ACLU FAILS IN ATTEMPT TO HAVE FLORIDA PRINCIPAL AND ATHLETIC DIRECTOR JAILED FOR SAYING GRACE PRIOR TO MEAL

   The Principal and Athletic Director of Pace High School in the Santa Rosa school district in the panhandle of Florida were found not guilty of criminal contempt of court on September 17.   They faced fines of $5,000.00 each, 6 months in jail, and forfeiture of their entire retirement funds if convicted.

   The United States Attorney filed criminal charges against the two men because they said Grace prior to a meal for contributors to the school’s athletic program.  The Florida American Civil Liberties Union reported to federal district judge Casey Rogers that the two had committed the heinous offense of praying prior to the meal.  The judge ordered the United States Attorney to file criminal charges.

   The highly publicized charges and trial resulted from a lawsuit filed in behalf of anonymous students by the ACLU to stop teachers and employees of the school district from praying and otherwise practicing any Christian belief at any school event, whether or not on school premises and whether or not during school hours.         The lawsuit was filed in late 2008, and in January, 2009 the federal judge entered a temporary injunction against the school and its officials and employees.

    A few days after the injunction was issued, the principal Frank Lay asked the Athletic Director Robert Freeman to say Grace before a luncheon at an athletic field house dedication.  The dedication took place off the school grounds, but was during the school day and was attended by school officials and students.  Lay and Freeman were charged with criminally being in contempt of the court’s injunction.  As soon as they were charged, an administrative arm of the Florida department of education commenced an inquiry as to whether the two men should lose their retirement fund.

    After a day long trial on September 17, the judge found them not guilty of intentionally violating her court order. She found that blessing the meal was spontaneous and not a deliberate violation. The trial was attended by hundreds of citizens from the local area and as far away as Meridian, Mississippi.  The crowd broke into cheers and applause when the verdict was announced.

    After the judge entered her temporary injunction in January, the Santa Rosa school board caved in and, without even presenting a defense, consented to a judgment that prevents school personnel from participating in any prayer even if it is initiated by students such as an athletic team.  The judgment even prevents any school participation in a baccalaureate service for graduating seniors, and orders the school to prohibit any student references to religion during a graduation.  Under the judgment, two student speakers were banned from participating in the school’s graduation ceremony.

    The judgment prohibits school officials from participating in any student initiated prayer by even bowing their heads or folding their hands during the prayer.  Specifically, Judge Rogers prohibits the following:

        “School officials shall not participate n any way in a prayer with students during or in conjunction with instructional periods or a School Event.  During of in conjunction with a School Event, School Officials shall not offer a Prayer, recite a Prayer alongside or with students, or posture in a manner that is likely to be perceived as an endorsement of the Prayer, e.g. bowing their heads, kneeling, or folding their hands.”

   Under that language, a coach is prohibited from even bowing his head if his team joins in a prayer either before or after a game.   If students initiated a prayer for an injured or ill classmate, the teachers would have to carefully avoid any perception that they joined with the students. Student band, orchestra and choir groups are not permitted to participate in a religious performance.

   The ACLU keeps a close watch over all school officials.  They brought charges against a school clerical worker whose husband said Grace prior to dinner at a private banquet.  The affair honoring non-instructional school district employees was held at a Naval base.  The ACLU filed charges against her simply because she was present and didn’t repudiate the blessing.  She endured a full day trial before being found not guilty.

     The Judge has also forbidden school officials from ever referring to the Bible even as historical authority, and from displaying any symbol of religious belief on clothing, or in writing.  Even personal stationary can bear no religious symbol.

      In consenting to this ridiculous judgment, the school board has violated the very First Amendment on which the ACLU based its lawsuit.  The Amendment states:

       “Congress shall make no law respecting 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.”

      By prohibiting school officials from even acknowledging a prayer being initiated by students or non-school personnel, the school board has denied to them “the free exercise” of religion.  When the ACLU charged the clerical worker because her husband said Grace, they sought to prohibit her “free exercise” of religion.  By consenting to entry of a court order which permitted the ACLU to file such ludicrous charges, the school board denied its employee the protection of the “free exercise” clause of the Amendment.

     In January our blog pointed out that school boards meekly going along with the ACLU attacks on religion were violating the “free exercise” clause, as well as the “freedom of speech” guaranteed by the Amendment.  The Santa Rosa school board is a perfect example.  While we don’t recommend needless litigation, we would hope that since Santa Rosa is already in litigation, someone would sue the board to force them to recognize the “free exercise” of religion by its employees and students.  When the board consents to restricting “free exercise” of religion by its teachers and employees, it also restricts the “free exercise” by its students.  When it consented to a judgment which restricted the topics of student speakers, it denied them “freedom of speech”.

     Lay and Freeman have been represented by Matthew Staver of Liberty Counsel who is also dean of Liberty University School of Law.  He correctly has pointed out that “neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”  Again correctly he says that “Schools are not religious-free zones and any attempt to make them so is unconstitutional.” 

   For some reason, federal judges ignore the “free exercise” clause and “freedom of speech” as applied to religious expression.  The Amendment which our founders made the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights does NOT say that no person shall be deprived of “freedom of speech except when the speech relates to religion.” The protection IS ABSOLUTE!!

    Staver has intimated that Liberty Counsel may sue the school board to contest the consent settlement.  The Christian Educators Association International has now asked Judge Rogers to add it to the lawsuit in order to challenge the contents of the consent judgment which violate the First Amendment.  The Association is an Ohio based organization that represents Christian educators in public schools.  Challenge to the school board and to the consent judgment is needed.  As we said here in January, the time has come to draw the line and to force federal judges to take a serious look at the terms of the Amendment and the history of the Amendment.

     The parents of the students in the district were denied any participation in, or voice in, the lawsuit and the settlement of the lawsuit.  Yet, those parents and the other tax payers of the school district have been held responsible by the federal judge to pay the ACLU over $196,000.00 in attorney fees.  The district’s own attorney fees have exceeded $400,000.00, and for what?  For consenting to deprivation of the First Amendment rights of teachers, administrators, employees and students.

    By consenting to a prohibition of expressing a religious belief through clothing and in writing, the school board has denied to its employees the freedom of speech guaranteed to them by the Amendment.  By consenting to a judgment which banned student speakers from making any religious reference during graduation, the board denied the freedom of speech guaranteed to their students by the Amendment.

     To the credit of the students, they have refused to buckle under to the weak kneed school board and the overbearing ACLU and federal judge.  After they had entered the building for their graduation ceremony, when the principal asked them to be seated, they remained standing and 400 strong recited the Lord’s Prayer.  The parents in attendance joined with them and then applauded their courageous stand at the conclusion of the prayer.

