Wow! Where has the work ethic of this Nation gone? On this upcoming Thursday's national day of prayer and thanksgiving, the employed seem neither prayerful nor thankful for their plight.
From just watching and reading the national news we see petition drives against employers for opening their stores on the dates and at the times buyers are most ready to spend. One such report, from the Associated Press, and printed in the Idaho Statesman tells the story, with incredible quotes from "working" people. See (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/11/16/1881376/workers-push-back-against-earlier.html)
Evidently a non-thankful part-time Target employee, Anthony Hardwick, slated to work at 11:00 p.m. on Thursday started a poor me petition on the Internet railing against Target's late night work plans, and has been gaining signatures. He simply cannot get enough turkey and family time, and his beauty rest, and be ready for the heady work of corralling carts with the vicious schedule put forth by Target.
While Black Friday shopping is not a new tradition, retailers are listening to customers and continually tweaking their hours for buyer convenience. And "earth to Hardwick," buyer convenience is one of the keys to successful retail operations.
In fact, according to Target, customers have said they would rather have their big meal, and then head out and shop late at night, rather than get up at 3:00 a.m. to fight the good shopping fight. It also stands to reason that for those needing babysitting services the late night time frame is far more friendly than early a.m.
Yet the argument is there - Target is big business and big business is evil. A signer of Hardwick's petition, fellow Target employee John Stankus complains about missing the day with family in order to "get enough sleep before starting work around 11 p.m." Continuing that "I'll just get the crumbs (his family) leaves behind...I won't get any turkey at all."
I feel his pain. Yet from the outside it almost seems Stankus has a "stinkus" family that would eat all of the good stuff and no one would think nor care to set aside a plate for poor John. Maybe employment is just not for him.
Others get it, though. Twenty-one year veteran Walmart employee Mary Huskey says hey, "Retail is retail." And if you want people to shop "we have to be there for them. I'm just thankful that I have a place to work..." Yes. And I am thankful this year for Ms. Huskey and her work ethic. Thank you.
My fear is that there is a generation problem leading to all this. Note that Huskey is a 21-year worker, while Stankus is 22 years-old. Not exactly scientific research - but noted just the same.
2011 has been a hard year on my family and our income has taken hits. Yet we soldier on. It is what we do in America. As a young boy I saw my dad always working two jobs. He had a regular 8-5 job, and then several nights a week and most weekends and holidays he hopped on a bus and rode to his part-time job. We planned dinners and holiday activities around when dad could be home from work. None of us dared complain about his work. Jobs were good.
I know many Americans still embrace that ethic, but stories like the one cited above are troubling. We just celebrated Veterans Day, and Hardwick, Stankus, and their ilk might think about troops in war zones not getting their sleep either, or time with family. And just maybe be thankful for their employment and families. I know my family and I will be.
God bless.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Idaho's Best Preschool is the Home
According to the Associated Press and Idaho Statesman, the state has decided it will not be tempted by federal dollars to put unsustainable preschool programs in our communities and further erode Idaho families. Millions of dollars were at stake in the U.S. Department of Education's "Race to the Top" contest, millions of federal dollars with the underlying purpose of intruding into states' educational responsibilities and creating a dependence on the federal government.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Luna, rightly said no thank you to the feds for the one-time funding opportunity.
It is always difficult to look education money in the eye and walk away. But this money was not for technology infrastructure, or AP science and math enhancements. It was for social programs that preceded Idaho's fine system of public schooling, and would truly become addictive once put into our financial and educational blood streams.
There are other issues too. First, there is a reason that "1st Grade" is called First Grade. It is the first, initial, beginning, original, foundational, at the start, before any other, start-up grade for a child to become a student and begin formal schooling. It is after all the "First" grade by name and by definition.
Of course children do not need to wait for first grade to begin learning. That is what older siblings are for, grandmothers, and yes, parents themselves. But it is a precious time, those years between birth and ages 5 or 6, when some will elect to attend Kindergarten programs, and most will then enter First Grade. I see it every day, with my 26 month-old grand baby. Oh my. She learns everyday. And yes, some from television, but much from her grandmother and parents. Sometimes I am useful, but I think I am more for her entertainment.
