Subject: Proposed Bail Out Package                          Pages: 1      

To: Representative Sam Graves

CC: None

Company Name: US House of Representatives

Fax Number: 202-225-8221

From: Bob Grant

Comments:

Personally, my wife and I have a credit rating of over 800 with all three reporting agencies – have had for a number of years.  We certainly could have borrowed the funds to live in a million dollar house – purchased new vehicles – bought a second vacation home – maybe an RV – certainly a Harley to drive around on the weekend.  However, we did none of the above.  Instead we live in a modest (paid for) house and drive an 11 year old Jeep and a 3 year old Jeep (both paid for).  We certainly would like all those extra things but we felt we could not afford them so we did not get them – simple decision in our minds.

We own a small business – never borrowed a penny and never will.  We are among the unfortunate investors who did not get the memo to pull our money out of a failed Bank before the FDIC took them over – we are now the proud owners of unsecured deposits of $61,000+.  For a small business – who has not borrowed funds – this is almost disastrous. 

I do not support any “bail out” program for any business, individual, or institution who wanted what they could not afford and now want bailed out of their mess.  We have lived within our means – there seems to be nothing in a bail out program for us and people like us?  A bail out program penalizes – in essence – those individuals and businesses who did not get caught up in “owning the moment”.  Everyone should have to live with their decisions.  I guess those who take the biggest risks should get the biggest rewards but it is hardly a gamble if those who take the biggest risks get bailed out by the government.

               At about 18, I was given “Atlas Shrugged”, books by Thoreau, Kant and Voltaire among others.  They certainly broadened my perspective on many things.  This emulsion of opinion, philosophy and thought, caused confusion at first, and then opened the door to critical thinking.  As an adult in business, this experience was invaluable.  I encountered some folks of the Republican philosophy there.  They spoke of the greatness of Calvin Coolidge and Eisenhower.  They wanted to work hard and get ahead in life.  It was Reagan who got my attention.  I voted for him, and don’t regret it.  His thoughts and methods challenged me to once again examine my own.  He made me feel good about the United States.

               So am I a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian or an Independent?  Well, that depends.  I have voted for all of the above, so what does that mean?  The Democrats espouse to be “for the working man” and support for “government services”.  As an individual, I have empathy for others.  It is easy to walk a mile in the shoes of others, to attempt to understand them.  This is probably a secret to my success in life.  The Republicans say they want you to be able to “keep more of what you earn” and espouse “limited government”.  I work for it, why can’t I keep it?  The Libertarian philosophy allows for “individual liberty”.  My attitude is live and let live.  The Independents say, well what the heck do they say?  So on balance, I agree with some basic tenets of all of them.

               The Democrats tend to go too far for my tastes as it relates to the role of government in our lives.  I really don’t believe that education is a federal role.  When renting an apartment to a woman who got Section 8 housing, fully paid utility bills, and food stamps, I noticed that she had a better television, a new SUV, and great furniture.  I paid for the building, and I couldn’t afford any of that.  I did however get a fat tax bill to help in supplying this to her!  I guess because I was “rich”.  They don’t have a problem with abortion as birth-control, but don’t spank the little bastard, and god-forbid you fry a mass murderer!  The Republicans want too much specificity over one’s personal life, while at the same time wanting to limit governments’ role.  They say that they are for freedom and capitalism, yet want to tell us who to sleep with, what is “dirty” and what is not, and what you should do with YOUR body.  They see no waste in the Defense budget, $300 hammers and all!  The Libertarians are for liberty.  The problem there is where to draw the line, or not to draw one at all!  Independents, much like “moderates” are wet dish rags at times.  Some things in life are worth fighting for!  You can’t just fence-sit.  So there is much hypocrisy in “party” politics.

               So that leaves me with what I am not.  I am not for unlimited freedom.  You can’t rape children, kill your neighbor, or tell other people how to spend their resources.  Rape a kid, and I can’t write here what I think we ought to do to you.  However, my Dad was 22 when he married my 16 year old mother.  I suppose that he would be a “predator” these days.  I think that is a load of bull puckey.  If they both consent at that age, it is nunya.

But the limits should be slight.  I don’t care what you do as long as you don’t step on my toes.  I couldn’t complain about my neighbors, because I don’t mind their business.  Leave me alone, and I’ll leave you alone.  I don’t care about pornography, drugs or prostitution.  There are worse things you can give someone than an orgasm.  But if you have a disease and give it around willy-nilly, jail for you.  If you want to take drugs at home and hurt no one, go for it.  But give it to my 10 year old kid and I’ll exercise my second amendment rights.  Read what you want, write what you want, and say what you want.  Just understand that there may be consequences like a punch in the nose or the need to listen to some malarkey so you can get your say.

So to paraphrase a song …if you mind your own business, you won’t be minding mine.  But we have an environment of partisanship, division and polarization.  I don’t believe that someone is a bad person if they don’t agree with me.  That being said, that doesn’t make me wrong.  It may be cliché, but the devil really IS in the details.  And while I do generalize about the parties philosophies, I don’t mean to stereotype.  I firmly believe that most people are good by nature. 

Open and honest communication, and a willingness to listen, is required to solve complex issues like abortion, race, gays, taxes, sex-education, religion or lack thereof, and all manner of contentious debate.  The puppet masters keep us arguing over the same, and taking our eyes off of the ball; the magicians’ sleight of hand if you will.  Opinions and individuals, however misguided, should be valued and respected.  It is the only way we can ever regain the upper-hand over those who would subvert that which makes America great.  Be proud, say it loud, but listen as well!  There just might be a solution there.

At 6:30 the morning of August 28, 1963 my grandfather in Pennsylvania and my parents in New York City boarded two buses both bound for Washington in the District of Columbia. All three of them were journalist; all three were Americans of African decent; all three held great expectation, pride and there was a jubilant hope in their hearts.
The summer of 1963 I was a youngster busy with summer things; wishing that summer would go on and on. I had visions of the first day of school and new school clothes dancing in my head and I had a few more trips to the beach to prepare for.
My parents sponsored the filled to capacity bus that left from the corner of 96th Street and Astoria Boulevard in Corona/East Elmhurst, Queens, New York that August morning. They didn’t take me and my sisters along; we stayed home with our grandmother. I guess they were concerned for our safety but I remember wishing that they had taken us,  and thinking that they should have taken us. When they returned home so full of hope and pride it was like they had been infused with new life and determination and it infected  us. Those same emotions were  felt by the  thousands that returned home from the District of Columbia on a bitter cold day in January of 2009.  It was just as  infectious and palpable then too.
This morning my maternal aunt sent the family a copy of the article my grandfather wrote about his reflections of August 28, 1963. I asked her if I could share it here on SWI but she answered my request via email saying “I’ve limited circulation to family because I’m giving it – and the rights to it – to the MLK Memorial in Chester. Sorry.” Suffices to say, like my parents were, my grandfather was inspired and infused by the events of that day. It is evident in what he wrote.
November 4, 2008 is another significant date in the history of these United States of America, it marks the date on which the first African American was elected to the highest office in the land. It also marks the date on which some misguided Americans felt they lost their honor (?) and their country (?). So tomorrow, August 28, 2010, they plan to attempt to erase the memory of that Great March on Washington. Glenn Beck and that woman from Alaska who sees Russia from her windows and folk like them want to erase the sanctity of that great march; they’ll tell you quite the opposite.  Once again these “teabag” hypocrites and bigots will try to sling mud on the efforts and gains of people who put their lives on the line for equality and freedom and for this great country but, something tells me they will not succeed because freedom loving Americans with hope and love and a true belief in justice can’t and won’t let them. The spirit of  our ancestors will stand on the side of justice and thwart their efforts and those of us who value freedom and cherish the the legacy of August 28, 1963 will be standing too because we have to.  We have to because we firmly believe; YES WE DO, YES WE WILL, YES WE CAN!

