it, they have the advantage of doing it in countries that don't have the benefit of media outlets that present multiple points of view. I totally agree there are too many people out there who are afraid of killing the enemy. God help us if they get into power.”
And, yet another contribution:
“Before responding to many important issues in this update, let me say the GMEN did it Sunday without bad ref calls and excuses. It was a great game to watch. And today is an important day in our country. My hope is that the whiners on both sides will pipe down long enough to come to their senses. They are starting to sound silly just like the kid who takes his ball and goes home because the game isn't played just like he wants it to be. Stand up for what you believe in and let the voters decide. Now on to your update.
“Not only the more terrorists we kill will bring us peace, the quicker we do it will bring us peace with fewer casualties. When the Dems campaign on a platform of bringing the troops home prior to job of keeping freedom alive, anyone who votes for that best remember this lesson. Regardless of who wins the election, are they ready to assume the role of coward?
“I was ho hum about the President's speech. But, like you I was astounded at the presence of the military. I will never forget General Walt addressing my Basic School class at Quantico. He told us Marines were not going immediately to Vietnam anymore and he barred us from wearing our uniforms to Washington DC, because of the danger we new Marine officers faced in our nation's capital. It was a sad day on two counts. We knew it meant our leaders were giving up in Vietnam, and we were the scourge of our vocal society given voice by the media. Some did go to Vietnam anyway to watch us lose, and the burn I felt of having to wear civvies to DC instead of wearing my Marine uniform proudly has never gone away. When home on leave before heading to Navy flight school, I put on my full Class A uniform (blouse an all) nearly everyday and wore it proudly in my home town to counter what happened in DC. I commented to my family and friends when they asked why didn't I wear more relaxed dress that it was my way of showing them how important the uniform is and what it represents. My Dad understood completely having gone from the beach to the Bulge, Remagen, and through Germany with Patton. He knew and I'm certain the Marines of our era knew as well. Our military today enjoys support that we lacked in the media and from our society. It is a good thing. But, hear this warning - if we cut and run, we surrender to the terrorists. We lose our safety and the future of our children, not to mention a return to marginalizing the lives of our fallen brethren just like we did in Vietnam. It will be interesting to see which, if any, candidate wants that on his or her tombstone.
“Being a university professor, I have no problem with a local institution establishing a dress code given what I witness in my classes these days. But, it is no place for the federal government to intrude. Our local K12 schools are pondering returning to uniforms and several are experimenting with it now. Some structure is good for kids growing up, especially when their parents seem to forget to teach them pride in not only who they are, but how they dress. I'm not sure I like the idea of uniforms, but dress codes are fine with me.
“A new and revised WPA is an idea whose time has come and I'm glad you raise the issue. Compassion for our fellow man is a good lesson my father taught me, but misplaced compassion is fatal. A WPA would provide opportunity for people to get out of homelessness and find a way to be productive again if they are capable of working. And, it is well-placed compassion instead of more enabling handouts.
“One last point. I would rather volunteer for root canal experimental treatments than spend one more second on substance-abused entertainers who infect our young with their fatal behaviors. Their parents are mostly to blame along with the media. The media builds it larger than life and that is not likely to change no matter how we feel. The more attention it gets, the more our society seems fascinated with it. I'm turning the page on that part of our dysfunctional society, even though I may be one of the few.”
My reply:
Glad you like the WPA proposal. Like the insanity of the war on drugs, I doubt any politician has the [chutzpah] to make such a proposal happen. It never hurts to dream.
RE: ‘substance-abused entertainers.’ Like so many of these so-called reality shows, the Press simply feeds the voyeur-appetite of the population. I would agree they add some prurient spin, but the ultimate accountability belongs with parents. I espouse a radical view that parents should expose their children to politics, crime, sex, finance, violence, war, prostitution, substance abuse, and so many other sensitive societal topics to prepare them to make the correct or best decisions they can, and do it before they are exposed in life. I would much rather have our children decide from knowledge and preparation rather than from curiosity and peer pressure.
. . . with this follow-up:
“Some politicians prefer keeping people in the handout program for perverse reasons. And, like you I prefer kids to be exposed as well. My 4 kids were exposed to the worst seedy part of our society so they learned the values of their parents firsthand and why. We are fortunate that our kids adopted a higher road of life. And, I am content with turning the page on the worthless side for me. Everyone else can decide if they want to feed the media's interest. Not this old Jarhead...”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
You got that right . . . similar perverse reasons drive our lack of immigration reform, the voter ID issue, this crazy electronic voting mania, among so many other topics.
I’d like to say we did a good job with our kids. In a sense, I think we did pretty well. However, I know we could have done better. Having the time and a forum to discuss such things has certainly sharpened the pencil.
Again, I’m not so sure it is the Media as much as it seems to be the voyeuristic mentality of our population.
A new topic:
“I hope you will comment on two things, and I hope your audience will spread these notions.
“First, we conservatives have a problem. This time there is no Ross Perot running so that at least we could vote for someone and not sit out the election in protest against the betrayal of the Republican Party. The Democrats have won the Republican Party nomination contest--McCain is just what they wanted. What now?