     The students also refused to back away from holding a baccalaureate service.  They held the service off the school premises at a local church.  The student musicians participated as individuals, not as the school orchestra or choir.

     The actions of the Santa Rosa school board are completely inconsistent with the importance which the drafters of our Constitution placed on the free exercise of religion in the public school system.  Anyone who proclaims that our Founders wanted schools and government free of Christian expressions is guilty of one of two faults: either he or she simply has never bothered to study the journals of the continental congress or the writings and speeches of the drafters, or he or she does know the intent of the drafters and deliberately chooses to subvert that intent.

       ACLU attorneys are neither lazy nor negligent; they know the intent and choose to subvert it.  I have worked around the ACLU throughout my career and know that the organization does not hire incompetent counsel. For that reason, they are worthy advocates who need to be met strongly and consistently.

     As to judge Casey Rogers I don’t know enough about her or about the United States Attorney in Florida to know whether they are moved by laziness, negligence or subversive intent.  But, as a matter of general acceptance, I don’t give federal judges or federal prosecutors the same deference of competence as I give to the ACLU. 

     George Washington made it very clear that religion and observance of religious faith was of the utmost importance to the survival of our Republic.  He said “Do not let anyone claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics.”  In his farewell address he identified “religion and morality” as “indispensable supports” to “political prosperity.” 

     The uncommonly wise men who drafted our Constitution never failed to stress the critical nature of morality to the survival of a Republic such as ours.  They certainly opposed the “establishment” of a religion by the government---and they understood what they meant by the prohibition.  They meant that the government would not and could not establish Catholicism, or Presbyterianism, or Methodism, or Baptist, or any other denomination of faith and belief as THE religion of the nation.  Thus, they drafted and adopted, and then fought for ratification of the prohibition against the “establishment” of religion.

  But, of equal, if not greater, importance was their insistence on protecting the “free exercise” of religion.  They recognized the difference between the government establishing a particular religious belief, doctrine or denomination to which the citizens must give obedience, and the government keeping its hands off trying to control the “free exercise” of religion and the “freedom of speech”. 

   It is not by accident that the “free exercise”, “freedom of speech” and the right “to peaceably assemble” all are incorporated in the very First Amendment. They are so critically intertwined that one is not cognizable without the others.  Prohibition against the government declaring that Methodism must be followed and taught did not mean that Methodism could not be taught and exercised freely, along with all other religious customs and beliefs.

    Counsel for the ACLU and the philosophy which they support would have been given short shrift at the constitutional convention.  

    Change in this nation occurs only when its time has come.  Slavery itself ended when the time had come for emancipation.  But, integration in the most fundamental element of our society---our system of education---waited for its time to come.  Thurgood Marshall, as counsel, waited and waited and waited for the “right” case to take to the United States Supreme Court.  I had the honor of meeting him when he was our Solicitor General and of hearing him describe for me how he watched case after case until he found the “one right case” to change the course of a nation.  When he presented Brown v. Board of Education to the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Warren, the time for integration had come.  All the signs were in alignment, and the decision was unanimous, 9-0, that no longer was “separate and equal” acceptable.

     Even with integration of the schools, liberty’s time had not fully come.  Finally, in 1964, after the assassination of young and idealistic John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and, basically as a tribute to him, the time for expansion of civil rights had come.  Passage of the first of the great civil rights acts of our era began the prohibition of employment discrimination based on race, national origin, sex and religion.  Finally, provisions for enforcement of fundamental constitutional rights were put into place.

      Even with this great advancement, the time had not yet come for enforcement of the most fundamental of rights and the most fundamental responsibility of liberty—--the right to vote.   President Johnson, relying heavily on commitment to the ideals of the fallen President Kennedy, pushed through passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, hailed by many as the most important civil rights legislation in our history.  Finally, Black citizens would begin to have a voice in selection of their governors.  The time finally had come for implementation of the Fifteenth Amendment, nearly a century after its ratification.  One of my professors, and a friend, Nicholas deB Katzenbach, was our Attorney General who successfully defended the constitutionality of the Act, persuading the Supreme Court to say:

         “Congress had decided that case by case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting….After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress [decided] to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.”   South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S.301.

   Even then, the time for equality in delivery of government services and educational opportunities, for enforceable equality in the workplace had not come.  That time came after nearly a decade of riots in our cities, and the Equal Opportunity Act and Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 opened doors for minorities and women to services never before available to them. Their time had come.

   Now, the time has come for full scale efforts to secure for the great majority of Americans the “free expression” of religion promised by the First Amendment.  Just as Thurgood Marshall found the “right case” for integration of the school system, now the “right case” must be found for implementation of the “free expression” of religion and “freedom of speech” relating to religion so dearly desired by the vast, silent majority of Americans.  Perhaps it is the ACLU case against the Santa Rosa Florida school district.  Perhaps the absurdly overreaching judgment entered by her honor Casey Rogers will be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

    But, it will become pivotal only if every liberty organization, every Christian educational organization, every Judeo-Christian organization steps forward to make sure that the time has come.

Montana Senator Tester Evades Voters at Missoula Public Hearing

September 24, 2009---by FKG

 

    (See visitors comments on St Pauls article at bottom of page)     

           Featured today is a legislative report prepared by Montana State Senator Aubyn Curtiss. The Senator sponsored and attended a public hearing on U.S. Senator Tester’s Wilderness Bill,  S 1470 held on the University of Montana campus in Missoula on Friday, September 11, 2009.

 

            As Senator Curtiss points out, 30 speakers testified in opposition to the Bill which is misleadingly entitled the “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009”. The title is misleading because is creates no jobs, and protects no jobs; neither does it benefit recreation, because even though recreation areas are created, more traditional access is closed than that provided in the created areas.

 

            More than 100 Montanans attended the hearing which was sponsored by a score of State Senators, Representatives, and Commissioners.

 

            Glaringly absent was the Bill’s sponsor, Senator Tester and his staff. They were invited but declined to attend because, according to a lead staff member, it would be inappropriate to discuss the legislation on the anniversary of  September 11, 2001.   It is ironic that the sponsor of the Bill would use such an anemic excuse to evade his constituents. To many in attendance, it seemed at least, disingenuous and most unpatriotic. The Police Department and Fire Department of New York City, from which came heroes by the thousands, performed their duties on September 11, 2009.

So, did the departments in Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia.where terrorist cowards also crashed planes. 