This  post is dedicated to the memories of  Corien Whitaker Drew, William T. Whitaker, Kenneth R. Drew and to the thousands who marched on Washington in the heat of summer in August of 1963.

Book Cover

Yesterday morning at approximately 2 a.m., I officially finished my first, full-length novel, The Gaslight Journal.

Begun back sometime in 2001, this book was originally a fluke of an idea.  Because I’ve said previously that I had no confidence in my writing, I did not work seriously at the thoughts of ever finishing this book, let alone trying to shop it around for either a publisher, or to make available as a Kindle title, which I plan to do.  I am shooting for an early to mid-November release date, hyping the publicity for Christmas.

It was around this time that I also joined an online writing group on Usenet.  That group of people that I met there, taught me a lot about life, growing up, the value of friendships of people you’ve never met, and how with just a little relentless encouragement and a whole lot of craft, I was the only one holding me back from doing this.  Some of those people–Steve W., Barry A., Joe K., Alaric M., Bob W., and Amanda T., are still close friends and confidants to this day.  To be honest, I have no idea where I would be in all this, if it hadn’t been for their kind hearts, and taskmaster discipline.

I highly encourage you to find a good, active online or face-to-face writing group.  The benefits of an online group, are that it’s easy to post excerpts or short stories for critique, and many, many people have the benefit of making comment, so you get many varying POVs.  Plus, my favourite, being able to post stories, comment and commiserate, all without leaving your chair or changing from your peejays.

The downside of a group of this nature, is that you generally have to wade through several timezones before you get an answer, sometimes waiting for days or even weeks in some cases, as people are extremely busy and the level of posting is in high volume.  The other drawback is that because each poster is in equal probability an amateur as well as a published, experienced author, you never know, without trial and error, if the advice you receive will truly work for you.

The pros of seeking out a face-to-face writing group, inherently, are the same as an online group:  you learn how to give–by mere repetition and discussion–effective constructive critiques, and you get them in return, which, since true writing is only in the RE-writing, will only make you a better writer.  You also have that immediacy of advice, because once you read your excerpt, you then have the luxury of hearing its immediate affect on those listening, and they can offer comment while the work is still fresh in their mind, and they haven’t had an ample amount of time to think about it, which often happens in online groups–people have lives to live between the time they read your story, and the time they have to comment, so opinions are sometimes in jeopardy of changing in that time, and you just don’t have the access to those visceral, gut-wrenching opinions.

The downside of this sort of group, is that you have to get dressed before you leave the house.  Oh, and you have a specified time to meet each and every week, rain or shine.  You can’t just sit back in your cozy armchair if the snow is too deep and you don’t feel like reading Shteeve’s latest tome until in the morning.

As you can see, both groups have benefits and both have their drawbacks.  As to which one will work better in your situation is entirely up to you, but the important and only thing is, that you find one and become an active part of it.  Those who offer critiques and read our stories are an integral part of the writing process.  Even if your average reader does not know how to place into words why your story sucks, if it’s not polished and snazzed up, is rife with misspellings, grammatical errors and typos, he will simply know it does, and that will be more than enough to kill your sales, because avid bibliophiles TALK.

Now that my own group disbanned about a year ago, I am also, in want of a new, constructive and active group, because I’m not nearly done writing–I’m just getting started!

My web-site: http://www.carlarene.com

My blog: http://carlarene.blogspot.com

Become a “Twit:” http://www.twitter.com/carlarenecomedy

As I sat mesmerized in front to my television sometimes singing aloud and other times mouthing the lyrics to songs I consider to be some of the most beautiful songs ever written it slowly began to dawn on me that this musical was not so much about American troops at war on an island in the south pacific as much as it was a story about racism.

Not long ago Minnette Coleman had a little exchange using one of the song from South Pacific and it as it had in the past when right over my head. The female lead Nellie is in turmoil because she has fallen in love with a man who has two children from a union with a brown skinned Polynesian woman. and Cable , a sailor is also in turmoil because he has fallen in love with Bloody Mary’s daughter Liat. When asked why both he an Nellie are so prejudice Cable explains

in song that You’ve Got to be Carefully Taught:
You’ve got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught
From year to year,
It’s got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a different shade,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You’ve got to be carefully taught!

That got me thinking; what other popular songs deal frankly with race and racism?

Southern trees bear strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black body swinging in the Southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.
Pastoral scene of the gallant South,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolia sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh!
Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.

Abel Meeropol, a Jewish high-school teacher from the Bronx, wrote a poem “Strange Fruit” to express his horror at the lynchings of Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith in Marion, Indiana. He published his poem in 1936 in The New York Teacher, a union magazine. Billie Holiday performed the poem in song a Capella at Greenwich Village’s Cafe Society in 1939 and Nina Simone sang the song in her album Pastel Blues released in 1965.

Sam Cooke’s A Change Gonna Come came to embody the sixties’ Civil Rights Movement. This was Cooke’s attempt to address discrimination and racism in America, especially in the American south. In October of 1963, Cooke and his band tried to register at a “whites only” motel in Shreveport, Louisiana and were arrested for disturbing the peace. The last verse of the song Cooke laments, “ There have been times that I thought I couldn’t last for long/but now I think I’m able to carry on, It’s been a long time coming, but I know a change is gonna come.”

In the late 1960’s The Beetles’ Paul McCartney addressed the American civil rights movement in his lyrics for Blackbird recorded on their The White Album:
Blackbird singing in the dead of night
Take these broken wings and learn to fly
All your life
You were only waiting for this moment to arise.
Blackbird singing in the dead of night
Take these sunken eyes and learn to see
All your life
You were only waiting for this moment to be free.
Blackbird fly Blackbird fly
Into the light of the dark black night.
Blackbird fly Blackbird fly
Into the light of the dark black night.
Blackbird singing in the dead of night
Take these broken wings and learn to fly
All your life
You were only waiting for this moment to arise
You were only waiting for this moment to arise
You were only waiting for this moment to arise.

In his 1973 “Living for the City” hit single from his Innervisions album.
Stevie Wonder recounts the life of a poor boy born in “hard time Mississippi” who has parents that work hard and encourage him, despite the awful conditions they live in; lack of food, money, and racism, his ill-conceived escape to New York City and his sad plight:
A boy is born in hard time Mississippi
Surrounded by four walls that ain’t so pretty
His parents give him love and affection
To keep him strong moving in the right direction
Living just enough, just enough for the city…ee ha!