“Second, I loath the pandering inherit in the economic stimulus package, but it is a done deal now. Someone has said that it will stimulate the economy of China more than our own. I say let's start a national campaign to pledge to either put our green checks in long term savings or spend our United States money only on United States products! I know it's hard to know where ingredients came from, but we could try! What say ye?”
My response:
[First part, see above.]
I see two parts to the economic stimulus question as you have posed it. First, I have not heard a politically neutral, macro-economics professional even remotely hint that the stimulus package as defined by Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008 can have any technical impact. However, that said, a large factor in a consumer economy – which ours is and has been – is confidence. If buyers feel good, they spend, to put it in simplistic terms. So, the impact of this stimulus may well depend upon perception, id est, if we think it will work, it will. Second, IMHO, the notion of "Buy American" is a form of economic isolationism that ignores normal market forces in virtually the same way the "America First" movement ignored international political forces in 1940. There is one primary reason jobs go off-shore -- cost of labor, the largest single component. We must innovate, develop, enhance and separate our products from those produced elsewhere. Until we face the root causal factors in the economic equation, we are only fooling ourselves.
The continuing of a thread from the last couple of Updates:
“I agree on treating children with respect. Children are far more wise, intelligent, and intuitive, than many give them credit for.
“It all starts with our children. While I was not at all in favor of what was behind-the-scenes with Hillary's older slogan (and book) "It Takes a Village--to Raise a Child", I compliment the effort. What I would rather have seen popularized would be 'It takes parents to raise a child' and then something like 'It takes a community to care.' I think one big problem is a parent subordinating the ultimate responsibility of parenthood, off to some government agency, or school resource. It is one thing to ask for help, another to not want to do the work and task it out to someone/something easier.
“I find it a shame that kids are taught so much to prepare them for the workforce (not in all cases), but so little about being parents. We hear often people saying that high schools need to teach teens how to manage their finances when they graduate, yet very seldom do I ever hear folks saying we need to teach courses on being a good parent. Hopefully most children have their own parents fine model to default to (which is what most people do), or perhaps a grandparent or mentor, but the ones that need it terribly have a bad model to fallback on, maybe terrible parents or broken homes and being shifted around like an unwanted person. I cringe when I see 17 year old girls walking with a baby stroller, with a man/father who is ultra-MIA, and the girl herself is still a young child. Sometimes amazing results come from those situations, but often the syndrome as you refer to is just repeated, with offspring going to prison or joining gangs, and on and on and on.
“Since closing my own business, I have had children/teens in my care and responsibility before, as a professional commercial & private chauffeur (for a family). I have had situations without an adult in the cabin. I have had teens bring alcohol on-board and I have either stopped them or detected it when they tried to hide it. I approach them and they say things like "my parents let me drink!" and they are only 17. I then say "let's get your parents on the phone and clarify this, and even so, I must have the alcohol and lock it the trunk." Of course the kid will fess up right away and say "no, don't call my dad!" and we know the true story. But sadly, I have had parents say to me "it is okay if my son Benny has a few beers" and I say "it is not okay past me, he is underage, and in my care and responsibility." I have had well-to-do parents in my limo with their children, and their children are drinking right there with them. My sense was that the parent wanted to be liked and popular with their children while not establishing any boundaries. I had one situation where and adult friend in the cabin was giving alcohol to minors and I detected it, corrected it and asked that all the alcohol be locked in my trunk and I would return it to the adult at the end of the evening/service. The adult refused, I terminated service at that point. I was not at all popular that night, lost money, but when we do the RIGHT THING, it always is rewarding.
“I believe many children/teens get caught up in drugs not only because of bad peers, but bad parents. I suspect many of those households are chaotic and the children do not feel respected or loved, but may often feel neglected and disrespected.
“My hat is off like yours is to all parents, and conducting the best service to society using undefined mixtures of art and science with patience and perseverance, often with unpredictable outcomes yet sticking to the higher purpose and plan.
“I always tell people the three most important yet undervalued jobs in our society are 1. Parents; 2. Teachers; 3. Cops.”
My response:
Integrity and principle often have a cost, but the price of compromising our integrity is usually far greater.
Children in other parts of the world are exposed to alcohol early in their lives and taught to consume responsibly, usually under parental supervision. Too often we hear stories of parents allowing their children to drink, smoke, do some marijuana or worse. The age of exposure is important, but the preparation for such exposure is critical. So many cases, parents seem to exposure their children to such intoxicating substances without teaching them how to act responsibly. We see the consequences. Likewise, shielding and protecting our children from life’s temptations can be and often is equally destructive; by the time they exposed to intoxicants by their peers, they are ill-prepared to deal with those consequences, and often over-react negatively to “fit in.” Beyond intoxicants, I also include sex and other life realities.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Well, now this an interesting twist . . . In the aftermath of Super-Dooper Tuesday, Governor Mitt Romney decided to suspend his presidential bid . . . then there were 1½ wannabes on one side and 2 on the other. It sure does appear that John McCain will be the Republican nominee. This turn of events cannot make the Democrats feel very comfortable with their two leading candidates slogging it out in an essential dead-heat that might not be resolved until August. I wonder how debilitating a protracted primary campaign will be. The actual campaign (from Labor Day to the election) may be quite entertaining.