Regardless, small children are the responsibility of their parents and families, and Idaho's fine, free, public education kicks in with first grade, or kindergarten for some. Let the children play. Let them learn and grow with their families. They will certainly be in our schools soon enough, and eroding money off of our Constitutionally mandated education, for preschool would be unwise.
Make no mistake about it, the free federal money will leave and we would be expected to maintain programs that like an elixir endrunkened us to continuing expectation, we would be hooked on the convenience of non-familial responsibility, and one day cry with pains of withdrawal for more funding.
Better to just say no from the get go. Keep babies in their homes, or in day-care or with nannies or even private preschools for the wealthy - they will buy what they want anyway. No funding program will ever level the disparities between poor and wealthy. Our educators and legislature must keep its eye on our Constitutional charge and not be distracted by easy money from a desperate White House.
This was the right call by Idaho, and its educator-in-chief.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Luna, rightly said no thank you to the feds for the one-time funding opportunity.
It is always difficult to look education money in the eye and walk away. But this money was not for technology infrastructure, or AP science and math enhancements. It was for social programs that preceded Idaho's fine system of public schooling, and would truly become addictive once put into our financial and educational blood streams.
There are other issues too. First, there is a reason that "1st Grade" is called First Grade. It is the first, initial, beginning, original, foundational, at the start, before any other, start-up grade for a child to become a student and begin formal schooling. It is after all the "First" grade by name and by definition.
Of course children do not need to wait for first grade to begin learning. That is what older siblings are for, grandmothers, and yes, parents themselves. But it is a precious time, those years between birth and ages 5 or 6, when some will elect to attend Kindergarten programs, and most will then enter First Grade. I see it every day, with my 26 month-old grand baby. Oh my. She learns everyday. And yes, some from television, but much from her grandmother and parents. Sometimes I am useful, but I think I am more for her entertainment.
Regardless, small children are the responsibility of their parents and families, and Idaho's fine, free, public education kicks in with first grade, or kindergarten for some. Let the children play. Let them learn and grow with their families. They will certainly be in our schools soon enough, and eroding money off of our Constitutionally mandated education, for preschool would be unwise.
Make no mistake about it, the free federal money will leave and we would be expected to maintain programs that like an elixir endrunkened us to continuing expectation, we would be hooked on the convenience of non-familial responsibility, and one day cry with pains of withdrawal for more funding.
Better to just say no from the get go. Keep babies in their homes, or in day-care or with nannies or even private preschools for the wealthy - they will buy what they want anyway. No funding program will ever level the disparities between poor and wealthy. Our educators and legislature must keep its eye on our Constitutional charge and not be distracted by easy money from a desperate White House.
This was the right call by Idaho, and its educator-in-chief.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Idaho GOP finds proper balance in Education funding
[PROPER CREDIT: This column by the Blog author originally appeared in the Idaho Statesman - September 6, 2011]
Larry Grant recently wrote (Idaho Statesman - 8/21/2011) about paying a “Republican-imposed ‘Family Tax,’” referring to student and activity fees for his grandson as he registered him in one of Idaho Tom Luna , and Republicans in general for the costs of non-essentials in our state’s schooling. Grant simply does not understand the purpose of public education.
Throughout the World’s history it was the sons and daughters (sons primarily) of the aristocracy who were given the benefit of education. They learned to read and write, and studied history and government, literature, science and mathematics. They had to, for as the reigning heirs they one day would govern and must be prepared.
In this country a great and bold experiment was put forth by our Founders – the common man was the heir to power in a government by the people. The common child could grow up to become President, as evidenced by William Jefferson Clinton, of Arkansas
Thus our common or public schools were born. To prepare the sons and daughters of our aristocracy of commoners as no other nation before, prepare them to lead in civic responsibility. Able to read and write, and educated in math and science, history, government, and literature; ready to govern commonly.