 

          The airlines, whose personnel were compromised and sacrificed by the terrorists, flew their regular routes on September 11, 2009. Mayors, City Councilmen, EMT’S, and all government workers in New York, Newark, Pennsylvania, D.C. and throughout the Nation did their jobs as Americans do. The Pentagon workers who lost colleagues on September 11, 2001, worked their duties on September 11, 2009. There was really nothing surprising about Americans going about their business, with breaks along the way to remember and honor those who died. That’s what Americans did on September 11, 2001, and September 12, 2001, and everyday thereafter.   That’s what Americans DO.  They move ahead, they do not drop to their knees and quit.  The terrorists failed to break the American spirit with their cowardly attacks---and Americans proved it by moving right ahead with their everyday duties.

 

            Those who participated in the public hearing on the University of Montana campus believe, as do most Americans, that it would be an act of indifference to the sacrifice made on September 11, 2001,  to quit and fail to perform their jobs and duties purportedly to honor the Americans who died while doing their duties.

 

            In fact, other members of the United States Senate performed government duties last Friday---the internet was filled with examples.

 

            But, Senator Tester chose to use the anniversary of a day of sacrifice as an excuse to evade the hearing on his Bill held by his constituents in his home state. Most at the hearing thought it was a matter of him hiding behind the anniversary to avoid answering any questions about a bill obviously drafted for him by skilled, globally focused special interest groups.

 

            His evasion was not a surprise to those in attendance who pointed out that he and his staff have avoided public meetings throughout the drafting of S 1470 by special interest groups working behind closed doors.

 

            This Bill was drafted by the Montana Wilderness Coalition and associates like Trout Unlimited. It shows the colors. It was not drafted by the Senator and his staff. Those of us who have spent the last 8 years in drafting the Owyhee Initiative (Owyhee Public Lands Management Act of 2009) know that the language of “landscape scale restoration projects” did not originate with a Senator’s staff. It came from special interest groups.

 

           Wilderness groups participated in the Owyhee Initiative process, but in that process a broad base group of landowners, local government, recreation users, and environmental groups drafted, with the public,  a balanced package of wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and provisions securing economic stability of landowners and local government. In 1470, there is no such balance because there was no collaborative effort by the public, landowners, recreation users, local government and environmental groups.

 

Senator Baucus also failed to appear. But Congressman Rehburg sent a lead staff member to hear constituent concern with the Bill. He has not publicly committed to support the Bill.

 

The originators of the Bill’s language, the Wilderness Coalition, also hid behind the 9/11 anniversary in refusing to attend and be amenable to questions as to the contents of the Bill. It’s members authorized  two individual special interests to stick their names on a very unseemly reliance on 9/11. It would be interesting to find out whether the company and all Trout Unlimited members completely shut down their operations---or just thought exercising American’s freedom to gather and meet and exercise free speech was inappropriate. The sponsors of the hearing and those that attended exercised American liberties in the very spirit in which American carried on after the attacks on 9/11. Those terrorist attacks did not deter Americans from exercising their freedom, performing their jobs, and going on about the business of being free Americans. The terrorists of 9/11 did not deter Americans from exercising their right to assemble on the University of Montana last Friday night. The Americans who died on 9/11 would have had it no other way.

 

The terrorists of 9/11/01 only deterred the Bill’s sponsor, his staff, and the special interest group drafters and supporters from attending a traditional American public meeting.

 

That’s too bad. It would have been far more patriotic to avoid letting terrorist acts deter this attendance, and just admit that they did not want exposure to critics of the Bill who would ask penetrating, embarrassing questions. Such exposure might expose the deceit of claiming that the Bill was developed with public input and is supported overwhelmingly by Montanans.

 

Sooner or later, Senators Tester and Baucus are going to have to answer for the contents of this Bill---either in Montana or in the Senate. Those who attended Friday’s public hearing  will make sure that all 100 Senators are provided the facts that this Bill was developed behind closed doors which shut out multitudes of Montanans and ignored the multiple use interests of hundreds of organizations and thousands of Montanans.

 

S 1470 IS NOT LIKE THE OWYHEE INITIATIVE BILL (Owyhee Public Lands Management Act of 2009) as claimed for a very short time. The Owyhee Initiative  was developed by a fairly balanced work group representing environmental groups, landowners, ranchers, recreation users, wildlife groups, equestrians, and local government. Private property was protected, grazing was made more viable, local government acquired a larger tax base, access was preserved and new access was created, and classic-quality wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers were designated. All these elements were developed through hundreds of hours of public meetings and hearings, and public input actually changed some of the provisions. After rounds of public hearings and meetings, a draft bill was prepared and then it was submitted for public review and comment, during hundreds more hours of public meetings and hearings. The work group preformed its work in public meetings and no one was ever turned away from one of those work sessions.

 

The closed door, non public preparation of S 1470, and the refusal of it’s sponsors to attend a public hearing stand in stark contrast to the open, transparent, public collaboration process which led to passage of the Owyhee Initiative Bill.

 

The citizens of Montana, the constituents of Senator Tester, deserve the openness, the transparency, the opportunity to participate in drafting which symbolize the Owyhee Initiative Process.

 

Reportedly , Senator Tester has said that this bill sets the  pattern by which future wilderness bills will be drafted.  At first,  that statement made no sense, because it does not follow a “new” pattern---it is simply a bill that was drafted in secret sessions by special interest groups.  Same old, same old.  But, then it began to make sense.  The process surrounding the Owyhee Initiative----complete transparency, involvement of local government and every element of the public---was at one time touted as the “new pattern” for natural resource legislation---legislation built and drafted from the bottom up, drafted and proposed by local citizens in open sessions not run by special interest groups.  But, the Initiative process was shrouded by the insistence of the Senate leadership to package the very innovative Bill with 100 public lands control bills, many of which were ill conceived and not supported by local interests.

 

So, S. 1470 is designed as the “pattern” to get the Senate back on track, considering and passing wilderness bills concocted in secret sessions to accomplish the goals of select special interest groups.  If this Bill, which has no involvement of the public at large, no involvement of local government impacted by the Bill,  passes, then the Initiative process will no longer be necessary.  Why would wilderness proponents waste 8 years of hard work in developing a community based bill, when they can reach their goal with a secretive, limited participation bill like S 1470.  If the closed door approach is successful, then watch it as it expands to all the other anti-rural bills such as the Clean Water revision act now pending in the Capitol.

 

Traditionally, the Democratic Party likes to call itself the “Party of the People”, “The Party that Represent’s the Masses.” Senator Tester is a Democrat! Hopefully, he will at least read the fine, analytical legislation report by Montana State Senator Aubyn Curtiss which follows---and then remember what his Party claims about its openness!

 

All the elected officials of Montana who sponsored the hearing in Missoula should keep the heat on the Senator; all the organizations that sponsored the hearing and provided testimony should daily demand that Senator Tester meet with his constituents to discuss this secretive bill.  Their rights are on the line.  But, with S. 1470 being billed as a “pattern”, the rights of all Americans are on the line with them.

