Blog @ MoreWhat.com

(Click on the image to download it or other document images in higher rez)

As another long overdue installment in a series of posts published on this blog inspired by the American Civics Literacy Quiz from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute as well as other bloggers e.g., Perri Nelson , the following is presented on the Bill of Rights. Given the current political climate and issues in public affairs these matters are of no less significance than they were at the time the Bill of Rights were proposed and ultimately ratified by the several states. It is fair to state here the intention was to limit the power of government and protect the rights of individuals. Two principles that may be tested more in the days ahead than they have been in a very long time. It is incumbent upon every citizen, while there is no bill of responsibilities, to contribute the time and resources necessary to ensure their own liberty by attending to matters of civics in a manner adequate to safeguard ours and future generations from the tyranny present when vigilance is ignored.

The content and links below as well as the image and link above are borrowed of course from elsewhere and provided to assist in raising the level of attention to civics and related topics. It is hoped you will find this and other posts in this series useful. There are related documents in the ‘Pages’ section which can be found in the sidebar.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

Amendment I

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

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Critics say it’s unnecessary and costly. Perfect. Some worry about nukes. Perfect. It could lead to solving the world’s energy problems. Perfect. The Sun is an example of fusion. The Sun is a star. There are lots of stars. They operate for a long time with no utility bill or stoppin’ at the pump. Nature. Perfect. How humans operate within it….. not so perfect.

Maybe those who oppose such things could withhold their criticism long enough to allow the seeds of innovation to grow. So many seem to want things to be perfect but are reluctant to let perfect happen. Perfect.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The world’s strongest laser - powerful enough to create conditions as hot as inside the Sun - was unveiled Friday in the western U.S. state of California for an audience of politicians and scientists.

The stadium-sized National Ignition Facility actually houses 192 lasers that all point towards a tiny blob of hydrogen.

When the lasers shoot, scientists expect the hydrogen will fuse into helium, a chemical reaction like what makes stars burn and nuclear bombs explode.

The project began in 1997 and cost the federal government an estimated $3.5 billion. The government says it will allow scientists to study in a lab what happens in a nuclear explosion. They say it will help scientists assess the safety of the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal.

But critics say the laser is unnecessary and costly. Some also worry it could help develop new nuclear weapons.

Proponents of the giant laser say there is another possible benefit. They say they hope to create a fusion reaction called “fusion ignition.” This reaction could create huge amounts of electricity.

Scientists suggest such reactions could lead to a new green energy source, and eliminate the current dependence on fossil fuels.

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger hailed the laser as a breakthrough for his state. The unveiling was attended by around 3,500 people.

Scientists say they plan to begin experimenting with fusion ignition by next year.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.

“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” Mr. Emanuel said in an interview on Sunday.(Nov 9, 2008)

Below is an example of what Rahm Emanuel meant in the above quote. For as far back as you may care to look education in America finds our students lagging behind their counterparts in other countries around the world. You may have taken exception with the bold plans of President Bush and No Child Left Behind. You may be displeased with all the money being spent on an education system that continually underperforms.

You can read the press release below to get an idea of what may be in store for taxpayer dollars as part of not letting a crisis go to waste. It does not guarantee results when massive dollars are thrown at a problem. But it certainly is becoming obvious this is the agenda of the Obama Administration. The spending may solve nothing but the debt will certainly follow and overcoming it may create its own crisis.

At the bottom of the press release is a link to view this nonsense for other states as well. Enjoy, as we spend future generations resources at an alarming rate and no end in sight.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

PRESS RELEASES
More Than $587 Million in Recovery Funds now Available for Wisconsin to Save Jobs and Drive Reform
Application for Part 1 of Wisconsin’s State Stabilization Funds Approved Today

FOR RELEASE:
May 5, 2009

U. S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today announced that more than $587 million is now available for Wisconsin under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. This funding will lay the foundation for a generation of education reform and help save hundreds of thousands of teaching jobs at risk of state and local budget cuts. Wisconsin will be eligible to apply for another $289 million this fall. Today’s funding is being made available per Wisconsin’s successful completion of Part 1 of the State Stabilization Application, which was made available on April 1st.

“The $587 million Wisconsin will receive today is part of the single largest boost in education funding in recent history,” said Duncan. “The President’s leadership and support from Congress have made this historic investment possible. Wisconsin can now utilize these funds to save jobs and lay the groundwork for a generation of education reform.”