And so through Idaho ’s Constitution that charge is made, establishing as “the duty of the legislature of Idaho
Mr. Grant would have us believe that the Idaho Constitution requires every school to provide at taxpayer expense every conceivable opportunity for every talent or interest brought by every child. No nation and certainly no state can afford such, nor would it be good “common” government.
For special talents and special interests it is well and good that our schools provide special programs and activities. But with special programming outside the thoroughness of our required “general” public education comes the need for special funding. – not by increasing the taxes of the common man and woman.
Meanwhile, missed by Mr. Grant, and perhaps the Idaho Democratic Party he represents is the opening this very year of three new public charter schools just in the Treasure Valley – more choices, more specialized interests and talents, without increased tax burdens on working men and women. This is responsible government, and government as demanded by our citizen aristocracy.
Yet if blame need be given for reductions in Idaho
We can blame runaway and irresponsible spending by a President and Congress not willing to keep us living within our national means. We can blame the highest corporate tax rates among comparator nations for stifling the economic growth this nation could produce.
There is much to “blame,” but Idaho’s elected leadership rejecting additional tax burdens on its citizens and at the same time balancing our State’s budget are not on the list.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Problems with the FLDS church raid in Texas
"Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)." Congress didn't in this case but Texas did. And a guaranteed, bonafide debacle is ensuing in the Lone Star state. Too many lawyers have descended upon the location for order to last.
Understand, I do not believe in the FLDS sect's religion, and I find abhorrent what I believe they find important to the practice of their faith. But another person's religion is not about me. Just as mine is not about someone else. If I do not support their "right" to practice their religion who can I expect to support mine?
Yes, problems abound in the Texas case. There are 416 children taken from their mothers and homes. None implicated in whatever the law-breaking was - just a class action government kidnapping of people privately living their lives. There are reportedly thirteen residences at the ranch, and all were raided. Imagine a crime reported in one dorm building of a college and all dorms raided, emptied and occupants held in police compounds.
If the charges that prompted the raid are true, there is still no justification to house in government compounds all of the children, or to simply give them away to foster families - keeping them all from their mothers. No justification. Period. We should be outraged.
It also is a bit oxymoronish that the sect members are being accused of polygamy - when there are no certificates of marriage, and in fact Texas would only recognize such a marriage between any two persons as "common law." How can you be guilty of violating a law that the state does not recognize you under?
While I do not like the "religious" practices of the FLDS people it appears the children were not in homes where their parents smoked, none lived in meth labs, they did not spend their days playing computer games or texting porn on their cell phones. It seems they had healthy diets, hard work and exercise...so what again was the problem?
Most likely young girls were being mistreated and abused. We probably needed to address it...but how do we not look the bully when we take small children from their mothers, by the hundreds, to investigate one reported crime? If the Chinese raided a strange (to others of us) religious sect settlement in Tibet the world would be in an uproar.
So how is it that we do this in the most free nation in the world...?
Understand, I do not believe in the FLDS sect's religion, and I find abhorrent what I believe they find important to the practice of their faith. But another person's religion is not about me. Just as mine is not about someone else. If I do not support their "right" to practice their religion who can I expect to support mine?
Yes, problems abound in the Texas case. There are 416 children taken from their mothers and homes. None implicated in whatever the law-breaking was - just a class action government kidnapping of people privately living their lives. There are reportedly thirteen residences at the ranch, and all were raided. Imagine a crime reported in one dorm building of a college and all dorms raided, emptied and occupants held in police compounds.
If the charges that prompted the raid are true, there is still no justification to house in government compounds all of the children, or to simply give them away to foster families - keeping them all from their mothers. No justification. Period. We should be outraged.
It also is a bit oxymoronish that the sect members are being accused of polygamy - when there are no certificates of marriage, and in fact Texas would only recognize such a marriage between any two persons as "common law." How can you be guilty of violating a law that the state does not recognize you under?