His father works some days for fourteen hours
And you can bet he barely makes a dollar
His mother goes to scrub the floor for many
And you’d best believe she hardly gets a penny
Living just enough, just enough for the city…yeah

His sister’s black but she is sho ’nuff pretty
Her skirt is short but Lord her legs are sturdy
To walk to school she’s got to get up early
Her clothes are old but never are they dirty
Living just enough, just enough for the city…um hum

Her brother’s smart he’s got more sense than many
His patience’s long but soon he won’t have any
To find a job is like a haystack needle
Cause where he lives they don’t use colored people
Living just enough, just enough for the city…
Living just enough…
For the city…

His hair is long, his feet are hard and gritty
He spends his love walking the streets of New York City
He’s almost dead from breathing on air pollution
He tried to vote but to him there’s no solution
Living just enough, just enough for
the city…

I hope you hear inside my voice of sorrow
And that it motivates you to make a better tomorrow
This place is cruel no where could be much colder
If we don’t change the world will soon be over
Living just enough, just enough for the city!!!!
(You can see Stevie and Ray Charles performing this song on YouTube it is amazing!)

Here we are 61 years after the America first heard You’ve Got To Be Carefully Taught and all of America, is still struggling to overcome some day.

We are writing laws to prohibit Mexican people from living and working in America. We are casting a suspicious eye at anyone and everyone who looks Arab or Pakistani or wears a turban. We limit the immigration of Haitians and Nigerians yet we welcome Russians, Italians, Armenians, Canadians and Spaniards from Spain.

We take our children out of public schools under the guise of wanting them to have a better education yet the schools we put them in are segregated in nature but never in theory.

We shoot people dead because of their sexual orientation or the appearance there of and deny them partnership and family while we proudly yell “Religious Freedom” as long as you are a Christian.

We’ve elected the first African American president but then hate him because we think he is Muslim born in Africa (Dugh!). And, please don’t forget that  Health Care issue while we  farm  out jobs  over seas.

My fellow Americans listen well to what “Stevie Wonder” said 37 years ago:
“I hope you hear inside my voice of sorrow
And that it motivates you to make a better tomorrow
This place is cruel no where could be much colder
If we don’t change the world will soon be over
Living just enough, for the city”.

John Armor, Esq.
Box 243, 421 Kettle Rock Road
Highlands, NC  28741
828.200-0320
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
www.TheseAreTheTimes.us

The Emancipation Proclamation signed into law in by President Abraham Lincoln was a political maneuver. It listed the states that it would apply to while exempting several slave holding states. The proclamation did not include the border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, all slave-holding states, because they did not declare secession from the Union. Tennessee having come back under Union control, Virginia was listed but, exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia. Also given specific exemption were New Orleans and thirteen parishes in Louisiana. So The Emancipation Proclamation it did not free all slaves. It was Lincoln’s attempt to hold the Union together and keep slavery from expanding. In addition, Lincoln was afraid of France and Brittan coming to the aide of the session Southern states which could cause the Union to loose the war. He believed that the proclamation made the War Between the States all about slavery so by signing it, he could ensure that Britain and France would not enter the war because citizens of Britain and France would not support a cause that supported slavery even though France once practiced brutal slavery in the Caribbean, the French First Republic voted for the abolition of slavery in all French colonies. Lincoln may have not be a fan of slavery but his motives were not about freeing men women and children from a brutal amoral institution that denigrated people, destroyed cultures and families and still affects this country today. No, Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union.

During World War I African Americans joined the military in an effort to be fully recognized as equal American citizens. And while Black soldiers served in segregated units they were also involved in protest against racial injustice at home and abroad. The NAACP fought against discrimination and segregation in the United States military during WWI and WWII.
During the Korean War, the all-black 24th Infantry Regiment, which served during the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II and the beginning of the Korean War, was disbanded as a political gesture to end segregation in the U.S. Army.  During the Vietnam War the highest proportion of blacks ever to serve in an American war were assigned to serve in the infantry. The percentage of black combat fatalities in Vietnam was 14.9 percent. Rather high don’t you think?
African American soldiers have willingly gone to war to “defend” this country and protect the freedoms or White America during and since the slave era. They did so mistakenly believing that they were proving their patriotism and winning freedoms they were denied at home simply because of the color of their skin. So please, Mr. Gray, please do not shout “Emancipation Proclamation” at me. I understand better that you what it meant then and what it means now.

Attitudes may be changing, true, but, the fact remains that discrimination and segregation part of this nation. Tiger Woods’ victories exposed the still segregated country clubs. The military has a few African American in the top command but not in proportion to the number serving in combat or in the kitchen. When an elected official can callously publicly used racial slurs to defame the president and political opponents have depicted President Obama with racially insulting caricatures then I worry about the morale of the American African children who dream of being President the United Sates of American one day.

So while you and others are concerned about the morale of our troops I’m concerned about the morale of the single mothers who can’t properly feed and clothe their children I’m concerned about the morale of families who are losing their homes to foreclosure and the teachers who are being laid off and the low level state and federal employees who are being forced to take unpaid furloughs. I’m concerned about the morale of the students and the people who just lost their unemployment benefits while high paid law makers with health insurance go on vacation. I’m concerned about the morale of the Americans who can not afford health insurance and for American women who are denied health insurance because they have a preexisting condition called being female.

I do feel for the families with loved ones engaged in these wars. I do feel for the young men and women fighting these wars. I have friends who have children serving. I have family members serving and they do so by choice. I don’t mean to be callous it is just how I see it.
When all, not some, of America’s freedoms are fully available to me and people like me then I can share your sentiments. When people like me no longer hear buzz statement like, “You have great job experience but we can’t hire you because you are over qualified” or until banks and lending institutions no longer discriminate against people like me trying to get a home loan at a decent rate. Or predatory lending no longer disproportionately affect people like me and people who want to work can find decent paying jobs then maybe I too can share your sentiments on troop morale. Until then, I’m sorry I just can’t.

Twenty-seven little words packed with so much meaning, and causing so much debate.  The recent McDonald v. Chicago decision seems to put to rest nearly fifty years of debate; especially when teamed with District of Columbia v. Heller.  These two decisions hold that the Constitution of the United States extends the individual right to arms and that the Second Amendment is applicable to every city and state.  Did they make the right decision?

To determine the answer to this question, a review of the history of the amendment and its meaning is required. One way the King reduced the colonists’ liberties, was by quartering the Redcoats in individual homes. These troops also took over the buildings of governance in the colonies.  Further, the game laws were written in such a way as to disarm most “subjects”.  The Redcoats also confiscated many arms in the colonies.  With this history, the colonists feared a strong military ruled by a powerful central government.  The Second Amendment was codified as a pre-existing right.  The very text of the amendment says so implicitly in the declaration “shall not be infringed”.  The Federalist papers and contemporary writings of the late 18^th century show that people feared a powerful central government.  The anti-federalists, including Patrick Henry, James Monroe and Thomas Jefferson, insisted that a Bill of Rights be created to protect individuals from a strong federal government.   They advocated clearly defined and enumerated rights providing explicit constraints on government.  They believed that the peoples’ power should stay close to the people, and that allowing a strong army to be controlled by the executive, would be used to intimidate and subvert the liberty of the people.  While traditional local militias would be a safeguard against national military power, the right of citizens to bear arms would be the best safeguard against a strong central government.  Being the final arbiter of what is necessary and reasonable, the people would prevent the federal government from overstepping its’ bounds.  They also understood that any attempts to subvert liberty would have to be done over time and gradually.  The delegates to the Constitutional convention had understanding of the need not to overstep their authority.  As such, the powers delegated to the federal government were specific and very limited.