Bill Graham comment: Thank you for your insightful comments about our school.  I agree with you whole heartedly that discipline does indeed affect learning.  I am truely blessed to be a part of St. Paul's School after thirty years in public schools it has been an uplifting change of pace.
Thanks again and keep spreading the good word.

THE SCHOOL WHERE SAMANTHA GRANT WILL SERVE ON STUDENT COUNCIL IS ST PAULS SCHOOL IN NAMPA, IDAHO

 

     Some of my friends who feel that it is their role in life to criticize my writing, pointed out that I did not mention what school Samantha, my granddaughter, will serve in the student council.  This time they are probably right.  In thinking it over, I realize that the school is important to this story.  Another California friend inquired as to the kind of school that would already be teaching citizenship in fifth grade.

     St. Paul’s Catholic School is an old, traditional catholic church school.  Last night at my 55^th class reunion from Nampa Senior High School I talked with some of my dear friends who went to St. Paul’s and then joined us in the 9^th grade in the public school system.  They were special people, they came into our school with a kind of mystique, as new blood who brought interest.  I can remember how we “sized’ them up in our classes and on the school grounds.  I developed my first real “crush” on one of the girls who came into our algebra class, LuAnn Budell.  She was just so special---extremely smart, very pretty, personable in an almost stand-offish way.  By the latter I don’t mean “conceited” or “snooty”, but quiet and classy, not gushing into situations until she knew the people and the score.

Alas, Luann waS “SO SPECIAL” that she started going out with athlete stars, so my “crush” went without being said, but there it was.  We did become good friends throughout the remainder of our school years together----and the relationship remains to this day.

There, now you have one of the secrets of my life that some of you on the street keep telling me you want to see.

Back to St. Paul’s School.  There was no doubt in Lodice’s mind when we returned from Baltimore in time for Andy to start school that he would go to St. Paul’s, so we really didn’t do a study of it before he entered.  Within six weeks, I  knew that we had not needed to make inquiries.  The teachers and principal at that time were nuns, still teaching in the traditional manners that had been taught at the school for years.

Through the years as Andy and Jon attended, a total of 11 chronological years for both of them to finish,  it became and remained very clear that the educational curriculum was strong, and had depth.  In their math I was unable to help them, because they had moved into the new and “improved” mehods; but in the traditional subjects they were teaching the fundamentals much  the same as when I was in school.  They had homework, and the homework got “graded”---by that I mean the papers were checked with notes about good work and bad work, not just looked over for placement of a letter grade.  They learned discipline, without overbearing punishment---they learned through rationale explanation of reason, and both boys are much better men because of it.

Samantha and Alex are now at St.Paul’s.  As you know Samantha was elected this week to the Student Council.  Both are doing well in school, both have homework of substance, both feel compelled to finish their homework, both learn substantively in their classes.  Attending a school mass on Friday’s is a pleasure---not only the readings and music, but the discipline displayed by the student body.  It is refreshing, because I know that discipline is necessary for focus and learning.

So, it appears pretty clear to me that today St. Paul’s school is still doing the same good job that it was doing in 1950 when the St. Paul’s school kids merged in with us at Central Junior High School after completing their 8^th grade.  The fact that the teachers and principal today are lay people does not seem to have affected the depth of study or the level of interest, or the level of discipline.

The principal of the school is Bill Graham, a quiet but seemingly firm man who runs a pretty tight ship on discipline, without overbearing, embarrassing results.  Why do I put so much emphasis on discipline?  Because I firmly believe that there is a distinct link between discipline, focus, and learning.  Based on my years of supervising people----office support people as well as lawyers and division leaders---I can assert without hesitation two things:  I can always pick the ones who have come from schools which had a fully developed and clear system of discipline; and I can see the better level of focus in those who did come from such a background of teaching.

 

I don’t know all the teachers---only those who teach and have taught Samantha and Alex.  But, I observe them all when they are escorting their classes into the church for Mass on Friday mornings.   They are disciplinarians, but they are teachers---I see them “teaching” even through correction of little disciplinary details.  I see their patience.  I hear the manner in which they talk meaningfully to their students.  A walk through the hallway in the school reminds me of the way a school sounded when I was in the Nampa public schools.  Students are in the class rooms working, quietly; even where oral lessons are being worked through, they aren’t heard two classrooms down.  When I talk to my grandchildren, they demonstrate to me a learning level that shows that the discipline helps focus.

I have had occasion to visit public schools in Nampa during the past few years to speak at classes.  I am always amazed by the number of students in the hallway, not just going to the bathroom, but standing at lockers, embracing, holding each other, strolling hand in hand, or running and skipping through the hallway.  Each time I envision that happening at Nampa High School when I was there from 1950-54, and the prompt discipline which would have ended the escapade.

So who are the teachers who produce the good results at St. Paul’s?  I only know a few:  Miss Wendy who is in charge of Back Pack, which is the “day care” type of class in which students wait for their working parents.  It is a unique waiting session, in which the students can do their homework, read, color, and exend their learning from theit classes.  I know Miss Peggy who has pre-school, and with a huge number of the little live-wires, does a remarkable job of maintaining a disciplined focused classroom.  I have the products of Alex’s work, and they show a productive class room atmosphere.

I do not personally know Miss Gordon who teaches the fifth grade; I only “know” her from observation of Samantha’s work and her interest in class.  Our Samantha is a very special young lady, she is sensitive, very intelligent, interested, and takes instructions very well.  She would become very “disinterested” in a class that did not stay ahead of her ability.  She is totally engaged in her class work, her homework is substantial, and not easy (I have looked over some of the “problem statements” and I don’t remember any quite so penetrating).  Not only is it substantial in content, it is also substantial in amount.  From my long experience in school---from first grade to 12^th, four in college, and four in law school and graduate work---I learned that homework is key to learning focus, to discipline of working at learning, and to learning the parameters of the subject.

Through my years as compliance officer to Governors Andrus and Evans, I worked pretty closely with the U.S. Department of Education with their Seattle office.  This was a time when Title 9 rules and regulations were being written to provide the many equal opportunities for girls in our schools---educational, cultural and athletic, and for the many multi-national considerations which must be taken into account in our systems.  My work took me on observation and evaluation tours through public schools, private schools and church schools.  I also evaluated text books for their treatment of women and minority contributions to our nation’s history.  I generally agreed with most of my team that the books needed some serious revisions if they were to tell the complete story of the American Dream.  We also generally agreed that in the public schools, there was woefully insufficient “add-on” to the books to show the importance of the changes taking place.