While I do not like the "religious" practices of the FLDS people it appears the children were not in homes where their parents smoked, none lived in meth labs, they did not spend their days playing computer games or texting porn on their cell phones. It seems they had healthy diets, hard work and exercise...so what again was the problem?
Most likely young girls were being mistreated and abused. We probably needed to address it...but how do we not look the bully when we take small children from their mothers, by the hundreds, to investigate one reported crime? If the Chinese raided a strange (to others of us) religious sect settlement in Tibet the world would be in an uproar.
So how is it that we do this in the most free nation in the world...?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Schools' Role in Child Fitness
Every legislative year (it seems) some state figures out that kids are fat and the lawmakers attempt to legislate skinnyness through fitness report cards to the parents, more rigorous physical education, better school lunches, and/or restocking school-based vending machines with "healthy" products.
This year in my state it's vending machines.
Schools stand to lose candy bar and soda pop revenues, big-government conspiracy watchers will shout the alarm, and the debate will take to the newspapers. My local paper this time has it right - this not a "nanny-state" power grab, or the end of local control; the state has simply encouraged its schools to go healthy in stocking vending machines.
Wow, "encouraged." That'll skinny the kids right up!
First off, local control is a myth in public schools. Show me a public school district willing to run on solely local money and I'll give a bit on the "control." But by-and-large our public schools are state funded and state mandated institutions, actually requiring attendance by the state's children. The teachers typically have state curriculum guidelines, state approved text books, and required state examinations of the children - so what local control?
The truth is that as state schools they should always model good practices. They should be safe and civil places of learning and work, they should conserve resources and use them intelligently, they should recycle what is reasonable, landscaping should be attractive, smart, easy to maintain and frugal, and yes - meals and snacks should be healthy. How hard is that?
The education community often rails against standardized testing, arguing that learning is soooo much more. And it is. So let's have the schools be better models of good lifestyles. Hire fit and active employees, no overweight PE teachers or school nurses, work hard, take frequent breaks, go for brisk walks instead of playing badminton, and eat (serve) good, healthy food to include the supplemental snack and drink choices in vending machines.
Modeling is often the best teaching and this is a great way to start. Our legislature has the right not only to encourage such action from our taxpayer supported public schools but to demand it .
This year in my state it's vending machines.
Schools stand to lose candy bar and soda pop revenues, big-government conspiracy watchers will shout the alarm, and the debate will take to the newspapers. My local paper this time has it right - this not a "nanny-state" power grab, or the end of local control; the state has simply encouraged its schools to go healthy in stocking vending machines.
Wow, "encouraged." That'll skinny the kids right up!
First off, local control is a myth in public schools. Show me a public school district willing to run on solely local money and I'll give a bit on the "control." But by-and-large our public schools are state funded and state mandated institutions, actually requiring attendance by the state's children. The teachers typically have state curriculum guidelines, state approved text books, and required state examinations of the children - so what local control?
The truth is that as state schools they should always model good practices. They should be safe and civil places of learning and work, they should conserve resources and use them intelligently, they should recycle what is reasonable, landscaping should be attractive, smart, easy to maintain and frugal, and yes - meals and snacks should be healthy. How hard is that?
The education community often rails against standardized testing, arguing that learning is soooo much more. And it is. So let's have the schools be better models of good lifestyles. Hire fit and active employees, no overweight PE teachers or school nurses, work hard, take frequent breaks, go for brisk walks instead of playing badminton, and eat (serve) good, healthy food to include the supplemental snack and drink choices in vending machines.
Modeling is often the best teaching and this is a great way to start. Our legislature has the right not only to encourage such action from our taxpayer supported public schools but to demand it .
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Al Qaeda in Iraq?
Yes, and by our design.
A recent exchange between Senators McCain and Obama demonstrates how frightfully non-strategic the thinking of Illinois' junior senator. When McCain, while campaigning "informed" Obama that there were in fact Al Qaeda in Iraq at present, Obama responded, also while campaigning that they were not there until the U.S. invaded and drew them to Iraq. Point taken.