To date, Wisconsin has received more than $192 million in education stimulus funds—representing a combination of funding for Title I, IDEA, Vocational Rehabilitation Grants, Independent Living Grants, Impact Aid dollars and Homeless Education Grants. On April 1st, Wisconsin received nearly $74 million in Title I funding and $112.5 million in IDEA funding. This represents 50% of the Title I and IDEA funding Wisconsin is eligible for in total. On April 1st, Wisconsin also received $5 million in Vocational Rehab funds and $900 thousand in Independent Living funds. On April 10th, Wisconsin received $415,012 in Impact Aid Funding.

In order to receive today’s funds, Wisconsin provided assurances that they will collect, publish, analyze and act on basic information regarding the quality of classroom teachers, annual student improvements, college readiness, the effectiveness of state standards and assessments, progress on removing charter caps, and interventions in turning around underperforming schools.

Wisconsin is also required by the Department of Education to report the number of jobs saved through Recovery Act funding, the amount of state and local tax increases averted, and how funds are used.

See Wisconsin and other state applications for initial funding under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program at http://www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/resources.html.

This is the ninth installment of this blog’s series on civics literacy. It focuses on the third item in the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s civics literacy quiz. The quiz that most Americans fail or score lower than what is acceptable. There needs to be something of a renaissance on this topic in this country. That end is the mission of this series. So to get right to it the third item on the quiz taken last year pointed to the three branches of government in the United States. The linked text below offers a simple overview of the importance of this concept.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention faced a difficult challenge. They wanted to ensure a strong, cohesive central government, yet they also wanted to ensure that no individual or small group in the government would become too powerful. Because of the colonies’ experience under the British monarchy, the delegates wanted to avoid giving any one person or group absolute control in government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the government had lacked centralization, and the delegates didn’t want to have that problem again. To solve these problems, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention created a government with three separate branches, each with its own distinct powers. This system would establish a strong central government, while insuring a balance of power.

Governmental power and functions in the United States rest in three branches of government: the legislative, judicial, and executive. Article I of the Constitution defines the legislative branch and vests power to legislate in the Congress of the United States. The executive powers of the President are defined in Article 2. Article 3 places judicial power in the hands of one Supreme Court and inferior courts as Congress sees necessary to establish

A copy of the US Constitution is available on this blog on the main page in the sidebar under the heading ‘Pages’. The references above can be found there. Or use any resource you are comfortable with as long as you make an effort to improve your understanding of YOUR country, its founding and how government is supposed to work. No matter what your skill level if you cannot ace the ISI quiz you need to work on this. That of course assumes the person reading this is an American citizen or genuinely wants to become one for the right reasons.

Fewer than half of all Americans can name all three branches of government, a minimal requirement for understanding America’s constitutional system.

Read the linked text below and take the quiz by clicking on it to determine your understanding and/or the need to do better.

Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better? Questions were drawn from past ISI surveys, as well as other nationally recognized exams.

The next post in this series may list some handy resources for improving your knowledge and understanding of critical information every citizen should know.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, the knowledge or skill level of the author of this blog is a work in progress like everyone else. These posts are not intended to insult anyone unless that is what it takes to get people to address their civic responsibilities. Too often rights are what receive the focus. Responsibility is equally important and often overlooked.

The first video may not be so impressive unless you are familiar with the history or background of the Messerschmidt Me 262 jet aircraft. That’s why the second video is presented. Although this story is not new bringing back something which barely missed extinction in the face of historic events is a good thing in this case.

The next video is by description a clip and ends rather abruptly but you’ll get the idea if you need some background information. The introduction of jet engine technology and jet powered flight was being developed around the time of WWII. This bird is certainly part of that chronology and history. An impressive early entry into this technology.

Just a little Sunday distraction the selection of which was influenced by the blog author’s personal bias and serious interest and participation in aviation. (and partly by chance)
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

A resolution dated April 22, 2009 sponsored by Rep Nita Lowey (D-NY) and at the time of this writing co-sponsored by no one was presented at The Hill dot com’s Congress Blog by its author. Dismissing those who do not share her view on global warming as ‘deniers’ Lowey injects plenty of insulting rhetoric but appears to expect anyone reading her post (which is crossposted at HuffPo) to take her claim on faith. Lowey claims the evidence for global warming caused by humans is ‘conclusive’. But of course no details or links are provided to make her case.