Given all the whining and whinging from so-called conservatives about the approaching nomination of Senator John McCain, I wanted to attempt an understanding of their puzzling statements that they would vote for anyone but McCain, or even not vote at all, which I think verges on immature ridiculousness. Apparently, there are many reasons the uber-Right despise McCain – he is a moderate who has proven his ability to reach out to the opposition and find compromise solutions, and they know they cannot control him or make him toe-the-line. So, I picked one of their major examples and jumped in. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) [AKA McCain–Feingold or Shays-Meehan] {PL 107-155}. The BCRA amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) [PL 92-225], the Communications Act of 1934 [PL 73-416], and other portions of the United States Code, "to purge national politics of what [is] conceived to be the pernicious influence of 'big money' campaign contributions." The bill sought controls on the increased importance of 'soft money,' the proliferation of 'issue ads,' and the disturbing findings of a Senate investigation into campaign practices related to the 1996 federal elections. McCain–Feingold was immediately tested in court. The list of suits and counter-suits exceed the capacity of this humble forum; the 12 diverse cases became McConnell v. Federal Election Commission [540 U.S. 93 (2003)] before the Supreme Court. The Court offered up a complex, convoluted decision affirming part and striking down part of BCRA. The Court accepted controls on soft money, while they thought the restrictions upon broadcasting companies was too broad and thus unconstitutional. We can argue the wisdom or appropriateness of McCain-Feingold, yet one fact remains undeniable -- the legislation attempted to bring some order and discipline to the presidential election campaign financing process. We can also argue whether campaign finance reform is even warranted. The main objection hinges upon freedom of speech, which in this case is like trying to preserve the OK Corral at High Noon. Free speech can be injurious, and that is the challenge we face -- how do we resolve contests without bullets and blood in the street? Where do we draw the line to protect the greatest possible freedom while we prevent or reduce the likelihood of injury? Solutions to our most pressing societal problems demand compromise. This perpetual anti- / pro- nonsense does absolutely nothing to achieve workable solutions. The list is long – campaign finance, abortion, Social Security, gun control, health care, substance abuse, immigration reform, prostitution, child abuse, et cetera ad finitum. As long as we allow these political party hacks to continue their hard-line, intransigent stance – my side is right, your side is wrong – we will never find a solution because neither side will budge. With recalcitrant, starkly polarized opponents, often the best solution is one that has both sides equally angry. That said, this approach tends to work on most topics other than national security, law enforcement, or warfighting. I know there are some who receive this Update who can and hopefully will argue against McCain-Feingold for us; so let’s here it.
Another of the lightning rod issues with McCain and Republicans are his votes against the Bush tax cuts. I do not know why McCain voted against the cuts, but I do know that if I had been in the same position, I would have voted against them as well. The fiscal equation for personal, business and government is actually quite simple – revenue minus expenses = net. When net goes negative, the government borrows. McCain’s point was a tax cut in the face of a global war was insanity. I have always been a small government person, so for me, tax cuts should reduce revenue and reduce the size of government. That is what I expected with George W. Bush. Instead, we got a President who was unwilling, unable or uninterested in telling Congress (Republican controlled until 2006, I must add) no to the largess of pork-barrel, earmark spending that did not contribute to the war effort. Again, I invite anyone to explain how tax cuts without spending reductions are a financially responsible action.
An evolving thought . . . I have often wondered why so many American citizens do not vote. Perhaps, they are lazy, or do not care, or have other priorities on Election Day. I have and continue to maintain that voting is every citizen’s duty, obligation, and responsibility; and yet, as we have discussed [321, 322], more than a few of our comrades use the most superficial criteria, if they vote at all. Here is a radical notion, perhaps we should have a qualification test, kinda like a driver’s test, to ensure a minimum competency regarding the construction and operation of government as well as an understanding of contemporary issues. If not, my authority to vote would be rescinded until I can pass my competency test. Oh I know, the history buffs are rapidly typing out their condemnation and reminding my of the South’s ‘Jim Crow’ laws, designed to exclude American citizens with dark skin pigmentation.
We have a bevy of interesting news articles from our British cousins this week. I thought I would offer them up with links and a short comment for your cogitation and rumination. As always, I invite anyone to comment on any topic as they wish.
First up:
"Children of nine may get sex advice packs"
by Toby Helm and Sarah Womack
The Telegraph [of London]
Last Updated: 6:31am GMT; 28/01/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/28/nsex128.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_28012008
Since parents refuse to teach their children, the State intends to press the issue, or at least encourage parents to do what parents should be doing.
Second:
"Day trip to Auschwitz for pupils from every school"
by Alexandra Frean
The Times [of London]
Published: February 4, 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article3300819.ece?&EMC-Bltn=LOXCF1
The British Government requires two, 16-18 year old students from every school in England to visit the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Poland, to ensure the next generation remembers what happened 65 years ago. The article also provides a link for an extraordinary website to preserve our memory.
http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/new/index.php?language=EN&tryb=start&id=675&menu=g
Third:
"Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits"
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones
The Telegraph [of London]
Last Updated: 1:52am GMT; 04/02/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_03022008
This movement may seem fair, but it implicitly becomes State sanction and encouragement of polygamous marriages, and provides an enticement for others to follow suit and claim expanded benefits, like welfare benefits based on child headcount encouraging brood-mare, welfare mothers. What free, productive adults choose to do in private is not my concern or a matter of State interest. However, private choices should not, and I will say must not, enable unfair or unequal benefits.