But Obama's point exposed his naivete' about what he himself said. One only needs to hearken back to the early boxing days of Cassius Clay, soon to become Mohammad Ali, and remember his "rope a dope" strategy. In boxing, the ropes are a trap. You cannot allow yourself to be backed into them or you'll be pummeled with no escape. Except of course for the "Greatest."
Ali would take punches, lower his hands, appear hurt, back into the ropes, and lure his next victim into his defeat. They would hit Ali, but he would still dance and float and never take a serious blow. When his opponent would begin to tire Ali would come out of the ropes in a flurry and finish off the fight and his hapless opponent.
As it is in Iraq. I have no secret or insider information on whether Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we opened a battle front there in the Global War On Terror, but I understand there are Al Qaeda there now. Good. We have lured them there, and we can hunt them down and kill them one by one.
Every day that we keep the GWOT battle fronts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other strategic locales on other continents reduces our need or the possibility of fighting them here. It cannot be lost on us that this Nation has not had another major attack since 9/11/01. Credit President Bush, Secretary Rice, the courage of those in the Congress who understand what is at stake, and of course our fighting men and women.
Our very safety and liberty depends on keeping Al Qaeda on the run, and yes, in Iraq.
A recent exchange between Senators McCain and Obama demonstrates how frightfully non-strategic the thinking of Illinois' junior senator. When McCain, while campaigning "informed" Obama that there were in fact Al Qaeda in Iraq at present, Obama responded, also while campaigning that they were not there until the U.S. invaded and drew them to Iraq. Point taken.
But Obama's point exposed his naivete' about what he himself said. One only needs to hearken back to the early boxing days of Cassius Clay, soon to become Mohammad Ali, and remember his "rope a dope" strategy. In boxing, the ropes are a trap. You cannot allow yourself to be backed into them or you'll be pummeled with no escape. Except of course for the "Greatest."
Ali would take punches, lower his hands, appear hurt, back into the ropes, and lure his next victim into his defeat. They would hit Ali, but he would still dance and float and never take a serious blow. When his opponent would begin to tire Ali would come out of the ropes in a flurry and finish off the fight and his hapless opponent.
As it is in Iraq. I have no secret or insider information on whether Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we opened a battle front there in the Global War On Terror, but I understand there are Al Qaeda there now. Good. We have lured them there, and we can hunt them down and kill them one by one.
Every day that we keep the GWOT battle fronts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other strategic locales on other continents reduces our need or the possibility of fighting them here. It cannot be lost on us that this Nation has not had another major attack since 9/11/01. Credit President Bush, Secretary Rice, the courage of those in the Congress who understand what is at stake, and of course our fighting men and women.
Our very safety and liberty depends on keeping Al Qaeda on the run, and yes, in Iraq.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Will McCain Right "the Right?"
No. And we dare not confuse the "Right" with the Republican Party, nor either with "Conservatism." For some untold reason conservative philosophy has become so convoluted in today's Rightism that it is hard to find...though sometimes spotted cavorting in Libertarian circles.
John McCain is now the Republican nominee for President, pending the Convention, and he is in fact a Republican. He is basically conservative - as opposed to liberal, and while a man of faith is not a "member" of the "Religious Right." Thus, about all the Republican Party's nominee has to offer the Right is that he is not Left. This plays badly with the Right, and equally so with conservatives.
I differentiate these because somewhere in an unknown year AR (after Reagan), conservatism lost its hold on the Right, and the Republican Party. The Right claims to be pro-family, yet wanted to separate the stranded Cuban boy, Elian Gonzolas from his natural father, while "Conservatives" supported the family reuniting - harrumph....enacted by Democratic President W. J. Clinton, and his Attorney General, Janet Reno.
The "Right" was on the wrong side of the Terri Schiavo case, while conservatives supported her liberty to go to God.
A hawkish President George Bush while correctly spending the needed resources in the Global War on Terror, has allowed us to be spent into near oblivion with the growth of government and social programs. Here, a president McCain may set us right as he is a pretty good non-spender of money we do not have.