The First Step is Admitting You Have a Problem (Rep. Nita Lowey)
April 22nd, 2009

In the past month, the House Minority Leader called the idea that carbon dioxide - a greenhouse gas and known carcinogen - is dangerous “almost comical,” and members of his party suggested that the planet is actually cooling and “carbon-starved” and invited a global warming denier as a public witness to a Congressional hearing on the topic.

As anyone with experience with recovery knows, the first step in addressing a crisis is to admit that you have a problem. Unfortunately, these displays and others make it increasingly clear that, despite conclusive scientific evidence on the existence of global warming and the human role, some elected officials refuse to take Step 1.
As Congress begins the process of legislating to protect humans and ecosystems from the effects of global warming, I believe we need a “temperature check.”

It is interesting that Rep Nita Lowey makes the statements above with such conviction. Yet the resolution she authored and introduced in Congress April 22nd in stark contrast has no such confidence. She offers seven ‘whereas’ statements which list her arguments supporting that human activity causes global warming. But twice she is only mildly hinting that such is the case with two statements. ‘Recognizing that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions.’ And ‘Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives– (1) recognizes that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions; and (2) recognizes legislation is needed to mitigate risks humans and ecosystems face from a warming climate system.’

Seven details in an effort to support her claim that we are causing global warming followed by two statements in her conclusion that this is ‘very likely’ rather than something reflecting she is convinced by her own argument. Maybe she missed arguments to the contrary or in her zeal to support her political party dismissed everyone that disagrees as a ‘denier’. There was an article in the Politico which offered the following last November.

Scientists urge caution on global warming
By: Erika Lovley
November 25, 2008 04:48 AM EST

Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.

There are scientists on both sides of this issue. Another excerpt from the same article points out one example.

Armed with statistics from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center, D’Aleo reported in the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac that the U.S. annual mean temperature has fluctuated for decades and has only risen 0.21 degrees since 1930 — which he says is caused by fluctuating solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not carbon emissions.

The article also stated ‘most’ scientific bodies support the notion of global warming and our involvement in it. Organizations may not reflect the opinion of everyone connected to their organizations. But over 30,000 scientists who signed the Petition Project since 1998 make an even stronger case than global warming or cooling. They have objected to the idea that the debate is over and the science is done. That presents an intelligent and reasonable conclusion. Science has always been about continuing the pursuit and regularly challenging theories and discoveries. Galileo risked his life for that pursuit as did others. Some people take science seriously. Here’s a snapshot of what the project and the signers are ‘about’.

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

In contrast to that and published in 1992 the Union of Concerned Scientists which boasts 250,000 members including scientists and ordinary citizens offered their National Call to Action on Global Warming which proposes essentially taking all sorts of steps to eliminate human causes of global warming. For an organization that gives at least some impression of being science related they have a troubling list of organizations supporting their position. That list may have a political agenda or at least be characterized as special interest. Or another way of putting it is lobbyists. Decide for yourself, here’s the list.

Organizations Endorsing the National Call to Action on Global Warming:

1Sky * ACORN * Alliance for Climate Protection * Audubon * Catholic Healthcare West * Center for International Environmental Law * Ceres * Clean Water Action * Climate Law and Policy Project * Climate Protection Campaign * Climate Solutions * Defenders of Wildlife * Democracia USA * Earthjustice * Eco-Equity * Ecology Center * Energize America * Energy Action Coalition * Environment America * Environment and Energy Study Institute * Environment Northeast * Environmental Law and Policy Center * Green for All * Greenpeace * Health Professionals for Clean Air * Hip Hop Caucus * ICLEI USA * Insitute for Agriculture and Trade Policy * Interfaith Power and Light * International Forum on Globalization * Kyoto USA * League of Conservation Voters * League of Women Voters * League of Young Voters * Massachusetts Climate Action Network * National Hispanic Environmental Council * National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions * National Wildlife Federation * Oceana * Oxfam * Physicians for Social Responsibility * Progressive Future * Public Citizen * Religious Witness for the Earth * Rock the Vote * SEED Coalition * Sierra Club * Southern Alliance for Clean Energy * Teleosis Institute * The Humane Society of the United States * The Student Public Interest Research Groups * The Wilderness Society * Union of Concerned Scientists

This post does not suggest global warming does or does not exist. It does not even suggest whether humans are or are not responsible in whole or in part. But this is what it does suggest. Those who dismiss opposing viewpoints are ignoring scientific method. Just because you may want the argument resolved or that it would be expedient does not gurantee the science will support it or be available now.