            The discussions of the Second Amendment and its functions centered on the rights of self-defense, to deter undemocratic government, and to repel invasion.  Text of the discussion included… “it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are insufficient to restrain the violence of repression”.  A proposal to add the words “for the common defence” next to the words “bear arms” was soundly defeated.  The Second Amendment was adopted December 15, 1791.

The first century of the amendment drew little controversy or argument over its meaning.  The link between the US and English Bills of Rights, and the codification of existing rights, not creation of new rights, has been acknowledged by the US Supreme Court.   Further historical examination supports this theory.  North Carolina and Rhode Island agreed to ratify the Constitution, only after the Bill of Rights was added.  Federalist Noah Webster stated “an armed populace will have no trouble resisting a threat to liberty”.  The 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution confers the right, “the people have a right to bear arms in defence of themselves and their state”.  The 1784 New Hampshire Constitution states, “non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression is….destructive of the good and happiness of mankind”.  Published in 1803, St George Tucker’s legal reference said the amendment was without qualification, condition or degree, and expressed hope that we “never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of liberty”.  In 1825 William Rawle declared:  “No clause could, by any rule, be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people…this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint”; a general prohibition against abuse of government power.  Lysander Spooner, an abolitionist, stated that the object of all of the Bill of Rights is to assert the rights of individuals against the government.  Nunn v. Georgia, 1846, concluded that any law precluding the open carrying of arms was in violation of the Constitution, and thereby void.  It further reasoned that the prefix of the Second Amendment showed that it originated from fear that the governments’ power was not sufficiently limited.  Even Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856, states that slaves who become citizens have the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they want”. 

In recent years, there has been much discussion of the phrases “well regulated militia” and “bear arms”, and their purported meaning of military applications.  However, early constitutional provisions in ten of the states speak of the right of the citizens or people to bear arms in defense of themselves.  Further, it was the militia which was to be regulated, not the people.  The citizens were the governor on the militia.  The evidence, proofs and discussions of this meaning are too numerous for a column.  Suffice it to say, both phrases were regularly applied in the individual context.  The right to have arms for ones defense was described in the philosophical writings of Cicero and Aristotle as natural rights (rights by Nature).  The term “regulated”, in the 18^th century and today, means ‘subject to rules and regulations’.  It becomes clear that it was the militia who was to be “well-regulated”.  The Constitution goes further to state that the Congress will vote as needed, to create a standing army, limiting such army to a period of two years.  Then there is discussion of the word “militia”.  It is true that a militia has meaning in a military application.  However, numerous Federalist Papers and discussions of the Continental Congress noted the intent of having a national militia (Army, Navy), a local militia (National Guard), and a citizenry with arms.  This is yet another system of checks and balances put in place by our founders.

Having presented substantive evidence, it is without question that our republic was founded with an individual right to be armed.  Therefore DC v. Heller was the correct decision.  Justice Breyer, even in his dissent wrote that the entire Court subscribes to the proposition that the amendment protects an individual right, separately possessed.

In the US Constitution, the phrase “supreme law of the land” denotes that a federal law is superior and applicable to all states laws if it is directly constitutional, and is not supreme if disallowed by the same; in fact it would be void.  Further, the Fourteenth Amendment dictates that the Bill of Rights applies to local and state governments.  It would seem clear then, that McDonald v. Chicago is correct.  Opinions to the contrary notwithstanding, it is settled law that the right of the citizen to be armed is individual and applicable in any jurisdiction in the United States and its’ territories.

The courts have held many things legal with considerably less support in law, and considerably more unsettled issues remaining.  The issue to watch is how the courts will deviate from the settled law regarding the Second Amendment, or the Bill of Rights in general.  Upon watching the Elena Kagan hearings, it was notable that she was unable or unwilling to rule it unconstitutional for Congress to regulate under the interstate commerce clause, what foods we are required to eat daily.  While the premise of the question was certainly laughable, the lack of an easy answer was not.  Incrementalism and factionalism were the –isms which most worried the founders.  At this point we have a right to keep and bear arms, to maintain a well regulated militia.  As Thomas Jefferson said “That government is best, which governs least”.

The least one can say of this initiative is that it is peevish and curmudgeonly and, up until now, you might even have described it as stupid.

But not any more.

It is suicidal.

Not only can Digg and StumbleUpon waltz around these restrictions, as can Facebook and Twitter, but a new form of open citizens’ journalism is emerging.

If you look at All Voices, a British citizens’ newspaper, you will see what looks like a classic online newspaper except that it is 100% built with freelance contributions on a social media platform.

The formula is simple – take standard newspaper, Facebook, Twitter and news aggregator models, blend gently and come up with citizens’ journalism.

As makes total sense, each journalistic post is incentivised according to readership, and I assume advertising revenue, and the editorial staff pick the best news items of the bunch and highlight them.

It gets my vote from both sides of the fence. Now where is that nice juicy local murder I can tell everybody about, or when will Nicole Kidman being visiting a town near me?

Sorted. She barely even struggled. ‘Nicole Kidman slaughtered by deranged freelance journalist – read more …..’

¿Qué hay en verdad de fondo tras la promulgación de la ley SB1070?

Un inmigrante se columpiaba

sobre la tela de una araña

como veía qué resistía

fue a llamar a otro inmigrante…

Más que una clave archivonómica se trata de un distintivo. La ley aprobada y por entrar en vigor dentro de unas semanas en el estado de Arizona, Estados Unidos, ¿qué es? Como lo veo yo, es una llamada de atención tanto para el gobierno y la sociedad estadounidenses como para los mexicanos; y aún más, para el resto del mundo.

Estados Unidos y cada uno de sus estados son libres y soberanos para hacer dentro de sus fronteras cualquier cosa que les plazca, y que sirva para la mejor convivencia. El respeto a la ley es prioritario en Arizona como en China, pero cuando las leyes son usadas como ariete, cuando se emplean como un pretexto para otros fines, es cuando resultan sospechosas, por decir lo menos.

En México, la reacción a esta tan cacareada y polémica ley ha causado gran disgusto, incomodidad y revuelo. Ya no se diga en Estados Unidos, donde las multitudinarias y variadas manifestaciones no se han hecho esperar. Se hacen a diestra y siniestra acusaciones a la gobernadora Brewer, empleando un sinnúmero de calificativos hacia su persona y su gobierno. El despropósito está instalándose en la opinión pública. ¿En verdad se trata de una imposición “racista”? ¿Cuál es el trasfondo de una decisión de esta envergadura? ¿Se trata de la versión real de aquella película “La segunda guerra civil” protagonizada por Beau Bridges? También podría pensarse que se trata de una artimaña concertada para forzar al congreso estadounidense a tomar medidas definitivas y, de una vez por todas, votar una reforma migratoria más que suficiente, más bien moderna y ajustada a las necesidades reales tanto del país como de la gigantesca población migrante que año con año determina el dinamismo de la todavía principal economía del mundo.