We also observed that the texts in the private schools and church schools were also woefully deficient in coverage of the rights of women as to equal opportunity.  But, the supplemental reading assigned, and the supplemental class room instruction more than made up for the book deficiencies,

I have not looked into the subject at St. Paul’s because now I am a grandparent, now an official doing evaluations for the government.  But, from what I see, it seems to me that St. Paul’s is getting the job done.

Attending their school mass is remarkably pleasing.  To see a school the size of this one march into the church without disruption, without the usual pushing and shoving in line, and get seated ready for the Mass without uproar or noise, is to see a miracle in this day and age.

 

Of course, the pastor is reflected in the school.  As the religious and corporate leader of the church, his personality naturally is reflected by the school.  So, Father Gerry Funk has to stand tall, and at least a bit proud, when he sees the progress at St. Paul’s school.

The School was originally staffed by Dominican Sisters, then later Sisters of the Holy Cross, and then the Benedictine Sisters.  After 1999 the school has been staffed by certified teachers and administrators who are totally dedicated to providing a sound education in a Christian setting---otherwise they would be making more money teaching in a public sysem.

The mission statement is “Develop Catholic Faith and Ensure Individual Academic Excellence.”  It is obvious from having observed those St. Paul kids who came into junior high school with us years ago, and then my sons and now by two  grandchildren that they do both well---and the teaching and observation of the Faith does nothing to hurt adademic excellence.

THE SCHOOL WHERE SAMANTHA GRANT WILL SERVE ON STUDENT COUNCIL IS ST PAULS SCHOOL IN NAMPA, IDAHO

 

     Some of my friends who feel that it is their role in life to criticize my writing, pointed out that I did not mention what school Samantha, my granddaughter, will serve in the student council.  This time they are probably right.  In thinking it over, I realize that the school is important to this story.  Another California friend inquired as to the kind of school that would already be teaching citizenship in fifth grade.

     St. Paul’s Catholic School is an old, traditional catholic church school.  Last night at my 55^th class reunion from Nampa Senior High School I talked with some of my dear friends who went to St. Paul’s and then joined us in the 9^th grade in the public school system.  They were special people, they came into our school with a kind of mystique, as new blood who brought interest.  I can remember how we “sized’ them up in our classes and on the school grounds.  I developed my first real “crush” on one of the girls who came into our algebra class, LuAnn Budell.  She was just so special---extremely smart, very pretty, personable in an almost stand-offish way.  By the latter I don’t mean “conceited” or “snooty”, but quiet and classy, not gushing into situations until she knew the people and the score.

Alas, Luann waS “SO SPECIAL” that she started going out with athlete stars, so my “crush” went without being said, but there it was.  We did become good friends throughout the remainder of our school years together----and the relationship remains to this day.

There, now you have one of the secrets of my life that some of you on the street keep telling me you want to see.

Back to St. Paul’s School.  There was no doubt in Lodice’s mind when we returned from Baltimore in time for Andy to start school that he would go to St. Paul’s, so we really didn’t do a study of it before he entered.  Within six weeks, I  knew that we had not needed to make inquiries.  The teachers and principal at that time were nuns, still teaching in the traditional manners that had been taught at the school for years.

Through the years as Andy and Jon attended, a total of 11 chronological years for both of them to finish,  it became and remained very clear that the educational curriculum was strong, and had depth.  In their math I was unable to help them, because they had moved into the new and “improved” mehods; but in the traditional subjects they were teaching the fundamentals much  the same as when I was in school.  They had homework, and the homework got “graded”---by that I mean the papers were checked with notes about good work and bad work, not just looked over for placement of a letter grade.  They learned discipline, without overbearing punishment---they learned through rationale explanation of reason, and both boys are much better men because of it.

Samantha and Alex are now at St.Paul’s.  As you know Samantha was elected this week to the Student Council.  Both are doing well in school, both have homework of substance, both feel compelled to finish their homework, both learn substantively in their classes.  Attending a school mass on Friday’s is a pleasure---not only the readings and music, but the discipline displayed by the student body.  It is refreshing, because I know that discipline is necessary for focus and learning.

So, it appears pretty clear to me that today St. Paul’s school is still doing the same good job that it was doing in 1950 when the St. Paul’s school kids merged in with us at Central Junior High School after completing their 8^th grade.  The fact that the teachers and principal today are lay people does not seem to have affected the depth of study or the level of interest, or the level of discipline.

The principal of the school is Bill Graham, a quiet but seemingly firm man who runs a pretty tight ship on discipline, without overbearing, embarrassing results.  Why do I put so much emphasis on discipline?  Because I firmly believe that there is a distinct link between discipline, focus, and learning.  Based on my years of supervising people----office support people as well as lawyers and division leaders---I can assert without hesitation two things:  I can always pick the ones who have come from schools which had a fully developed and clear system of discipline; and I can see the better level of focus in those who did come from such a background of teaching.

 

I don’t know all the teachers---only those who teach and have taught Samantha and Alex.  But, I observe them all when they are escorting their classes into the church for Mass on Friday mornings.   They are disciplinarians, but they are teachers---I see them “teaching” even through correction of little disciplinary details.  I see their patience.  I hear the manner in which they talk meaningfully to their students.  A walk through the hallway in the school reminds me of the way a school sounded when I was in the Nampa public schools.  Students are in the class rooms working, quietly; even where oral lessons are being worked through, they aren’t heard two classrooms down.  When I talk to my grandchildren, they demonstrate to me a learning level that shows that the discipline helps focus.

I have had occasion to visit public schools in Nampa during the past few years to speak at classes.  I am always amazed by the number of students in the hallway, not just going to the bathroom, but standing at lockers, embracing, holding each other, strolling hand in hand, or running and skipping through the hallway.  Each time I envision that happening at Nampa High School when I was there from 1950-54, and the prompt discipline which would have ended the escapade.

So who are the teachers who produce the good results at St. Paul’s?  I only know a few:  Miss Wendy who is in charge of Back Pack, which is the “day care” type of class in which students wait for their working parents.  It is a unique waiting session, in which the students can do their homework, read, color, and exend their learning from theit classes.  I know Miss Peggy who has pre-school, and with a huge number of the little live-wires, does a remarkable job of maintaining a disciplined focused classroom.  I have the products of Alex’s work, and they show a productive class room atmosphere.

I do not personally know Miss Gordon who teaches the fifth grade; I only “know” her from observation of Samantha’s work and her interest in class.  Our Samantha is a very special young lady, she is sensitive, very intelligent, interested, and takes instructions very well.  She would become very “disinterested” in a class that did not stay ahead of her ability.  She is totally engaged in her class work, her homework is substantial, and not easy (I have looked over some of the “problem statements” and I don’t remember any quite so penetrating).  Not only is it substantial in content, it is also substantial in amount.  From my long experience in school---from first grade to 12^th, four in college, and four in law school and graduate work---I learned that homework is key to learning focus, to discipline of working at learning, and to learning the parameters of the subject.