Fourth and last:
"Does Islam fit with our law? -- Is a clash of civilisations looming? It’s now time to find the links rather than the conflicts between English and Islamic law"
by Ian Edge and Robin Griffiths-Jones
The Times [of London]
Published: February 5, 2008
http://timesonline-emails.co.uk/go.asp?/bTNL001/mWBP4L8/qNK7ML8/uNSC46/xC0HDL8
The challenge of societal heritage dilution has overrun all the Western democracies; this is the British version; the same phenomenon applies to the United States.
Nations are formed for the common good, for collective security, and for the preservation of fundamental principles the bind its citizen together. The relationship of The People to the government especially among democratic countries grows from the “consent of the governed” in some form. Further, certain protections are afforded individuals as a bulwark against zealous or capricious government agents and to give the individual the means to resist majority rule as might be imposed. As with all things, there are exceptions – eminent domain being a prime example. While I think of myself as a student of the Constitution, I can make no claim to scholarly expertise; yet, as with most topics, I do have an opinion I believe relevant. So many questions before our contemporary body politik seem to emanate from the constant and continuous struggle in defining the position and permeability of the boundary between public and private, between the citizen and the State. The political spectrum, it seems to me, ranges from pure Federal through state and local government to extra-governmental communities, and at the other end rests the private conduct of the citizen. There are (or at least should be) near-exclusivities at either end of the spectrum. The Federal government, as reflected in the Constitution and the Logan Act of 1799 [1 Stat. 613] [280], negotiates with foreign governments; private citizens are excluded. On the other end of the spectrum, the individual citizen’s private conduct should be beyond the government’s reach. The right to privacy was first articulated by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)] [166, 189]. We could argue, as the Court tip-toes around in Griswold, that a citizen’s right to privacy is a fundamental right, beyond the Constitution and thus protected by the 9th Amendment. The 9th Amendment is mentioned quite infrequently in Supreme Court rulings; perhaps, there are no substantive reasons for the paucity of citations, however, the fact remains. My opinion . . . unenumerated or undefined rights appear boundless and thus difficult to interpret, e.g., where do we draw the line between permissible, tolerable and unacceptable? Why is this question important? A presidential candidate’s Supreme Court appointment bias is, whether most citizens recognize it, a critical parameter for our evaluation. My struggle with finding the balance between the State and the citizen, between public and private, and how a Supreme Court justice sees that balance, led me back to a moment of history. The operative buzzword among Republicans and conservatives regarding judges and justices is ‘strict constructionist.’ What defines a ‘strict constructionist’ regarding judicial interpretation of the Constitution and our body of laws? I think they mean a judge who interprets the words of the Constitution and the law in the strict, literal, ‘as intended’ manner. In this question, my curiosity drove me back to the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. 393 (1856)] ruling {241 pages, in a day when documents were handwritten or hand set type}. The words of the Scott decision reflect the gargantuan struggle in judicial interpretation of our laws, the Constitution, and our highest societal principles. Every sitting justice on the bench in 1856 wrote an opinion in the Scott decision; two justices dissented from the Court’s opinion. Among the arguments of jurisdiction, territorial governance, the related body of law, authority and intent, we can sense a powerful undercurrent of consequences. Just imagine if the Founders made slavery an overt issue in 1787? I think we can all agree that if the Scott decision had gone the other way, the Civil War would have begun in 1856 instead of 1861. The Founders may have and probably did think that “All Men are Created Equal” applied only to free, Caucasian, adult males and perhaps even further narrowed to property owners. Such an interpretation is understandable in the light of common societal attitudes, morals and values at the time. However, I think we can also see the inconsistency of such a narrow ‘strict’ interpretation with the ideals upon which this Grand Republic was founded. Then, the ‘strict constructionist’ argues, yes, but the Constitution was amended by the ratification process to broaden the definition of citizen (14th Amendment) and to realize women’s suffrage (19th Amendment). Some of the ‘strict constructionists’ suggest we should amend the Constitution properly, to define a citizen’s right to privacy, if we believe it is that important. In his dissenting opinion in the Scott case, Associate Justice Benjamin Robert Curtis wrote, “[U]nder the Constitution of the United States, every free person born on the soil of a State, who is a citizen of that State by force of its Constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States,” as he argued for Dred Scott’s status as a ‘native born’ citizen. In contrast, Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, writing the Court’s opinion, said, “No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate race (those with dark skin pigmentation), in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted.” The justices of who sat on the bench of the highest court in the land in 1856, rationalized and justified slavery in the light of the lofty ideals of the Declaration of Independence and a few snippets in the Constitution. They attempted to put themselves in the heads of the Founders. Taney's thinking was narrow, specific and quite literal. The judicial apprehension reflected in the Scott decision can also be seen in the paucity of rulings citing the 9th Amendment – the notion of The People possessing undefined rights beyond the Constitution must incite judge’s to convulsion. So much of our law depends upon the interpretation and the scholarly perspective of the justices. When you see the State as supreme, the Scott decision is easily achieved. When you see The People as preeminent, you see Dred Scott as a native-born citizen without the 14th Amendment to tell you so. So rests the challenges of our day.