So should McCain win in November, it will be better than the alternative for Conservatives, Republicans, and the Right, but it will not make everything right with our nation. Perhaps a re-reading of conservative beliefs and how they apply to decisions would be good for those who next wish to stand up and say they are Right.
John McCain is now the Republican nominee for President, pending the Convention, and he is in fact a Republican. He is basically conservative - as opposed to liberal, and while a man of faith is not a "member" of the "Religious Right." Thus, about all the Republican Party's nominee has to offer the Right is that he is not Left. This plays badly with the Right, and equally so with conservatives.
I differentiate these because somewhere in an unknown year AR (after Reagan), conservatism lost its hold on the Right, and the Republican Party. The Right claims to be pro-family, yet wanted to separate the stranded Cuban boy, Elian Gonzolas from his natural father, while "Conservatives" supported the family reuniting - harrumph....enacted by Democratic President W. J. Clinton, and his Attorney General, Janet Reno.
The "Right" was on the wrong side of the Terri Schiavo case, while conservatives supported her liberty to go to God.
A hawkish President George Bush while correctly spending the needed resources in the Global War on Terror, has allowed us to be spent into near oblivion with the growth of government and social programs. Here, a president McCain may set us right as he is a pretty good non-spender of money we do not have.
So should McCain win in November, it will be better than the alternative for Conservatives, Republicans, and the Right, but it will not make everything right with our nation. Perhaps a re-reading of conservative beliefs and how they apply to decisions would be good for those who next wish to stand up and say they are Right.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
The Teacher Merit Pay Mistake
Another state (Idaho) just folded in its attempt to legislate a process for "rewarding" excellent teachers. On Friday last the state senate voted to kill a teacher merit-pay bill championed by the elected state superintendent, and opposed by the teacher union. The local paper has called for the superintendent and the union to begin work on a plan for 2009 they both can agree to and will pass legislative muster.
While I support teacher merit pay, the problem is that it is the third leg of needed pay reforms, and the only one reformers are willing to address.
First and foremost we must admit that not all teaching jobs are alike, and thus do not have the same financial value. There is simply no justification for a $30,000 science teacher and a $50,000 physical education teacher in the same school - the difference being the age of the teachers.
Teachers who teach tested subjects that lead to a ranking of a state's schools should be on a higher pay scale from day one than those who teach the supporting subjects. This differentiating of pay into two strata - tested, and non-tested, would also serve to encourage the best and brightest teacher candidates to seek their degrees in the critical and higher paying subjects.
The second "leg" of needed pay reform is "overtime." It is a strange union indeed that allows its members to take 150 English themes, math exams, science labs, or history research papers home over the weekend and grade them without consideration of payment, while other teachers' subjects seldom if ever require homework or grading.
Setting aside a budget for "state tested subjects" that would cover reasonable grading overtime pay for those teachers would again differentiate the earnings of teachers in line with the value of their work.
Once we fix these two legs of teacher compensation we will indeed be ready to layer on a system of recognized merit reward for our best of the bunch...of those teachers who teach the most important (read "tested") subjects.
While I support teacher merit pay, the problem is that it is the third leg of needed pay reforms, and the only one reformers are willing to address.
First and foremost we must admit that not all teaching jobs are alike, and thus do not have the same financial value. There is simply no justification for a $30,000 science teacher and a $50,000 physical education teacher in the same school - the difference being the age of the teachers.
Teachers who teach tested subjects that lead to a ranking of a state's schools should be on a higher pay scale from day one than those who teach the supporting subjects. This differentiating of pay into two strata - tested, and non-tested, would also serve to encourage the best and brightest teacher candidates to seek their degrees in the critical and higher paying subjects.
The second "leg" of needed pay reform is "overtime." It is a strange union indeed that allows its members to take 150 English themes, math exams, science labs, or history research papers home over the weekend and grade them without consideration of payment, while other teachers' subjects seldom if ever require homework or grading.