As stated earlier in this post, Lowey is not even convinced it is real. That is why pursuing legislation based on the SWAG method is ridiculous. Check your politics and special interest agendas at the door. Causing panic to rush to legislation is a very good sign the proposal is flawed. That is what the science should help you avoid. Listen to the more than 30,000 scientists telling you the answer is not here yet.

Stanford Matthews
Morewhat.com

This blog has recently started pointing readers to columns by George F Will. This blog’s author is of the opinion that Mr Will is on point, quite capable and correct to such a degree that all would benefit by paying attention. This is not idol worship or casual linking for some blogging benefit. It would not be expected for all to agree with George Will or anyone else who is widely published in columns or op-ed features. And some responses to one of Mr Will’s recent columns is no exception.

So yes, just below is the link to the referenced item and an excerpt that is this blog’s view of the central point. It is to be expanded upon after the excerpt and some references to commentary that doesn’t get it. As an aside it was no surprise that none other than Rush Limbaugh chose to sidestep the topic by only saying he finds denim or jeans to not be comfortable attire and therefore does not wear it.

Demon Denim

By George F. Will
Thursday, April 16, 2009
(an excerpt)
Denim is the carefully calculated costume of people eager to communicate indifference to appearances. But the appearances that people choose to present in public are cues from which we make inferences about their maturity and respect for those to whom they are presenting themselves.

The statement above is not difficult to understand. But it seems many have difficulty agreeing that it is correct. Maybe they focused on other parts of George Will’s column or simply chose to disagree based on their own preferences regarding the ‘demon fabric’. If you can find disagreement with Will’s position then perhaps the only flaw in the presentation is limiting the discussion to one item…. jeans.

from a post and forum discussion at Free Republic

from an item at the Washington Independent:

For years, I really did enjoy reading Will, whom I, like many on the left, often found to be a smart, reasonable, entertaining, and increasingly rare voice of old-school classical conservatism. I’m not sure what happened to that guy, but maybe it’s about time for Will to start thinking about packing it in. He’s had a good run, and it’s probably better to go out with a shred of dignity than as a has-been laughingstock.

And if I, in the autumn of my career, ever start publishing pointless and nonsensical ravings such as Will’s anti-blue jeans diatribe, I do hope someone will Google this post and send it to me, and I will take that as my signal that it’s about time to hang it up.

Anyone who does not support the notion that appearance matters is living in a dream world. Having an unfavorable opinion on the significance of personal appearance does not form the basis of an argument to the contrary. An expanded discussion on the topic could start with what one wears to a job interview. Even for jobs in the blue collar sector of employment where jeans for example are likely part of the common attire at work few are adorned with it when attending an interview. This may cause those who are old enough to recall a time when formal, semi-formal or casual dress applied routinely. With the advent of casual Fridays a departure from longstanding rules about appearance were distinctively and demonstrably introduced. That was not necessarily a good thing.

Etiquette and rules about personal appearance were not established for their own sake. Like many other cultural norms they represent much more than what may only be an annoyance to some. How we treat each other or how we demonstrate our reverence or respect toward what is appropriate are reflections of who we are. It is not a matter of being politically correct or incorrect. Decorum is a word that comes to mind. How we appear and how we behave says more about who we are, what we value and how we are likely to perform than anything we can express in the spoken word.

A few more examples to complete this post may be helpful. Some of you may recall your youth with memories of ’school clothes’ and ‘after school clothes’. If that has to be explained you did not experience it. But everyone should recall the phrase ‘Sunday go-to-meeting clothes.’ Brides, bridegrooms and wedding parties typically wear formal attire. Others attending such an event, a wedding, generally wear semi-formal dress. The military has an extensive protocol for what is worn for everything they do. In the workplace, gee, from where did the terms ‘white collar’ and ‘blue collar’ come?

One last thought that may also be helpful. Don’t agree or disagree with this particular George F Will column without giving it some serious honest thought. Check your personal bias at the door. Consider the underlying and broader implications of this discussion of jeans. There is much more there than many have recognized. That may be why this blog regularly references columns by George Will. (at least lately)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This news item may not get the attention it should. Whenever promising advancements are indicated as they were with initial success in demonstrating superconductivity, there always seems to be another problem to solve. In the former case, requiring temperatures nudging up against absolute zero is a significant example.