Comments and contributions from Update no.321:
“‘I have always wondered how one rationalizes reaping the benefits while condemning the process by which the benefits are protected.’ Don't we all wonder that, Cap. I have been mystified by this for years. The only logical explanation is that there must be some shorted circuitry involved somewhere.”
My response:
And, I doubt any of those so inclined would care to attempt an answer. Like so many of the “anti’s”, a holier-than-thou position is easy to defend.
Another contribution:
“Wow ... I actually was able to take the time to really read the entirety of your update. Just the other day I commented to [my husband] that it's too bad money is such a factor in campaigning/running for President. It sure takes alot of great potential Presidents out of the loop. There are so many people like yourself that are knowledgeable of current and past world events, and have great ideas of what the country needs and how to manage war, terrorism, etc. Too bad people like you could not run for President. If only campaign money were not an issue. Not that you would WANT to be President, but you and people like you that have such great knowledge and ideas, should have the opportunity to get out there and debate and be an option for the peoples' choice. Has the Presidential race ALWAYS required huge campaign funds? I sure find it highly limiting to providing the people what they truly need. I guess right now I am leaning toward McCain but even McCain has his negative points. And Hillary just makes me SHIVER to think of her having the presidential role.
“In regards to Miss rich, but poor, Britney Spears ... yes, she may have had dysfunctional parents (for what good that broad term covers), but so do MANY kids who overcome and make proper decisions in life. Once Britney turned 18 she was turned over full time to agents and managers, which was no better than having dysfunctional parental control prior to turning 18. The agents and managers never really had Britney's best personal interests in mind ... they probably never had children themselves, I am not sure but I would guess that is the case. Everything involving Britney revolved around money and the making and controlling of it. Her mother went along with it, probably because she saw that Britney enjoyed the business and the attention it gave her. But once Kevin Federline came into her life, everything especially seemed to change. I imagine he was a big influence on the decisions she next made. She fired long time managers, who may have been the best thing for her ... she 'popped' out two children (enabling a stronger financial hold for Mr. Federline), then she was involved in divorce for whatever reason ... I imagine Mr. Federline was lacking a good family life himself and had no proper skills in maintaining a good marriage. But now Mr. Federline is given custody of the children ... he is not in the spotlight and his actions are not publicized. Who knows what HE does with the children ... maybe the paparazzi should be following HIM around. I am so glad poor Britney is out of the public eye for a while. She needs a GOOD celebrity psychologist to help her see and understand what she is experiencing, and to help her face life and her responsibilities. Her finances SHOULD be put on hold, including the amounts that are paid out to Mr. Federline for 'child support.' You are right that maybe Britney, just as Angelina Jolie did several years ago, needs to experience the anguish much of the world experiences just dealing with making enough to put food on the table each day etc. Perhaps that would be the best treatment for her once she is rid of the chemical addictions."
My reply:
Campaign financing is a huge problem. Like earmarks, the current system invites corruption, abuse and the power-elite. No wonder the Republicans rail against McCain-Feingold – certainly not a perfect law, but a worthy attempt. Today, only the monied elite can afford to run for Federal office. The turning point for expensive campaigns could be marked by several milestones – public access to television, the 24-hour cable news, and the Internet. This current campaign example demonstrates the insanity and exclusionary aspects at their very worst. Hopefully, we will learn a lesson from this campaign cycle, and do something to reign in the injurious elements.
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. Britney’s parents did not do their primary task very well in preparing her for adulthood, but the agents and managers only care about today’s gravy train; pushing her personal life into the world-wide media serves their purposes, certainly not hers. That said and as you say, she is an adult under the law and fully responsible for her actions, or lack of same. Yet, I think she has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she is incapable of managing her affairs, in this case, hiring & firing those who serve her. Unfortunately, I think she has dug the hole far too deep and will need a whole lot of help extricating herself. In many ways, her course of self-destruction was set in her youth, by her parents and those who influenced her early years.
A different contribution:
"I did not read your piece very critically nor thoroughly.
"My idea about legislation is that it should be labeled/titled whatever fits the subject of it the best.
"But there should be NO way for anyone, from Either side of the aisle, to propose and by legislative deception/manipulation/coercion/bargaining under Present rules, try to insert by amendment, (whatever) anything NOT directly having to do with the subject bill. NO chance for Pork. No chance for any congressman or senator to slip something in, having nothing to do with the Bill, which would benefit THEIR constituency, nor any other congressman's or senator's constituents. The Bill is about "X." Period. Yea or Nay. (Yes, the $$$$ necessary to fund this proposal "X" could be debated and then resolved----as could the means by which it would be done-----etc).
"Some then want to fall back on the notion that they should now be taken care of in any number of ways by our Government. I say NO.
"Yes they will be out on the streets, trying to find a meal and a place to sleep tonight in some shelter, or finding themselves under a cardboard box in some alley. Sorry 'bout that. I don't care.
"They started out the same as me. But chose other paths. Yes "CHOSE." Don't give me that Crap about opportunities, single parent homes, bad neighborhoods and bad role models.