Pero también puede pensarse que es una forma de acicate al gobierno y la sociedad de México, toda vez que, entrapado el país en una guerra sin cuartel contra el narcotráfico y otras linduras como la crisis económica, la influenza, etcétera, está arrinconado en la definición de soluciones concretas, viables y factibles que resuelvan el problema de la migración dentro y hacia fuera del propio México.

MIGRACIÓN ES MOVIMIENTO

De México se va la gente no por falta de oportunidades, ofertas de trabajo hay y muchas, pero pocas satisfacen las necesidades y expectativas de la población. El campo ha sido abandonado a su suerte y la población rural ha optado por ceder a las “bondades” de la vida urbana. Sueldos bajísimos combinados con costos altísimos de diversa índole obligan a las clases bajas y media (lo que queda de ella) a hacer malabares, recurriendo a desempeñarse en más de una actividad para llevar el sustento a casa y cumplir medianamente con sus obligaciones más elementales. La concentración de poder político y económico en unas cuantas familias y empresas (sin hacer hincapié en las trasnacionales, muchas de ellas estadounidenses) ha hecho de México un laberinto cuyo centro no puede ser hallado si no como reliquia del pasado, y la salida, la mejor que puede ofrecerse, generalmente es la fácil y a contra pelo de las normas y los ordenamientos: piratería, comercio informal, narcomenudeo, entre otras.

De México y hacia el sur el problema es similar, claro que con matices según el país y la región. Hoy, México junto con el resto de Latinoamérica, ha decidido “dar la espalda” a Estados Unidos y formar un bloque común, con fundamento en lo que les es común, la cultura, el idioma. Latinoamérica en su conjunto es mayoría en población comparada con Estados Unidos y Canadá; pero, en otros factores por supuesto que son el contrapeso justo del continente estos otros dos. Por eso también México y el resto de Latinoamérica caminan de la mano de Estados Unidos. Pura conveniencia mutua. La división norte-sur, por maniquea, es parte de lo que está generando la mecánica del continente. Estados Unidos y Canadá, por su nivel de vida, son objetivo aspiracional para muchos latinoamericanos. Estos, al llegar a la “tierra prometida” ven, en la mayoría de los casos, que sus “sueños” se convierten en pesadillas, máxime cuando terminan siendo explotados, ninguneados, desprovistos de los derechos más elementales.

Está mal México, sí, porque no hace lo que debería para retener a su población. Pero también está mal Estados Unidos, porque está haciendo todo lo posible porque no entre en su territorio la materia prima humana que históricamente ha definido al país como lo que es, uno formado desde la raíz por inmigrantes (y, recordemos, no siempre de la mejor estofa, como muchos de los primeros colonizadores).

AL DEMONIO LAS FRONTERAS

En una época cuando las fronteras cada vez están más desdibujadas, la migración, sea por causas de turismo o por búsqueda de la supervivencia, acentúa y complica los conceptos añejos que teníamos de soberanía y nacionalismo, por mencionar dos. Al amparo de la “seguridad nacional” y el miedo irracional al “terrorismo” (también a los rebeldes que defienden sus causas nobles se les llama ahora de ese modo), países como Estados Unidos hacen lo que China hace dos siglos: cerrarse. Mientras, China hace lo contrario y ¡miren cómo está y a dónde va!

Entender los tiempos no es algo que a los gobiernos estadounidenses se les haya dado con cierta facilidad históricamente. En México, en cambio, seguimos viviendo de los rencores no asimilados.

Un genetista estadounidense ya demostró con sus investigaciones que el concepto de “raza” es no sólo una estupidez, sino el más imbécil pretexto para la discriminación. Todos tenemos de todos en nuestros genes. Pero no es más grave la discriminación por esta causa. La verdaderamente grave es la que obedece a prejuicios infundados, al odio irracional.

En una de mis primeras colaboraciones a SWI afirmé, y lo sostengo, que yo sí discrimino. Es natural la discriminación, es parte del proceso adaptativo de todas las especies. Discrimino cuando tengo que elegir entre comerme una manzana o una naranja, para ello aquilato sus propiedades, mi gusto, mi necesidad del momento. Pero entre este concepto en su acepción lógica, incluso ecológica y antropológica, y el uso que se le da cotidianamente al tratar con el otro sólo distan la grosería, la obsecación, la egolatría.

Los seres humanos nos debemos mucho a cada cual, y sería muy sano empezar a imaginar un mundo sin más fronteras. Ya estamos tan revueltos, que las líneas divisorias están de más. Estados Unidos (pero no únicamente) se ha dedicado a imponer su voluntad a otras naciones mediante recursos transfronterizos y pretextando mil y una razones, muchas de ellas bastante ridículas cuando no enojosas. Entonces, quieren o no quieren fronteras. Quieren mandar en el mundo, pero que el mundo no rebase el límite de… ¿de qué? Quieren ser el policía del mundo, pero en vez de admiración, como el policía de la película muda ganan animadversión y recelo de parte de los demás.

HABLANDO DE NACIONES Y TRAICIONES

Cuando un estadounidense muere fuera de su territorio, el mundo es el territorio estadounidense y hay que mover cielo, mar y tierra para dar con la justicia. Es un país que de suyo ha promovido la acción mercenaria. En México, nuestra Constitución pena al ciudadano que pelea en las filas de un ejército extranjero por causas ajenas a México, son traidores a la patria. Eso son muchos mexicanos enrolados para pelear como carne de cañón en Irak, Afganistán… Son traidores a México. Pero con en México somos muy románticos, además de ignorantes de nuestras propias leyes, cuando muere un mexicano “heróicamente” en esas tierras tan lejanas, en vez de señalarlo ensalzamos su memoria como la de “alguien que luchó por la libertad y la democracia”. ¡Pamplinas! Nos merecen respeto los familiares perdidos en algún enclave de la Sierra Madre, es humanitario allegarles el cuerpo para darle cristiana sepultura y consuelo. Es comprensible la actitud, pero entonces ¿a qué estamos jugando? ¿Somos o no somos?

¿Es para enorgullecerse pelear guerras ajenas para países que, aun cuando sus ideales son nobles, su fundamento es contrario a los intereses más básicos? El soldado mexicano en el ejército estadounidense, ese que come tacos y hamburguesas, ese que llegó de mojado y ya como recluta porta su green card, mastica a medias su lengua materna y escupe la adoptada, no es más que un mercenario. Un inmigrante y mercenario; mientras tenga papeles es tolerado, de lo contrario…

Contradicciones tenemos todos. Preocupante es que las contradicciones nos lleven a definiciones y decisiones contrarias a nuestra naturaleza. ¿Cuál es la naturaleza y el espíritu de la ley SB1070?