If controlling electron spin was previosly possible only within a frigid, impractical landscape, NC State researchers may really have something here. That is to say anything you can now do without the need for severely cold temperatures is a definite plus. First a memory device, after that, what’s next?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Electron spin control: A physics triumph

North Carolina State University scientists said they have developed a magnetic semiconductor memory device, using certain thin films that utilize both the charge and spin of electrons at room temperature.

The scientists said their achievement is a triumph in physics research, since previous devices that used magnetic semiconductors and controlled electron spin were only functional at minus 281 degrees Fahrenheit.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

( source of excerpt: Transcript of Federalist Papers, No. 10 )

from MoreWhat.com:

This post in a continuing series on this blog was selected while studying the above referenced document. The excerpt chosen seemed appropriate given the current, and for that matter, most, political climate(s). To anyone suggesting the founders or their body of work is somehow irrelevant these days follow the link provided and begin or renew your familiarity with this and other founding documents critical to our nation’s continued survival.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Nancy Pelosi seems downright excited about praising Caesar Chavez on the anniversary of his birth. She also seems to be reaffirming her support of illegal immigration and shamnesty with her press release that celebrates the life and times of Caesar Chavez.

At one time the author of this blog was impressed by Chavez also. That was with the idealism of youth and taking things at face value. It appeared to me then that this was a man who saw some people being treated unfairly and made it his life’s work to correct that injustice. Long ago I learned that upon further review, just like instant replay in football, situations are not always as they seem (at first).

Pelosi sings the praise of Chavez and the liberal mantra to help the little guy and right the wrongs of society. It’s lefty-speak for simply ripping people off a different way. Just like Chavez was instrumental in shamnesty in his own time, when undocumented workers threatened his own ambitions he fought to have it stopped.

It has nothing to do with correcting injustice. It has to do with fooling people into believing they are being helped when it is just another scam artist wanting their piece of the action.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

03/31/2009

Pelosi Statement on 82nd Anniversary of Cesar Chavez’ Birthday

Washington, D.C. - Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today in honor of the 82nd anniversary of Cesar Chavez’ birthday on March 31st:

“Cesar Chavez taught us that dignity and sacrifice can inspire a people and bring about change. He famously believed that ‘to suffer for someone in greater need was human.’ It is this belief, along with his struggle on behalf of America’s farm workers, that makes Cesar Chavez an American hero.

“Cesar Chavez devoted his life to improving the working and living conditions of America’s farm workers. His efforts for fair wages, pension benefits, and medical coverage have improved the lives of thousands of families.

“In his honor, last year Congress passed the Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the sites associated with the life of Cesar Chavez and the farm labor movement. To celebrate his commitment to our nation’s farm workers, we expanded the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs, allowing the sons and daughters of our farmers to get an early start on their education.

“Today, on Cesar Chavez’ birthday, we renew our commitment to his fight for equal rights and fair working conditions. Our efforts in Congress to bring justice and opportunity to all are the continuation of his work, and his legacy is remembered by millions.”

Chavez, Organized Labor and Shamnesty

The UFWA during Chávez’s tenure was committed to restricting immigration. César Chávez and Dolores Huerta fought the Bracero Program that existed from 1942 to 1964. Their opposition stemmed from their belief that the program undermined U.S. workers and exploited the migrant workers. Their efforts contributed to Congress ending the Bracero Program in 1964. In 1973, the UFW was one of the first labor unions to oppose proposed employer sanctions that would have prohibited hiring undocumented immigrants. Later during the 1980s, while Chávez was still working alongside UFW president, Dolores Huerta, the cofounder of the UFW, was key in getting the amnesty provisions into the 1986 federal immigration act.

On a few occasions, concerns that undocumented migrant labor would undermine UFW strike campaigns led to a number of controversial events, which the UFW describes as anti-strikebreaking events, but which have also been interpreted as being anti-immigrant. In 1969, Chávez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valleys to the border of Mexico to protest growers’ use of undocumented immigrants as strikebreakers. Joining him on the march were both Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale.[9] In its early years, Chávez and the UFW went so far as to report undocumented immigrants who served as strikebreaking replacement workers, as well as those who refused to unionize, to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The Bracero Program

Even though the United States had made use of migrant Mexican labor in its agricultural sector since the early 1900s, such labor tended to be both migratory and seasonal with many workers returning back to Mexico in the winter. The situation changed with the involvement of the United States in WWII that created a massive labor shortage in all sectors of the economy with the withdrawal of much of the nations active labor force into the various armed services. The extreme labor shortage forced a change in immigration policy for the United States that resulted in development of the Bracero Program in conjunction with Mexico. The Bracero Program was a guest worker program that ran between the years of 1942 and 1964. Over the twenty-two year period, The Mexican Farm Labor Program, informally known as the Bracero Program, sponsored some 4.5 million border crossings of guest workers from Mexico (some among these representing repeat visits by returned braceros).