"I made MY choices early, as life choices do have to be made, and I am glad I had good advice from people and family who Knew and cared. I avoided a lot of grief in life that way.
"That is how life goes, and I feel NO need nor compassion for pulling them up out of their misery. THEY got themselves there. Let them get themselves out. It can be done. People have.
"Your piece has much more. I have not addressed it. Some I have not even read through.
"Youthful Dress codes:
"Back when I was a teenage boy, tight Levi jeans, a western/semi-western shirt, and what I want to say at this moment were logger's boots were in. Heavy duty boots. And as the trend grew, a strap of leather across the instep. I think then called 'Engineer' boots. I had a pair for maybe 40 years. They were well made. Also, as Elvis, or maybe just before him came 'in,' our hair got longer and more coiffured.
"Girls wore a number of underslips, (whatever) under fairly long skirts. Maybe halfway down from knee to ankle. Thus spreading everything out like in Civil War times. They walked home after school in groups, two's or alone, kinda leaning back, with their books cradled in their arms and the arms kinda crossed across their fronts. Still they managed to make sure their hips kinda swayed side to side at each step."
My reply:
Congress: I certainly agree as noted. I doubt few in Congress have the [chutzpah] to enact such focused rule changes. I have no problem whatsoever for a senator from Alaska proposing a bridge to nowhere, serving only a very small, local population; that’s all well and good; where I get my hackles up is when it is hidden from public view and debate. Most of these yayhoos in Congress do not want public scrutiny – too constraining. If enough of us speak up, it might change, but I am not so naïve to think it could happen in my lifetime. I would love to be pleasantly surprised.
What I failed to add in my WPA proposal was constraints. If I choose to accept government shelter (warm cot, community shower, etc.) and sustenance (2-3 nutritional meals a day), then it is only fair and reasonable that I live by dictated rules. If I choose not to work for the benefits, then I should be confined to a camp or facility, so I do not become an additional burden on society. If I do choose to work, I do the government’s work to the best of my ability; if not, then I revert to non-work status. The same would apply to substance abusers; I would be happy to pay for their drug(s) of choice, as long as they remain in an established, protected facility, and no longer a hazard to society. The cost would be far less than all the collateral damage done by non-productive and/or self-destructive citizens.
. . . and this follow-up:
"You would be ok about paying for drug user's drugs if they remained in established, protected places where they were no threat to society? Well---would you then just give them their drugs and let them kill themselves slowly with NO medical help? What purpose would any medical help have, and who would pay for that?
"I say let the homeless go. We cannot save them really, nor should we try. Education early on and continuing is maybe where $$$ should go, but not a penny to re-hab, re-education, etc. "
. . . and my follow-up reply:
To your points, short answer: yes! Obviously, I do not mean ‘pay for’ personally; my meager income would hardly cover one hardcore addict. If you look at the true cost of the abysmal ‘war on drugs,’ welfare programs, and such, ample funds are already available; we just should spend them on a different approach. Regarding the intoxicants portion of my WPA proposal, I truly believe that State-licensed intoxicants would eliminate the blackmarket, smuggled, drug trade and the associated criminal sub-culture that services that demand. I learned a long time ago and the hard way that individuals who succumb to abuse of intoxicants do so by choice, and there is nothing that can be done to stop them. The only known limiter is when they, as distinct, sole individuals, decide they have hit rock-bottom and choose to cast off the shackles of drug abuse; until that moment, there is nothing the rest of us can do. I am only an anecdotal expert, but the majority of users seem to be ‘functional users;’ very few abusers are truly destructive. To my thinking, a functional user can get their drug(s) of choice free from the government as long as they confine their use to the facility where they are protected and society is protected, and the destructive ones can have as much as they wish with informed consent. I also believe that every individual has unalienable and fundamental rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. If their free choice is the oblivion of drugs up to and including death, then so be it – that is their chosen exercise of our most fundamental rights, and their choices should be respected. At least they will not hurt innocent people in the process and will not be forced to violent crime to feed their choices.
Re: medical help. I am fully supportive of providing professional medical and psychological help to anyone who wishes to avail themselves of those services. But, that must be the individual’s free choice; anything other than that is a form of coercion or imposed ‘treatment’ and will never be successful. I am all in favor of helping those who truly seek help.
Re: homeless. I put them in the same category as substance abusers. There are probably a myriad of reasons individuals enter the category of homelessness. IMHO, some seek to remove themselves from the burdens of productive society -- their choice. In my WPA proposal, they can perform necessary, unskilled, public work projects, like road-side clean-up, painting curbs, manual labor in support of construction, et cetera. If they choose not to work, then they should remain in the facility, so as not to be a further burden on the rest of society, i.e., no panhandling, taking up library seats, trashing public or private property, et cetera. If they choose to remain free from the facility, then they must not interfere with productive society; to do otherwise, they take what comes in the wilderness or they could be ‘institutionalized.’
I am in favor of helping those who wish to be helped, but I feel no compassion for those who simply seek the proverbial ‘free lunch.’ If any of this seems Draconian, so be it. But, the bottom line is, I have no desire or interest in redeeming lost souls. The church can handle that without our help. And, for the record, I am not in favor of the President's faith-based initiative as I have written [271, 290] for a host of reasons.