Through my years as compliance officer to Governors Andrus and Evans, I worked pretty closely with the U.S. Department of Education with their Seattle office.  This was a time when Title 9 rules and regulations were being written to provide the many equal opportunities for girls in our schools---educational, cultural and athletic, and for the many multi-national considerations which must be taken into account in our systems.  My work took me on observation and evaluation tours through public schools, private schools and church schools.  I also evaluated text books for their treatment of women and minority contributions to our nation’s history.  I generally agreed with most of my team that the books needed some serious revisions if they were to tell the complete story of the American Dream.  We also generally agreed that in the public schools, there was woefully insufficient “add-on” to the books to show the importance of the changes taking place.

We also observed that the texts in the private schools and church schools were also woefully deficient in coverage of the rights of women as to equal opportunity.  But, the supplemental reading assigned, and the supplemental class room instruction more than made up for the book deficiencies,

I have not looked into the subject at St. Paul’s because now I am a grandparent, now an official doing evaluations for the government.  But, from what I see, it seems to me that St. Paul’s is getting the job done.

Attending their school mass is remarkably pleasing.  To see a school the size of this one march into the church without disruption, without the usual pushing and shoving in line, and get seated ready for the Mass without uproar or noise, is to see a miracle in this day and age.

 

Of course, the pastor is reflected in the school.  As the religious and corporate leader of the church, his personality naturally is reflected by the school.  So, Father Gerry Funk has to stand tall, and at least a bit proud, when he sees the progress at St. Paul’s school.

The School was originally staffed by Dominican Sisters, then later Sisters of the Holy Cross, and then the Benedictine Sisters.  After 1999 the school has been staffed by certified teachers and administrators who are totally dedicated to providing a sound education in a Christian setting---otherwise they would be making more money teaching in a public sysem.

The mission statement is “Develop Catholic Faith and Ensure Individual Academic Excellence.”  It is obvious from having observed those St. Paul kids who came into junior high school with us years ago, and then my sons and now by two  grandchildren that they do both well---and the teaching and observation of the Faith does nothing to hurt adademic excellence.

 

 

Fighting for the Right-to-Know by Rosemary and Walter Brasch>

All we wanted was to look at some public records from Hemlock Twp., Columbia County. By the time it was over, we were accused of criminal activity, had a legal bill of more than $3,000, and became front page headlines. A citizens group, formed to investigate inappropriate expenses by the township, learned that in four years the township went from a surplus of $373,000 to having to borrow $117,000 just to pay for road projects. The group has already spent almost $30,000 in legal and miscellaneous expenses--and is still blocked at having easy access to pubic records, even though Judy Snyder, one of its leaders, is an elected auditor for the township. The township supervisors, defending many of their actions to block public access, have already spent more than $55,000 of taxpayer funds to fight right-to-know requests and the citizens' attempt to remove the supervisors for malfeasance. One township solicitor, from a Bloomsburg law firm, even told the press the Hemlock citizens were "unAmerican" for challenging the township authority. The township's Wilkes-Barre attorney stated during depositions that if the citizen's group didn't cease its efforts, he would drag out legal proceedings indefinitely until the township went bankrupt.     Supervisors chairman Joe Harvey, when confronted by a weak state law on the public's right-to-know, told us and our attorney, "I don't care about the Pennsylvania law. This is Hemlock Township." And, he may be correct. Our case with Hemlock Twp. is typical of citizens dealing with the state's current law.     Although Hemlock Twp. has only 3,000 residents, it has an assessed value of more than $200 million, with a mall, banks, motels, restaurants, and a major I-80 truck stop. Four years ago, soon after a three-man board of supervisors took office, residents began to hear about bills and payroll increasing drastically. The supervisors soon laid off half the police force, claiming financial necessity. Asking to see where their tax dollars were being spent, the citizens were defiantly refused access to all records. With no other recourse, a citizens' group of over 100 members hired an attorney and filed a lawsuit seeking access. They needed documentation to determine if excessive pay to the supervisors (who were also the paid road crew) or misappropriation of funds had created the crisis.     In July 1999, we attended a meeting of that nearby township, and formally asked for such records under the state's Right-to-Know law. The chair demanded to know why we wanted public records, then rebuked us for not living in the township, although the law applies to all citizens of the Commonwealth.     The following day, we contacted the township secretary to review documents and get the necessary copies. She informed us she was going on vacation in a few days, and no one else in the township knew where the records were or could release any information. We would have to pay her overtime and wait indefinitely to get any records.     A week later, after several unsuccessful telephone conversations, we went to the township office once again to request the financial information the citizens needed. After 15 minutes we left, without seeing the public records, or any promise we would ever see those records. We contacted the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) for assistance. Both state and national SPJ leaders sent strong letters to the township. The township response? Joe Harvey was furious at the "outside interference"--and sent us a bill for $344.99 to be paid before any copies would be made. This included the cost of overtime, staples, paper clips, a toner cartridge, and mileage charges to get the toner and paper clips. (The supervisors also told citizens who were in the offices under a court order to look at certain documents in July that they would have to pay for air conditioning they used.) Despite the supervisors and their solicitor now being aware of the law that permitted citizen inspection of documents, the township would not allow us to look at the records until we paid the bill. We had no way to know if the time and expenses were legitimate, padded, or a violation of state law. The supervisors also refused to let us see any original documents. There was no way to determine if all records requested were provided, or if some records were deliberately withheld or tampered with. We were also told we could not bring in an accountant, lawyer, or other assistance.     Soon after our appearance in the township office, Chairman Harvey ordered "his" remaining police force to investigate us for harassment, disorderly conduct, and wiretapping, although our tape recorder was in plain view. A police officer came to our home and questioned us for two hours. The police officer twice listened to our tape of our visit, then told us it appeared the township staff were harassing us, not the other way around. He reported this to the district attorney who also reviewed the tape. In the end, our fifteen minute office visit had triggered a two month investigation, which ended when the district attorney told the police chief there was no evidence to support any of the supervisors charges.     After Hemlock Twp. continued to block our attempts to gain public documents, our attorney began legal proceedings. We asked the township to release documents and to establish a formal procedure so other citizens would not go through the harassment we encountered. Three months and a three-inch thick folder of paperwork produced a form to request documents. Not the documents we sought. Not a guarantee that citizens would get what they requested. Just a form so citizens could ask for what was legally theirs. But the government still could block citizen rights. The office was open on a random basis, and persons couldn't make appointments to get the information from the secretary.     In three months, SPJ paid over $2,500 in legal fees--and this was at a significantly reduced per-hour rate. Telephone, fax, and postage costs, incurred by us personally, amounted to more than $500. The average citizen cannot afford legal expenses, doesn't have the knowledge or time to pursue such cases, and has no organization to support their efforts to challenge the government's abuse of power.     Pennsylvania has one of the nation's weakest and most ambiguous Right-to-Know and Sunshine laws. Current penalties are so light, and prosecution almost inconsequential, that the public is being denied information that is rightfully ours. Equally important, every political subdivision can use taxpayer dollars to obstruct public access with little fear of repercussions. Further, there is no law to limit the amount of taxpayer dollars a government can spend to block access to public records.     Bills have been introduced into the House and Senate to expand the Right-to-Know law and to penalize public officials who deny citizens the right to look at their government's workings.     The General Assembly and Senate, which approved the 1957 law--which exempted themselves from its coverage--is now faced with looking at proposed legislation. But, the opposition is strong. The Legislature apparently still doesn't want the new law to apply to itself. Gov. Tom Ridge is on record as supporting the extension to the Legislature, and to increase penalties, but opposes most of the proposed reforms, citing an increased bureaucracy that could result. But, 37 states, including neighboring New York which has its own oversight agency, have specific programs to help citizens get public records from their governments.     Opposition has also come from law enforcement and rape crisis centers, which are using spurious arguments to argue that the public shouldn't have access to certain records. Most citizens don't want to know all the details of ongoing investigations by the police or the details of a rape case, or who called 911. These areas aren't even in the proposed legislation. Frankly, just about any criminal can--and will--get this information without the Right-to-Know law. The citizens, not the criminals, merely want to see where their tax dollars are going, and how their governments are being run.     The Governor's press secretary has even haughtily told the media that the access to government documents is something of importance primarily to the news media and that most people don't care about it. But, we can't count on the media to vigorously pursue our rights to information; it is a responsibility each of us must undertake in a free society.     The problem in Hemlock Twp. is not an isolated incident. Many public agencies and governments, perhaps from ignorance, exhibit a demeanor which has a chilling effect on the average citizen, most of whom don't understand the amount of information to which they are entitled. Many officials don't want the people to know how government works because they must think the people . . . just . . . wouldn't . . . understand!     We, as citizens, must make sure that our elected officials do the right thing. Pass stronger legislation to return to us the Constitutional right to be a part of our government by making it easier to look at public documents, and to severely penalize those who deny us our rights.