Mexico and WWII

Five items are listed at Wiki about Mexico’s contribution to WWII. The most significant being an expeditionary air force squadron named Escuadron 201 with limited duty during the closing year of the war.

Obama Census Plan: No Illegal Alien Left Behind (Michelle Malkin)

Taking a stand against the open-borders agenda (Michelle Malkin) 

Obama and crew had a plan to hit the Sunday morning talk shows and continue to pitch their agenda. Tim Geithner was on NBC’s Meet the Press and ABC’s This Week. There is no ‘hope’ that anything will ‘change’ about the approach of the White House or the Obama administration’s agenda.

One clip had a wall streeter saying when Geithner talked about his plan the first time they hated it. Now they love it. Why wouldn’t they? Private investment in toxic assets has the upside guranteed and the downside protected by the American taxpayer at an advertised rate of 7% for the private sector versus 93% for the taxpayer.

Geithner on This Week once again spoke of his desire for redistributing wealth as shown on this site bofore with his call for more broadly shared gains in future economic growth. While the Obama administration and Mr Geithner have done nothing more than stay on message and gain approval from the Wall Street they demonize by handing them a bailout for the bailout with the taxpayer assuming all the risk the plan to increase the role of government and redistribute wealth continues.

Mr Geithner also pointed out that expanding government’s role in education as well as dominating energy, healthcare and spending like mad on infrastructure for ‘make work’ jobs is still the primary goal of their ’stimulus’. There is nothing stimulating about it.

The anti-climatic appearance of Senator John McCain on Meet the Press after Geithner only served to provide comic relief as his words are still the same also. ‘Reach across the aisle’ and ‘compromise’ while keeping the borders as loose as ever. Okay Senator, you got two things right. The surge worked in Iraq and you supported it early compared to many others. You said the fundamentals of the economy were strong during the campaign and got hammered for it. Obama and crew are essentially using the same rhetoric and not being criticized much for it. Wonderful. And you were right to point out that Obama has gone back on his word about campaign promises like eliminating earmarks. To repeat, nothing has changed.

Obama and crew are buying favor with the same people they claim got us into this mess. And they are using your money to do it. If you see that as the hope and change promoted by Barry and friends and like it, you are definitely off your meds.

One more time, nothing has changed.

The roundtable on This Week featured George Will, Cokie Roberts, Matthew Dowd and Paul Krugman. Krugman of course maintains the Geitherner (Obama) plan is seriously flawed. And he has the credentials to render his opinion worth noting and something more than political opposition.

The rest of the panel provided a reasoned discussion the details of which you may or may not agree. If you are interested in those details it is suggested you view the program on Sundays. Transcripts appeared not to be available at the time of this posting.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A big old fashioned hat tip to Maggie’s Notebook for the following video but you are required to read her post to, as Paul Harvey would have said get ‘the rest of the story’. This is one of those posts that screams ‘are you paying attention America’? One can still muster some optimism that the American public will come to its senses as the insanity continues in Washington but the anticipation is extreme frustration. What the hell will it take to cause ordinary Americans to hold their elected officials accountable? Watch the vids and read Maggie’s post for a dose of what you apparently need, a wake up call.

Wake up, smell the coffee, socialism and corruption then act on it and get involved. Stop believing your involvement will make no difference. That will only be true if you do nothing. And if you do nothing long enough you may lose your right to get involved, SO, pull your head out of the sand or other location it may now be in and get on with it. And don’t expect one action to get it done. It has to do with rights and responsibility. You have to earn your freedom, every day. Let this become a habit. You will then see that your involvement does make a difference.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

An earlier post here indicated this blog’s hopes for Wisconsin success at the 2009 NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship after the first round. Well now, here it is late Friday night or early Saturday morning about a week later and another March Madness result curbs the expectation of a fan. With Marquette and Wisconsin out in the second this fan’s support moved to any other Big Ten Teams that remain. The last review when unable to watch the tourney indicated Purdue was out and Michigan State was what remained of the Big Ten heading to the elite eight.