A related comment:
“‘How does one rationalize the benefits while reaping the process?’ Bloody brilliant point! I have wondered that so many times. That and when people whine that the more terrorists we kill, the more we create. Using that logic, we should have stopped our advance through the Pacific after Leyte Gulf, when the Kamikazes started showing up. After all, the closer we get to Japan, the more of those suicide pilots we would be creating. When someone is determined to kill you, you need to get them before they get you. Yeah, the bad guys may use some of this stuff as a recruiting tool, but let's face it, they have the advantage of doing it in countries that don't have the benefit of media outlets that present multiple points of view. I totally agree there are too many people out there who are afraid of killing the enemy. God help us if they get into power.”
And, yet another contribution:
“Before responding to many important issues in this update, let me say the GMEN did it Sunday without bad ref calls and excuses. It was a great game to watch. And today is an important day in our country. My hope is that the whiners on both sides will pipe down long enough to come to their senses. They are starting to sound silly just like the kid who takes his ball and goes home because the game isn't played just like he wants it to be. Stand up for what you believe in and let the voters decide. Now on to your update.
“Not only the more terrorists we kill will bring us peace, the quicker we do it will bring us peace with fewer casualties. When the Dems campaign on a platform of bringing the troops home prior to job of keeping freedom alive, anyone who votes for that best remember this lesson. Regardless of who wins the election, are they ready to assume the role of coward?
“I was ho hum about the President's speech. But, like you I was astounded at the presence of the military. I will never forget General Walt addressing my Basic School class at Quantico. He told us Marines were not going immediately to Vietnam anymore and he barred us from wearing our uniforms to Washington DC, because of the danger we new Marine officers faced in our nation's capital. It was a sad day on two counts. We knew it meant our leaders were giving up in Vietnam, and we were the scourge of our vocal society given voice by the media. Some did go to Vietnam anyway to watch us lose, and the burn I felt of having to wear civvies to DC instead of wearing my Marine uniform proudly has never gone away. When home on leave before heading to Navy flight school, I put on my full Class A uniform (blouse an all) nearly everyday and wore it proudly in my home town to counter what happened in DC. I commented to my family and friends when they asked why didn't I wear more relaxed dress that it was my way of showing them how important the uniform is and what it represents. My Dad understood completely having gone from the beach to the Bulge, Remagen, and through Germany with Patton. He knew and I'm certain the Marines of our era knew as well. Our military today enjoys support that we lacked in the media and from our society. It is a good thing. But, hear this warning - if we cut and run, we surrender to the terrorists. We lose our safety and the future of our children, not to mention a return to marginalizing the lives of our fallen brethren just like we did in Vietnam. It will be interesting to see which, if any, candidate wants that on his or her tombstone.
“Being a university professor, I have no problem with a local institution establishing a dress code given what I witness in my classes these days. But, it is no place for the federal government to intrude. Our local K12 schools are pondering returning to uniforms and several are experimenting with it now. Some structure is good for kids growing up, especially when their parents seem to forget to teach them pride in not only who they are, but how they dress. I'm not sure I like the idea of uniforms, but dress codes are fine with me.
“A new and revised WPA is an idea whose time has come and I'm glad you raise the issue. Compassion for our fellow man is a good lesson my father taught me, but misplaced compassion is fatal. A WPA would provide opportunity for people to get out of homelessness and find a way to be productive again if they are capable of working. And, it is well-placed compassion instead of more enabling handouts.
“One last point. I would rather volunteer for root canal experimental treatments than spend one more second on substance-abused entertainers who infect our young with their fatal behaviors. Their parents are mostly to blame along with the media. The media builds it larger than life and that is not likely to change no matter how we feel. The more attention it gets, the more our society seems fascinated with it. I'm turning the page on that part of our dysfunctional society, even though I may be one of the few.”
My reply:
Glad you like the WPA proposal. Like the insanity of the war on drugs, I doubt any politician has the [chutzpah] to make such a proposal happen. It never hurts to dream.
RE: ‘substance-abused entertainers.’ Like so many of these so-called reality shows, the Press simply feeds the voyeur-appetite of the population. I would agree they add some prurient spin, but the ultimate accountability belongs with parents. I espouse a radical view that parents should expose their children to politics, crime, sex, finance, violence, war, prostitution, substance abuse, and so many other sensitive societal topics to prepare them to make the correct or best decisions they can, and do it before they are exposed in life. I would much rather have our children decide from knowledge and preparation rather than from curiosity and peer pressure.
. . . with this follow-up:
“Some politicians prefer keeping people in the handout program for perverse reasons. And, like you I prefer kids to be exposed as well. My 4 kids were exposed to the worst seedy part of our society so they learned the values of their parents firsthand and why. We are fortunate that our kids adopted a higher road of life. And, I am content with turning the page on the worthless side for me. Everyone else can decide if they want to feed the media's interest. Not this old Jarhead...”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
You got that right . . . similar perverse reasons drive our lack of immigration reform, the voter ID issue, this crazy electronic voting mania, among so many other topics.
I’d like to say we did a good job with our kids. In a sense, I think we did pretty well. However, I know we could have done better. Having the time and a forum to discuss such things has certainly sharpened the pencil.