To counter this “benign ruler” point of view, some people in the early 1900s began to organize the working poor. Those most effective and trustworthy came from that background and took action. The work of Camus and Orwell springs from a real knowledge of poverty (Camus) or being an outsider among the privileged (Orwell). It must be pointed out that Camus took a dim view of Marx, and Orwell was horrified by Stalin’s Communism. But these two writers have held the greatest influence in the minds of Western thinkers who call themselves liberal. Camus went so far as to coin the term “libertarian socialist.”

The rise to political and economic power of the European workers had a parallel in the United States. While Communism was a hothouse flower that died quickly and Socialism remains a mystery to most Americans, the societal changes that occurred here were spurred by two forces basic to this country: a distrust of concentrated power and a belief in individual freedom. In this, both conservatives, liberals and those in the middle (that is, almost everybody – to paraphrase Camus) share common ground. Unionization helped, and so did “top-down” changes.

The liberal reluctance to classify people, either in groups or as individuals, comes from the concern that this leads to elevating one group or individual above others. But liberals in their rush toward equality in the 1960s and early 1970s overran the boundaries, and began to exalt those groups that had been previously held down. In the fray, the individual was lost. For liberals, the search for new groups to “free” became the doctrine.

However, in conservative doctrine, the individual is only free as long as he or she conforms to the dominant power group’s rules. The idea that new rules might be positive threatens their world view. This is experienced as a personal assault on their core values, even if it is not. While conservatives profess to be against “top down” order, in fact, they support it when it serves them (the recent immigration law in Arizona, for instance). At the same time, they believe that within the established order they are free.

Both liberals and conservatives, when they classify groups fall into the Hegelian abyss of duality, a never-ending cycle of dominance and submission punctuated by violence (which “history” can be seen to be). Both lose their moral and ethical balance and sense of measure that inspires their vision of freedom.

Behind every liberal deserving of the name stands a rebel who is sensitive to injustice and is compelled to act. The liberal who wants change for others, but does not change his or her own life, is just as status quo in his or her thinking as a conservative. Behind every conservative is an absolutist who wants to see his life style codified. There have been powerful cases made for the concept that human nature and the world we live in is ruled by immutable laws. One issue is that these laws are not agreed upon, and another is that there are dimensions we will never understand, and finally, there are those who see random phenomena as part of the norm. The rebel perceives that change must occur through every level of society. Even if the world were to be 9/10ths perfect, the rebel would not be satisfied. The rebel is an agent of change. As such, he or she will always be at odds with society.

Some people dream of a harmonious world where people with different points of view live equally and freely. But others prefer a society that affords them a modicum of safety and stability, including a hedge against diversity and change. In any case, both liberal and conservative thinking tends to live on the boundaries of human nature

Very few people ask what responsibilities are inherent in their freedom. What is the impact of rights for one person, for a minority, for the majority, and for society, on other people, and on society? What are our responsibilities as an individual? None, some, many?

Camus wrote that among the apparent truths about human nature is that each of us must always believe oneself to be innocent, and has a need to dominate and “see oneself as a hero.” Is freedom our goal? Stability? Peace? Does real freedom from the violent past begin when we can honestly and modestly confront the questions of individual and societal rights, their consequences, and their relationship to our own innocence and need to dominate? Was Camus right, that until we find that sense of measure, we will be lost?

John Armor, Esq.
Box 243, 421 Kettle Rock Road
Highlands, NC  28741
828.200-0320
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
www.TheseAreTheTimes.us

“No comments, please!”

What does that mean?  I’ve been thinking about it since the first “No Comments” post was put up a day ago.  I’m sure I don’t know.

The post is called “A new american civil war” and right at the top where it usually says “Leave a comment,”  instead it says “Comments are closed.”   That’s because at the bottom of the WordPress composing area there are two selection boxes that allow (or disallow) comments and track backs.

At first I though it was some kind of server problem as in “Uh, Oh.  SWI’s been hacked again and it’s going down.  Poor Bob…”  But no, Bob (our fearless editor-in-chief) checked and the poster meant to do that.  He wanted to post without allowing any comments to the piece itself.  I suppose we can post our own comments as separate pieces though.

What does not allowing any comments mean?  Could it mean that the posters’s afraid of comments?  That would be sad if true.  Buck up buddy, you can take it!  Be the he-man writer of your dreams ( or the she-woman, this is America, there’s nothing wrong with that.)

Could it mean that there are simply no comments necessary?  He’s written the perfect piece and there is simply nothing to say.  Wow, what a piece that must be.  Even the Declaration of Independence had comments, and lots of re-writes as well.  It hurt his feelings terribly, but as it turned out, Jefferson could take it.

Maybe the author just doesn’t like comments.  Maybe he feels they take away from the majesty of the piece or conversely, point out flaws.  Working with a good editor would be a horrendous experience, then.  Better stay away from that.

I have my suspicions, though.  It’s a kind of political piece, a radical political piece.  Reading through it reminded me of Archie Bunker sitting in his arm chair shouting at the TV.  Or maybe it’s Louis the 15th of France, although, I don’t think he had a TV.

It reads to me like the ramblings of a closed mind, which would explain why “Comments are closed,” as well.  Something like a work by Joe McCarthy, you know, full of the dangers of the red menace, and pauses for “Real American” horn tooting.   I think I get this impression from his section  about taking on the “liberals.”  He says:

“Unlike our opposition, we believe in honest debate.”

and then he closes the comments?  Sounds more like “Unlike our opposition, it’s our way or the highway,”  to me.

The piece has a lot of pent-up anger and resentment, but of whom I’m not quite sure.  There are cloudy references to a battle between Capitalism and Socialism, which I really don’t get.  What battle?  Does that mean capitalists should not use the Interstate highway system because it was a socialist project, paid for by the government for all the people.  Or for that matter the National parks?  There’s nothing capitalist about the parks, in fact many capitalists and businesses did their best to stop the spread of that dangerous trend.  The public school system, medicare, welfare, the armed forces and just about any other service provided by the government instead of some private for profit company could be thought of as socialist.

I guess mostly the feeling I get from the piece is that this guy isn’t getting his way so it has to be someone’s fault.  Maybe he forgot how a democracy works, too bad because that’s what our political system is actually called.  Capitalism is an economic system and a good one. You just can’t run a country that way, not completely anyway.  A democracy is run by the people.  People want things and they vote to get them.  If everyone gets to vote, does that make it socialist?

Anyway, if you have thoughts about why not allowing comments on a political piece, or any piece for that matter, is a good thing, let me know.  I just don’t get it.

Copyright Prentiss Gray 2010

Prentiss Gray is a writer and columnist and currently writes the Domesti-Tech Blog for Gannett.  He can be reached through his website at www.prentissgray.com

John Armor, Esq.
Box 243, 421 Kettle Rock Road
Highlands, NC  28741
828.200-0320
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
www.TheseAreTheTimes.us

John Armor, Esq.
Box 243, 421 Kettle Rock Road
Highlands, NC  28741
828.200-0320
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
www.TheseAreTheTimes.us

John Armor, Esq.
Box 243, 421 Kettle Rock Road
Highlands, NC  28741
828.200-0320
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
www.TheseAreTheTimes.us

After the election the President would have to have increased protection because a lot of the country would simply not accept a black man as President. The election might be contested or they might even say he wasn’t a citizen and not eligible to be President. Gun sales would skyrocket in the South and the threat level against him would probably go up four hundred percent. A whole new campaign would immediately be launched to slowly destroy his credibility. Far right commentators would make it their job to bring him down. In effect, the election campaign against him would continue.