Spartans and Jayhawks clash in Sweet 16

Detroit Free Press -
By SHAWN WINDSOR • FREE PRESS SPORTS WRITER • March 27, 2009 Michigan State leads Kansas 63-60 in the game’s final minute.

The scoring during this game is what one might expect with a two and three seed team doing battle.

Michigan State beats defending champion Kansas 67-62 Chicago Tribune

That’s my kind of game. Only a five point spread at the final. Basically this was a close match throughout. Now State gets to face number one Louisville.

Ouch!! Along with everything else in March Madness there is the occasional ‘thumping’ that one team must endure while the other basks in the satisfaction.

Louisville dominates Arizona in 103-64 victory

The Associated Press -
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Rick Pitino enjoyed watching Friday night’s game almost as much as his Louisville players enjoyed celebrating.

And there is the maybe not so cute plays on words or team names that seem popular in the press.

Orange peeled: Oklahoma rolls past Syracuse with 84-71 romp

USA Today - ?2 hours ago?
By John Bazemore, AP By Tom Weir, USA TODAY MEMPHIS - Tony Crocker picked an excellent time to break out of his long-range shooting slump, as he pushed Oklahoma into the Elite Eight with a barrage of three-pointers Friday.

Here is one common denominator within professional and amateur sports emerging again during March Madness. In an industry in which many participants ‘earn’ massive incomes, receive an inordinate quantity of press coverage and end up in the tabloids no less than any other ‘celebrity’ group the method by which public statements follow regime changes is as hollow as victories tainted by bad officiating.

It would be impressive if those who are supposed to be in possession of quality educations from institutions of higher learning throughout this country could manage an eloquent or at least original statement when attempting to produce an illusion to explain the firing of a coach. Funny how it is a ‘team’ thing when the highest performance results in a championship season but when that is not the case you fire the coach and lay all the blame at his feet deserving or not.

It is my responsibility to ensure that the University of Kentucky continues to be a special place in the hearts and minds of our fans across the nation, and that the right pieces are in place to return the basketball program to a championship level and continue those proud traditions of success.

This is not a place I thought we would be at this point, or one that I would want to be. However, after long and deliberate discussions, President (Lee T.) Todd and I have decided we must charter a new direction for the University of Kentucky men’s basketball program.

If you’re interested you can follow the link for the complete press conference opening statement. There is much sputtering about ideals and lofty sentiment accented with ‘the coach did it’ and even a few not so subtle ’slams’ toward the outgoing leader. Must be taking their cues from politics.

So how did that 93 year old do against Shaq in their bracket challenge??

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The second reporter called on by President Obama in his 3/24 press conference was entirely lame and appears to be a White House ploy to waste time rehashing the Obama claim that their plan for bailouts will impose sanctions on recipients and transparency and accountability no one has seen with the first half of TARP. The reporter asked if anyone would be asked to sacrifice and mentioned that those acting irresponsibly were ‘cushioned’ from the consequences of their actions by the bailout programs.

Several actions have been the focus of many reports discussing irresponsible acitivity by those looking for bailouts. Wall Street packaged bad subprime loans as worthy investments. Some borrowers speculated on the bubble or lied on their loan docs or accepted a loan for more house than they could afford. Countries all around the world, hence the term global crisis, were as greedy as the rest for buying up CDO’s and other instruments as fast as they could. There is plenty of blame to go around on who acted improperly.

President Obama used this second question from reporter number two as an aid to once again push his argument that has failed more than once already. Blame the prvious administration. Remind whoever will listen that the problem started before he got here. Long term economic growth is his message for deficits that will go out for years and his interest in expanding government including meddling in health care, energy and education more than it already does. The only jobs that may be created are temporary make-work jobs funded by taxpayer dollars.

The only difference in his argument this time is avoiding the punchdrunk laughter suggested in the 60 Minutes fiasco which Mr Chuckles could not hold back when discussing effects of the economic crisis. And we did not have to shake our heads due to another joke in poor taste like the one on Leno’s program. Nothing has changed. Hope and change have been turning to ‘ backlash.’ In past rebuttals to his budget ideas Mr Obama stated that those criticizing his plan had not produced their own. That is not true. The GOP produced a plan more heavily layered with tax cuts and provisions to create more jobs than Mr Obama’s. Yet they were closed out of discussions on the matter by the party in the majority.