Again, I’m not so sure it is the Media as much as it seems to be the voyeuristic mentality of our population.
A new topic:
“I hope you will comment on two things, and I hope your audience will spread these notions.
“First, we conservatives have a problem. This time there is no Ross Perot running so that at least we could vote for someone and not sit out the election in protest against the betrayal of the Republican Party. The Democrats have won the Republican Party nomination contest--McCain is just what they wanted. What now?
“Second, I loath the pandering inherit in the economic stimulus package, but it is a done deal now. Someone has said that it will stimulate the economy of China more than our own. I say let's start a national campaign to pledge to either put our green checks in long term savings or spend our United States money only on United States products! I know it's hard to know where ingredients came from, but we could try! What say ye?”
My response:
[First part, see above.]
I see two parts to the economic stimulus question as you have posed it. First, I have not heard a politically neutral, macro-economics professional even remotely hint that the stimulus package as defined by Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008 can have any technical impact. However, that said, a large factor in a consumer economy – which ours is and has been – is confidence. If buyers feel good, they spend, to put it in simplistic terms. So, the impact of this stimulus may well depend upon perception, id est, if we think it will work, it will. Second, IMHO, the notion of "Buy American" is a form of economic isolationism that ignores normal market forces in virtually the same way the "America First" movement ignored international political forces in 1940. There is one primary reason jobs go off-shore -- cost of labor, the largest single component. We must innovate, develop, enhance and separate our products from those produced elsewhere. Until we face the root causal factors in the economic equation, we are only fooling ourselves.
The continuing of a thread from the last couple of Updates:
“I agree on treating children with respect. Children are far more wise, intelligent, and intuitive, than many give them credit for.
“It all starts with our children. While I was not at all in favor of what was behind-the-scenes with Hillary's older slogan (and book) "It Takes a Village--to Raise a Child", I compliment the effort. What I would rather have seen popularized would be 'It takes parents to raise a child' and then something like 'It takes a community to care.' I think one big problem is a parent subordinating the ultimate responsibility of parenthood, off to some government agency, or school resource. It is one thing to ask for help, another to not want to do the work and task it out to someone/something easier.
“I find it a shame that kids are taught so much to prepare them for the workforce (not in all cases), but so little about being parents. We hear often people saying that high schools need to teach teens how to manage their finances when they graduate, yet very seldom do I ever hear folks saying we need to teach courses on being a good parent. Hopefully most children have their own parents fine model to default to (which is what most people do), or perhaps a grandparent or mentor, but the ones that need it terribly have a bad model to fallback on, maybe terrible parents or broken homes and being shifted around like an unwanted person. I cringe when I see 17 year old girls walking with a baby stroller, with a man/father who is ultra-MIA, and the girl herself is still a young child. Sometimes amazing results come from those situations, but often the syndrome as you refer to is just repeated, with offspring going to prison or joining gangs, and on and on and on.
“Since closing my own business, I have had children/teens in my care and responsibility before, as a professional commercial & private chauffeur (for a family). I have had situations without an adult in the cabin. I have had teens bring alcohol on-board and I have either stopped them or detected it when they tried to hide it. I approach them and they say things like "my parents let me drink!" and they are only 17. I then say "let's get your parents on the phone and clarify this, and even so, I must have the alcohol and lock it the trunk." Of course the kid will fess up right away and say "no, don't call my dad!" and we know the true story. But sadly, I have had parents say to me "it is okay if my son Benny has a few beers" and I say "it is not okay past me, he is underage, and in my care and responsibility." I have had well-to-do parents in my limo with their children, and their children are drinking right there with them. My sense was that the parent wanted to be liked and popular with their children while not establishing any boundaries. I had one situation where and adult friend in the cabin was giving alcohol to minors and I detected it, corrected it and asked that all the alcohol be locked in my trunk and I would return it to the adult at the end of the evening/service. The adult refused, I terminated service at that point. I was not at all popular that night, lost money, but when we do the RIGHT THING, it always is rewarding.
“I believe many children/teens get caught up in drugs not only because of bad peers, but bad parents. I suspect many of those households are chaotic and the children do not feel respected or loved, but may often feel neglected and disrespected.
“My hat is off like yours is to all parents, and conducting the best service to society using undefined mixtures of art and science with patience and perseverance, often with unpredictable outcomes yet sticking to the higher purpose and plan.
“I always tell people the three most important yet undervalued jobs in our society are 1. Parents; 2. Teachers; 3. Cops.”
My response:
Integrity and principle often have a cost, but the price of compromising our integrity is usually far greater.
Children in other parts of the world are exposed to alcohol early in their lives and taught to consume responsibly, usually under parental supervision. Too often we hear stories of parents allowing their children to drink, smoke, do some marijuana or worse. The age of exposure is important, but the preparation for such exposure is critical. So many cases, parents seem to exposure their children to such intoxicating substances without teaching them how to act responsibly. We see the consequences. Likewise, shielding and protecting our children from life’s temptations can be and often is equally destructive; by the time they exposed to intoxicants by their peers, they are ill-prepared to deal with those consequences, and often over-react negatively to “fit in.” Beyond intoxicants, I also include sex and other life realities.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
1 comment:
Well said.
Post a Comment