Now the African American President would have to come in on a progressive agenda. So his mandate would be massive change. Let’s even give him a majority in Congress. Undoubtedly the first black President would be a Democrat. Now even if the Democrats hold a majority a caucus of Republicans would form up against him and threaten to filibuster his agenda. There would be a movement by the opposition to destroy him by thwarting every attempt to bring change. A sort of party of NO might form up led by Southern Republicans. In effect their goal would be to neutralize the President and make him a one termer.

Large segments of the American population would not accept him as President and a grass roots party might form up against the government. This might resemble the sort of thing we saw in the South in the sixties during integration. This party would undoubtedly be white based, anti-government, anti urban, anti cultural elite, ultra right, super nationalistic. Demonstrations in Washington might occur with an ugly racial undertone that would call for radical change maybe even revolution. It would be a party composed of people from rural America, disgruntled Americans, Independents disappointed in the Presidents ability to bring any change, and would attempt to sweep into power on a take our government back platform. Obviously they would be taking it back from the African Americans.

Gridlock would occur in government with the Republicans blocking legislation and literally nothing would be accomplished. The President would lose support from the people who elected him with the constant smear campaign and with sinking poll numbers he would lose his mandate to govern. The government would be held hostage by the new far right splinter group (with some crazy name hearkening back to revolution era patriots)threatening to unseat Republicans who work with the President. The Republicans and the splinter group would eventually join forces and take advantage of a populist surge to get rid of the President and his party. The majority in congress would be lost in midterm elections because nothing is being accomplished and essentially the African American President would be a lame duck waiting for slaughter in the next election.

This obviously isn’t going to happen or a long time in this country. But you never know, maybe one day.

William Hazelgrove writes in Ernest Hemingway’s attic. His latest book is Rocket Man

But we get the feeling President Obama is more comfortable campaigning than leading. He really needs to give those speeches, but we really won’t get fooled again to coin an old Who song. We bought it the first time around and really those stadium speeches were very impressive. But words must be backed up with action and now is the time for action.

 The President does not have to have anybodies approval. He has a mandate to govern so he really should forget about meeting with the Republicans and getting them sign on board. They won’t. So he has to get over that and just do what he has to do. He can no longer explain to the American public for the hundreth time his intentions. We get  it.. We know the stump speech by now and it is a good one. We are all Americans and he represents all of us. Ok. Go man Go. Go govern and don’t worry about the campaigning anymore. Mr. President, you won the election already.

William Elliott Hazelgrove writes in Ernest Hemingway attic. His latest book is Rocket Man.

http://www.billhazelgrove.com

Do not underestimate  the populist who can’t talk. For years we laughed at George ruining the English language. That Texas boot just stuck in his craw every time he had to quote some leader from the Mideast or get those evildoers straight in his mind from Afghanistan. He just didn’t like all that foreign talk but he could chat about a barbecue or a pickup truck or having a beer. Enter Palin the Palm reader.

 Sarah read from her palm like any other high school kid who cant keep his facts straight. It is an old trick and one that belies the person who just wants to get though the test and doesn’t really care about learning. Sarah just wants to get through the interviews and then get back to being Sarah. That she does very well. She really doesn’t have the intellectual curiosity of a Barack Obama or the encylopedic knowledge of policy and procedures that Bill Clinton possessed.

 The Palin Palm will tell us many things. One is she will never quite get the Bush Doctrine and she probably doesn’t really like to read the Atlantic Monthly or the New York Times and getting her news from the  heavies at Fox is good enough for her thank you very much. Forget the fact she is now a paid contributor, Fox gives us the high points and is wonderfully one sided. Forget all this bipartisan talk… real women takes the road of one point of view and never look back.

We have one of the most cerebral Presidents since maybe Woodrow Wilson and it doesn’t seem to be helping him very much.  Maybe we should step back and encourage Barack to start scribbling in his palm and tripping over his words a few times. Maybe just once to let people know he understands common folk with a Walgreen’s vocabulary and grade school education. America was never founded on the principal the smartest guy wins…more like the loudest, the pushiest, the most tenacious. In that regard, the Palin Palm has it hands down.

William Elliott Hazelgrove writes in Ernest Hemingway’s attic. His latest book is Rocket Man.

http://www.billhazelgrove.com

Totally globalized native New Yorker and former broadcast news producer Muhammad Cohen is author of Hong Kong On Air, a novel set in his adopted hometown during the 1997 handover about television news, love, betrayal, financial crisis, and cheap lingerie.

Oh its a referendum on change. Ok. The United States has problems. Take healthcare and the charge the Democrat s want to wreck the economy. The healthcare system is fine. No. It needs changing of some kind. You cant throw sick people in the street. But the Republicans say no no no. Obstructionists. These words mean nothing now. They are IDEOLOGIES.

People are losing their homes and they are unemployed. So lets help them. Lets take  money and give it to the bottom. We tried giving it to the top and that didn’t work. If you think that is is socialism then lets give people jobs. Lets give them something and don’t stand there calling names. The ideologies are mind candy, window dressing from talking heads who get paid. You don’t. They do.

We cannot indulge ideologies any longer because they mean nothing. The pundits are not interested in solving the problems they are interested in the show. A country where things are good can indulge ideologies as entertainment but we cannot. Things are not going good. Right left or center these people are not problem solvers they are paid. Remember that.  We cannot substitute stress over hard times into the false ideologies of men interested in ratings. If we want to help ourselves we have to quit masturbating empty philosophical ditties and start solving problems.

Obermann or Beck or Limbaugh they are just  spinning smoke. We cant indulge any more in  the empty promises of ideologies that have no bias in fact. There are no socialists plotting to overthrow the government.  There is a huge middle that is hurting. Lets quit the mental gymnastics and start helping ourselves and that doesn’t mean some guy in a pickup elected to just say NO. If someone tells you it’s the Democrats or the Republicans fault tell them to shut up and ask them how are we going to solve the problem. We better start saying yes to each other or get ready to wear the cap with the red star. Now that  is an ideology my friends.

William Elliott Hazelgrove writes in Ernest Hemingway’s attic. His latest book is Rocket Man

http://www.billhazelgrove.com

At the 1994 funeral of Richard Nixon (which I watched in Beijing during my first visit to China, right before cycling to Mao’s tomb in Tiananmen Square), I understood why all the living ex-presidents, regardless of party, and incumbent Bill Clinton felt obliged to attend. But when Clinton took the podium and said good things about Nixon, it taught me a key lesson: Clinton and Nixon and the rest of the politicians at that funeral were all on the same side, and that wasn’t the side I was on. I’m still hoping that someone on my side has finally gotten into the White House, and that they will deliver change we can believe in.