Much of what Mr Obama has promised is nowhere to be found. People trying to make contact with his ‘open government’ have been ignored or contacted with irrelevant form letters. Lobbyists are still in the White House and elsewhere in the administration. Earmarks and pork barrel spending still rule the day. Changes to the government have tightened information not loosened it. Disclosure, transparency and oversight are not improved and could be argued to be worse than before. To keep pounding the same message after you have been rebuked numerous times says nothing for one’s leadership skills. All the talk of vetting and having discussions seemed to miss the mark on unveiling an agenda that could have been well received. Not unlike so many failed nominations the President’s agenda appears DOA.

A related item that seems worthy of repeating comes from the 60 Minutes interview when Steve Kroft asked the President if there is a limit to what we can spend? The President replied that we can spend as long as we can borrow the money. The fact that this question and answer were not major headlines throughtout this country rather than the punchdrunk laughter story or the bad joke on Leno is as troubling as Obama’s answer.

If you think we’re in trouble now. Wait until this country’s fine leadership spends us to the point where the governement can no longer borrow money. That will make burying future generations in debt look like a great idea. Trouble is by then it will be a moot point. Think about it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

One noticeable feature of President Obama’s March 24, 2009 press conference is that he likes the word ‘ host.’ According to the transcript he used it seven times during the press event but it seemed like many more than that. For a scripted press conference one could expect this distraction would have been removed from the program. It makes even more sense now why The Messiah prefers campaign mode and teleprompters. Had to get that out of the way first.

The second issue is the scripting of his performances. Yes, they are more like Hollywood performances reminiscent of the 2008 Presidential campaign and the use of Greek columns for backdrops and concert type venues for The One. At least in press briefings or conferences more typical of Washington it is known that who the speaker calls on for questions has been determined in advance with perhaps an occasional ad hoc invitation for a question or two. But calling on reporters like kids in an elementary school classroom is another unwelcome departure from past practice. Now the second item is out of the way. On to the meat of the subject.

The first reporter tried to ask a pointed question. That is, if using different words, the question could have been are you really a socialist Mr President and will you nationalize much of the private sector using the recession as an excuse? But instead she asked if the public should support or reject Geithner and Bernanke’s errand boy trip to the Hill asking for just such an action. Obama replied that not having the power to take over the private sector is exactly why the bailout mess happened. Gee Mr President, have you ever considered that not acting correctly on mergers and acquisitions that can stifle competition could have avoided the opportunity to call some companies too big to fail? Gee Mr President, is the Justice Department charged with the responsibility of oversight in this regard? Perhaps the SEC as well as other agencies and departments are involved also?

If you want to criticize other administrations for dropping the ball on unrestrained mergers and acquisitions that is quite understandable. But looking to nationalize private sector entities in whole or in part using the excuse of current dilemmas as justification is perverse. So is the growing evidence that Mr Obama and crew would be quite satisfied with a socialist regime in the good ol US of A. Go ahead, criticize this post and author for mentioning the ‘S’ word but then have the rebuttal evidence to support your position. Obama continues to promote nationalizing banks, businesses, energy, health care and increasing government control over education. In other words expanding the role of government in everything about private lives. Inidividual freedom and responsibility will be lost in a country founded on such principles if Obama has his way. Even George Will in a piece cited on this blog suggests the Obama answer and Washington DC in general is to fix things by expanding the role of government. While he has rejected the notion of socialism from Obama in the past this is about as close as he may get to saying it.

The next post will pick up on the question of the next reporter chosen by President Obama. Otherwise these posts will get much too large and unruly.

A related item that seems worthy of repeating comes from the 60 Minutes interview when Steve Kroft asked the President if there is a limit to what we can spend? The President replied that we can spend as long as we can borrow the money. The fact that this question and answer were not major headlines throughtout this country rather than the punchdrunk laughter story or the bad joke on Leno is as troubling as Obama’s answer.

If you think we’re in trouble now. Wait until this country’s fine leadership spends us to the point where the governement can no longer borrow money. That will make burying future generations in debt look like a great idea. Trouble is by then it will be a moot point. Think about it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Now, they tell us - Pt II: AP really catching on to Obama math! (Michelle Malkin)