STUDENT COUNCIL ELECTION---IMPORTANT TO ALL AT THIS BLOG

 

      Yesterday, Miss Samantha Grant, granddaughter of Fred Kelly Grant, niece of Jon Grant, and daughter of Andy and Staci Grant, won an election as fifth grade representative to  the student council at her school.   Grandpa is so proud that he hardly knows what to do.  When I got the call about the election results, the caller tricked me into thinking that the results were a loss, so I  quickly prepared a pep talk.

 

     But, when the victor’s voice came on the phone, it could not hide the happiness of a win.  Some will say, “big deal”.  Well, it is a big deal.  In America today, it is heartening to find students who care enough about things around them that they will get involved.

 

     There is much too much, “let the other guy do it”, both in the young and old in our country.  For that reason, we are losing the battle to preserve our heritage, our liberties that our young people have fought for and died for during the two centuries of our national life. 

 

    During my work each day, trying to help local government enter into coordination with federal agencies to protect their citizens’  rights, I see the “let the other guy do it” syndrome, and it frustrates the life out of me.  All our founders who spoke to the subject made it clear that if we slept on our rights, we would lose them.  Indifference is unacceptable in a free land.  Sir William Gladstone, a famous English Prime Minister, said “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”  That “vigilance” requires action, it requires that we all step in and fight to protect our God given rights.  As Samuel Adams repeatedly pointed out during the pre-revolutionary days,  when often he seemed to be alone in his quest for independence, our rights are God given, not government given.  To sit idly by and let those rights disappear or be diluted, or take from us, was a moral sin in the eyes of Adams, and later of Franklin, Washington, Madison and even Jefferson.

 

    During a hearing last week in Missoula, Montana, where citizens gathered to present testimony regarding a wilderness bill sponsored by Senator Tester of Montana, it appeared clear that the Senator had evaded public meetings and public input in drafting the bill with the help of special interest groups-----the exact thing that his party (D) had denounced in the last election.  The question repeatedly was asked, “what can we do?”, “what do we do next”.   I told them:  “Call the Senator and every senator on the committee; call your friends in other states and have them call their senators; fax your position, email your position, make yourselves heard.  BUT TAKE ACTION YOURSELVES---don’t wait for someone to do it for you.”  I told them that the great problem in America today is that individuals, tired from working hard to make ends meet, tired from school activities piled on top of work, tired from church activities piled on top of school and work, are too tired to “act for themselves” to defend their liberty, their free speech.  It is far too easy to “let the other guy do it.”

 

   So, today I am proud of Samantha.  Even in the fifth grade, loaded with home work, dance classes, all the extra things that today’s children face, she stepped up and actually wanted to be a representative of her classmates.  She wanted it so much that she prepared a platform of projects she would submit to the council----projects related to recycling, projects to work to earn money for food for the needy, projects to work to earn money to provide a salad bar for the school----the kind of selfless projects that I wish more of our politicians sought.  The kind of projects that aren’t on the agenda of the special interest groups that own many of our politicians.

 

   She really worked at winning, preparing posters and preparing the speech which she delivered on the day of her victory.  I am so happy for her, and for her classmates because they will be well represented.

 

   Does it mean that she will someday want to represent her fellow citizens in a legislative body?  I hope so.  She is the type of young citizen we need to take an interest in the political job of guiding a nation.  Perhaps someday she will be a Senator from Idaho, following a moral path like that take by Senator Mike Crapo----a path based on doing what is right, not always what is popular, not always what is desired by the special interest groups.

 

   Well done, Samantha.  Your grandma, Lodice, is very proud of you today, as am I.

HERE COMES JUSTICE MY ASS FOR REAL

The editing is almost completed; the cover has been finally designed and submitted to the publisher; the dust copy has been completed; a photo of me in the 1960s has been found; my final touch-ups are underway-----and the publishing is set for one month from final submission of the edited manuscript.

   Our prediction is November 1, 2000 for the first appearance of “Justice My Ass” after 38 years in progress.  Probably the first convention presentation of the book will be the American Stewards of Liberty Conference in Denver on November 5-7.

   I wasn’t excited until now----but can hardly wait.