Setting aside a budget for "state tested subjects" that would cover reasonable grading overtime pay for those teachers would again differentiate the earnings of teachers in line with the value of their work.
Once we fix these two legs of teacher compensation we will indeed be ready to layer on a system of recognized merit reward for our best of the bunch...of those teachers who teach the most important (read "tested") subjects.
Monday, March 3, 2008
"Supremes" to Rule on Gun Ownership
On March 18th, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments that could affect Second Amendment interpretations and thus gun laws for a generation or more. Not only is the Second Amendment to the Constitution the most poorly written, but writers and interpreters of the Amendment tend to get their language wrong as well.
The headline in my local paper, the same as the article originally appeared in USA Today, was "Do you have a legal right to own a gun?" That is a different issue than whether I have a Constitutional right to own a gun. Case in point - the Constitution grants me the "free exercise" of religion, but laws restrict free exercise if my religion calls for drug use, polygamy, human sacrifices, etc.
So the argument the Supreme Court "should" hear is whether the Constitution grants the ownership of arms to individual persons, or not. It's a simple argument really, and indicative of why Justice Clarence Thomas asks few questions - strangely an issue of late. Justice Thomas is a pretty good reader and he knows his job is not to rule on what is fair, or good, or best for people, but rather on what the Constitution says.
Arguers against personal gun ownership often state the Second Amendment applies to state militias, "such as the National Guard." How can anyone not note that a "state" militia would not be a "national" guard? If our present National Guard was solely a state militia the President could not deploy the troops, they would not wear U.S. military uniforms, they would all be on the individual state payrolls. The truth is that most states have no militia - so that argument fails from word one.
No, the operative phrase in the Second Amendment is "...the right of the people to keep..."
Like it or not it really is no more difficult than that. And I suspect Justice Thomas will again have no questions.
The headline in my local paper, the same as the article originally appeared in USA Today, was "Do you have a legal right to own a gun?" That is a different issue than whether I have a Constitutional right to own a gun. Case in point - the Constitution grants me the "free exercise" of religion, but laws restrict free exercise if my religion calls for drug use, polygamy, human sacrifices, etc.
So the argument the Supreme Court "should" hear is whether the Constitution grants the ownership of arms to individual persons, or not. It's a simple argument really, and indicative of why Justice Clarence Thomas asks few questions - strangely an issue of late. Justice Thomas is a pretty good reader and he knows his job is not to rule on what is fair, or good, or best for people, but rather on what the Constitution says.
Arguers against personal gun ownership often state the Second Amendment applies to state militias, "such as the National Guard." How can anyone not note that a "state" militia would not be a "national" guard? If our present National Guard was solely a state militia the President could not deploy the troops, they would not wear U.S. military uniforms, they would all be on the individual state payrolls. The truth is that most states have no militia - so that argument fails from word one.
No, the operative phrase in the Second Amendment is "...the right of the people to keep..."
Like it or not it really is no more difficult than that. And I suspect Justice Thomas will again have no questions.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Non-Coercion of Abortion Law?
In my own private Idaho a House Committee passed a bill making it a crime to "violently coerce a woman into getting an abortion" (Idaho Statesman.com).
The newly proposed non-coercion bill is to prevent the use or threat of physical harm to provoke a woman into having an abortion she otherwise might not have. I'm good with that.
The rub is that this is an unnecessary micro-law, it covers too little...of what is already against the law. So we outlaw coercion to get an abortion, but it is okay to coerce a woman to get a tattoo, or body piercing, or laser eye surgery or to get pregnant in the first place? I think not.
The liberty guaranteed by our Constitution and countless other laws cover this already. But if we want a new law how about the following? "An emancipated and free person cannot be coerced by use or threat of force to do any damned thing." Now there's a law that makes sense. Men and women alike, regardless of the issue at hand can make their life choices and be free to do so. I like it.
Whenever we pass these specialty one-problem laws they invariable result in expensive lawsuits and are often overturned. All we need is better thinking on the front end, and a conservative reticence to making everything a new law.