Totally globalized native New Yorker and former broadcast news producer Muhammad Cohen is author of Hong Kong On Air, a novel set in his adopted hometown during the 1997 handover about television news, love, betrayal, financial crisis, and cheap lingerie.

In various ways, the people are strongly indicating that they think Congress is out of control and needs adult supervision. Particularly galling is the revelation that Senate leaders bought critical votes on the health care bill by dumping hundreds of millions in special benefits into states whose senators had withheld support — until they got their bribe.
 
In answer to the public outcry, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shrugs and says that any senator who “does not seek as much as he can” for his own state isn’t doing his job.
 
Perhaps it’s time to look to the states, where more tools are available to rein in profligate legislators. If similar constitutional restraints were imposed on Congress, many if not all of the recent abuses would be prevented permanently.
 
With the way Congress is hemorrhaging the nation’s money, we can’t afford to wait until November to do something. Besides, whatever changes in policy occur in the midterm elections of 2010 may be temporary. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly written, each Congress is free to make its own decisions; no Congress can bind the actions of future Congresses. The only reforms that can permanently increase popular control of Congress are constitutional, not legislative.
 
Three controls that the people have placed in state constitutions do not exist at the federal level. These are balanced budget amendments, line item vetoes, and single-subject requirements.
 
Balanced budget requirements (BBA) exist in some form in all fifty states. There must be an escape clause in these requirements or the restriction would prevent all curative steps in an economic emergency. The late economist Milton Friedman suggested that a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress should be required to override the BBA proposed for the federal Constitution [I].
 
If the federal government had already had such a BBA, none of the current or proposed emergency spending bills would have passed in their present form, with uncontrolled and unverifiable spending and trillion-dollar deficits for the next decade at least.
The second constitutional control common in the states but absent at the federal level is the line item veto. This exists in 43 states in various forms. When they work, they prevent legislatures from passing kitchen-sink legislation. The temptation to stuff bills is common at all levels of government. Some legislators try to attach special and unpopular spending provisions to a popular and must-pass bill to force a governor to accept the bad with the good. With a line-item veto, a governor can strike individual items from any bill.
 
If every president had the same line-item power that most governors have, each president would be responsible for any earmarks that remained in any bill [ii]. President Obama has decried special-interest earmarks, but he has not vetoed any bill over them. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all sought line-item veto power. Congress passed a bill to create that power for President Clinton. Promptly after he used it, the Supreme Court struck it down, saying it must be established by amending the Constitution.
 
The third constitutional control common among the states but absent at the federal level is the single-subject requirement on all bills. This exists in 41 states in various forms. It’s another protection against kitchen-sink legislation when the issue is policy, not money.
 
Under single-subject, legislators cannot attach provisions on such hot-button issues as taxes, regulation, abortion, gun control, or welfare to highly favored bills on entirely different subjects. At the federal level, disfavored clauses are often added to bills with the intention of forcing adoption of the disfavored clause, or to create a poison pill to kill the overall bill.
 
All three of these provisions work more effectively if there is a tightly written constitutional control and a tendency of the highest courts in that jurisdiction to enforce them.
 
The remaining question: What are the chances that Congress, which has created the current problems, will pass by the required two-thirds vote three amendments which would curtail their current behavior? Given that the major legislation passed by Congress in 2009 has obtained a majority in both Houses, it would seem improbable to obtain a turnaround in both of them to two-thirds for reform in a single election.
 
On their face, all Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states, as stated in Article V. But that Article has an exception.  The exception was put in by the Framers in Philadelphia to deal with the possibility that the people might want a change that Congress opposed.
 
The 17th Amendment, which made U.S. senators elected by the people rather than chosen by the state legislatures, provides the critical example. In 1900, the Progressive Party controlled several states and was powerful nationally. One of the Progressives’ tenets was that the U.S. Senate should be popularly elected. Before 1912, that idea succeeded repeatedly — but only in the House, where the 17th Amendment passed ten times by a two-thirds vote. Ten times, however, the Senate defeated the Amendment without even a hearing [iii].
 
At the same time, the states began passing Calls for a Constitutional Convention, which is the alternate way to propose Amendments if Congress will not act. Article V provides that once two-thirds of the states demand a Convention, Congress must call one. Thirty-two states demanded that Congress either pass the 17th Amendment or call a Convention.
 
At that point, the Senate relented. It recognized that a Convention could write an Amendment that would put all non-elected senators out in the street and replace them immediately with elected ones. The sitting senators saved what they could from the impending 17th Amendment. They inserted the final clause, which says: “This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.”
 
The election route and the constitutional route are complementary, not alternative. Anyone who wants to reestablish control over the Congress should get active now for the midterm elections of 2010.
 
But they should also see to it that these three changes to the U.S. Constitution be submitted for consideration in all state legislatures, just like the call for the 17th Amendment was. Enough activity at the state level could send a powerful message to Washington.
 
John Armor
practiced in the U.S. Supreme Court for 33 years. He also wrote a book on term limits and worked for decades on the Balanced Budget Amendment. This article was written for the American Civil Rights Union (www.theacru.org). Contact the author at John_Armor@aya.yale.edu.
 
[I] Author’s note: I spent 25 years working on the BBA proposal, which included testifying before committees of 26 state legislatures as an expert witness on BBA and on Article V of the Constitution. I also spent a day two decades ago with Dr. Friedman discussing the precise language of the BBA.
 
[ii] See the testimony of Stephen Moore, Director of Fiscal Policy Studies for the CATO Institute, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on 24 January, 1995 at http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-moor2.html.

 
[iii] For a detailed discussion of the Convention Call route to amending the Constitution, including the 17th Amendment, see the Heritage Foundation’s review of Amending the Constitution by the Convention Method, an officially-adopted policy of the American Bar Association, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/bg637.cfm.
 
Original article:
 
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/getting_control_of_congress_pe.html

 So we need Hillary. We need someone who will get in there and burn these namby pamby conservative Democrats to the ground and push the obstructionist Republicans to the side.  We need someone not afraid to get dirty. Barack is looking a little too crisp these days, a little too polished while Harry Reid and the boys look like they have gone though a war. They have. They have had to fight without a commander. Mr. President, get in there and fight for us! Don’t take this watered down garbage that is now  passing for reform. Make Joe Lieberman accountable. The man got a million dollars this year from the insurance companies. He is as tainted as any Tammany Hall politician ever was.

I voted for President Obama, but I was afraid of one thing, he wouldn’t get in there and do the dirty work. He would leave that to others. I am a little that way. I let others do the hard gritty work while I point the way. That works to a point but then you have to join the fight. We need the President to put himself on the line for the Americans without health care. He needs to go for an all or none position on this one. My very trepidation about this President seems to be playing out…he might not be capable of getting down in the mud and fighting when the going gets tough.

Hillary could. We knew this. We saw it in the debates. She does do the hard work. She fights like a dog. And man do we need a dog now. We need someone who will not sell us down the road for a legislative victory and then wave the bill around, proclaiming Victory. Neville Chamberlain never erred so gravely by appeasing those who did not wish us well. While we will not have a World War if we lose this fight, we will have massive casualties.

William Hazelgrove writes in Ernest Hemingway’s attic. His latest book is Rocket Man.