The newly proposed non-coercion bill is to prevent the use or threat of physical harm to provoke a woman into having an abortion she otherwise might not have. I'm good with that.
The rub is that this is an unnecessary micro-law, it covers too little...of what is already against the law. So we outlaw coercion to get an abortion, but it is okay to coerce a woman to get a tattoo, or body piercing, or laser eye surgery or to get pregnant in the first place? I think not.
The liberty guaranteed by our Constitution and countless other laws cover this already. But if we want a new law how about the following? "An emancipated and free person cannot be coerced by use or threat of force to do any damned thing." Now there's a law that makes sense. Men and women alike, regardless of the issue at hand can make their life choices and be free to do so. I like it.
Whenever we pass these specialty one-problem laws they invariable result in expensive lawsuits and are often overturned. All we need is better thinking on the front end, and a conservative reticence to making everything a new law.
Friday, February 29, 2008
McCain Eligible to Be President?
Legal analysts are debating whether Republican presidential hopeful John McCain's Panama Canal Zone birth meets the Constitutionally mandated standard of a "natural born Citizen," required for one to be President. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue, and some law professors argue in favor, some are concerned there is no precedent, while others (according to the AP) state that it is "not a slam-dunk situation.
Well I think it is. The Constitution never says one must be born within the Continental United States, only that he must be of a natural birth. Interesting. Did the Founding Fathers anticipate clones in the future, or medically induced pregnancy? Did they refer to births other than C-sections? Of course not. They simply meant a "Citizen" who became one naturally via birth as opposed to immigrating to this country and applying for and receiving citizenship.
Sometimes the legal wonks make things far too difficult, but if they want to quibble about exact wording of the Constitution with respect to Presidential qualifications the word "he" is used exclusively in the document. That technicality may not bode well for Senator Hillary Clinton.
Well I think it is. The Constitution never says one must be born within the Continental United States, only that he must be of a natural birth. Interesting. Did the Founding Fathers anticipate clones in the future, or medically induced pregnancy? Did they refer to births other than C-sections? Of course not. They simply meant a "Citizen" who became one naturally via birth as opposed to immigrating to this country and applying for and receiving citizenship.
Sometimes the legal wonks make things far too difficult, but if they want to quibble about exact wording of the Constitution with respect to Presidential qualifications the word "he" is used exclusively in the document. That technicality may not bode well for Senator Hillary Clinton.
The "Education Candidate?"
In yesterday's USA Today, Wendy Puriefoy (CEO of the Public Education Network) writes of the "need for (Presidential) candidates to tell us how they plan to improve our nation's public schools."
Ms. Puriefoy must not understand that the Commander-in-Chief is not the superintendent of schools in chief. Her questions about reducing class size and making schools safer are great questions for our states' governors, but irrelevent to the office of President.
It is embarrassing the number of people in positions of influence who do not understand that our nation's public schools are actually a collection of our states' public schools. Yes, the federal government provides some education funding to the states, and thus has a horse in the race, but it is our individual state's Constititutions that provide for public education, not that of the United States.
If Puriefoy and others believe this is the time to federalize education, make all teachers federal employees, remove education budgets from the states and pick them up with federal tax dollars, then that is the case she should make, not waste time with questions not relevent to the Presidency.
Ms. Puriefoy must not understand that the Commander-in-Chief is not the superintendent of schools in chief. Her questions about reducing class size and making schools safer are great questions for our states' governors, but irrelevent to the office of President.
It is embarrassing the number of people in positions of influence who do not understand that our nation's public schools are actually a collection of our states' public schools. Yes, the federal government provides some education funding to the states, and thus has a horse in the race, but it is our individual state's Constititutions that provide for public education, not that of the United States.
If Puriefoy and others believe this is the time to federalize education, make all teachers federal employees, remove education budgets from the states and pick them up with federal tax dollars, then that is the case she should make, not waste time with questions not relevent to the Presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