 

I WOULD PREFER BEING ABLE TO VOTE FOR THE EXOTIC DANCER WHO HAS NOTHING TO HIDE, AND HIDES NOTHING

  

 While the ultra-conservative, family value Mr.Republican of Orange County, California, strangles on his own extra-marital cheating with TWO WOMEN, the voters of Louisiana may have a choice of voting for an exotic dancer for United States Senate.

   Stormy Daniels, an exotic dancer, formed an exploratory committee last spring, and has her eyes on running against David Vitter, the senator who had his relationship with a famous DC Madame and her stable just two years ago.

   Daniels has made the rounds of several Louisiana towns, appearing before and speaking to overflow crowds in some of the most famous pubs and sports cafes in the Bayou state.

   Her potential for a successful run was set back, at least temporarily, when she was arrested in Florida for beating up on her husband.  Later, when the prosecutor dismissed the charges, it was revealed that the dispute arose over the issue of laundering dirty clothes and washing dirty dishes.

   Daniels assures that the temporary set-back will not deter her from making a sound decision on whether to run.  She was not even deterred by the bombing of her political adviser’s car on the streets of New Orleans in the warehouse district.  Surveillance cameras caught an unknown man open the door to the car, throw something in just prior to the explosion which demolished the car.  His comment, “if they’re sending me a political message, they’ll have to do a better job than this.”

   Stormy appeared on MSNBC where her interview revealed that she has four political issues she wants to pursue: eliminating child pornography, and access to child pornography on the internet and in movies; bringing home the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan; and replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax.

   You call that a simplistic platform?  Compare it to anything substantive that Vitter has ever said or done.  Other than his discovered foray into the subculture of DC prostitution, where he reportedly preferred “dress up” sexual fantasies, at what else has he excelled to national attention.

   If I were a voter in Louisiana, I would vote for Stormy over a lying politician like Vitter, who promoted himself as a real family value champion until the disclosure that he tripped the light fantastic with some of DC’s “finest”.  Louisiana has been the state of corrupt politicians for decades.  It is a state in which blackmail of politicians is not only possible, but has been used as a tool to control the political position of many elected officials in the state.  Now, who could blackmail Stormy.  Every thing she has done—her naked dancing, her sexually oriented movies, her naked modeling—are all out in the open.  You can’t be blackmailed for what the public can see and hear about free.

   I guess the way I would size up my vote would be:  do I vote for a champion of 2^nd amendment rights like Larry Craig who hangs out silently in men’s rooms in airports, or a champion of “family values” like Duvall of California who brags to another Assemblyman about cheating on both his mistress and his wife at the same (getting a double black mark for the cheating and the stupidity to tell about it at a hearing with an open mike), or for a progressive conservative who fights for “family rights” like Mark Sanford who treks off to South America to be with his “soul mate” while leaving his wife and sons at home on father’s day, or John Ensign who wanted to impeach Bill Clinton for using the cigar while he was by-passing use of the cigar in his own extra-marital thrills, or the crime-busting governor like Elliot Spitzer who was stupid enough to use a governor’s office account to link with a famed call-girl operation at DC’s favorite Mayflower Hotel.

    You pay your money and take your chances with the rest of the candidates.  With Stormy Daniels, you see what you’re getting---a politician who has no reason not to tell the truth, a politician who does not have to sell out her soul to get a second term---if she isn’t re-elected she has a well developed entrée back into her very profitable life.

   When I first heard about Stormy running, I laughed.  Then I watched and her on MSNBC.  She is far more articulate, and has more insight, than a woman who actually ran for vice president during the last election.  She answered all of MSNBC’s tough questions without hesitation.  Even though not asked, I have no doubt that she could have remembered what newspapers and magazines she reads.  And, I doubt that the political party would have to go on a $150,000 shopping spree to bring her appearance into the twenty first century.

   What the voters of Louisiana would have is the choice between a lying, traditional politician of the old Louisiana school like Vitter, and an open, non-traditional woman with no secrets and no back-door deals to keep secret.  If I were in Louisiana, as a registered voter, and Stormy is on the ballot, she would get my vote.

 

"JUSTICE MY ASS" NEARS PUBLICATION, AS TEXAS MAN IS JAILED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT BECAUSE OF INSULT THRUST AT JUDGE IN MENS ROOM IN THE COURTHOUSE AND PENNSYLVANIA WOMAN SUES BECAUSE SHE BELIEVED THAT 'CRUNCHBERRY'  IN THE CEREAL 'CAPTAIN CRUNCH WITH CRUNCHBERRIES' CONTAINED REAL BERRIES NAMED CRUNCHBERRIES.
 
 
 
My editors are working hard to finish their once-over on Justice My Ass which hopefully will be ready for release by November 1.  I'm now getting quite excited about, so much so that I have planned my second book, but right now it is a close race as to one of the following:  Appointed, not Annointed (a study of judges like B. Lynn Winmill in Idaho who seem to believe that they are "annointed" and thus able to ignore the law); a children's history of the AmericanRevolution; and the story of a man who has been in prison in Baltimore for 37 years for the murder of a police officer in the year following the 1968 race riots in Baltimore---a man who was allegedly a member of the Black Panthers and who was convicted largely on the testimony of jailhouse snitches who may have been planted.
 
At any rate, I am excited about Justice My Ass because it is my first book, almost finished.
 
 
For today's Justice My Ass contribution, consider the thin skinned judge in Austin Texas who jailed a man for an insult delivered, not in court, but in a public men's room in the courthouse.  The judge had just awarded custody of a 63 year old man's granddaughter to his son's ex wife.  The judge went into the bath room where the 63 year old called him a "fool".  The judge sentenced the man to 30 days in jail for "contempt of court".   My goodness, if every person involved in a court case who called the judge a fool in a bathroom were locked up there would be no room for robbers, murderers and rapists.   The reason bathroom insults are not "contempt of court" is that the bathroom is not "court".   Duhhhhh.  What would seem apparent to a junior high student apparently missed the Texas judge.
 
The easily offended judge, who ought to stay out of public bathrooms, released the man after just 2 days of his 30 day sentence after the state appellate court started an inquiry into the matter.  The contemptuous man intends to report the judge to the state commission on judicial conduct-------good luck to him with that!!!
 
I guess maybe the incident shows why even in the ancient courthouse in Baltimore judges had their own private bathrooms near their chambers.
 
And, in the world of stupid lawsuits which evidence the litigation meanspiriteness of our nation, consider the woman who filed a lawsuit because she believed that there were real berries named Crunchberries in the cereal named "Captain Crunch with Crunchberries". 
 
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the eastern district of California.  The woman sued the cereal company, claiming that she was deceived by the package and by advertising to believe that there were real berries, named crunchberries, in the cereal.  Once again, I am not so amazed that some woman would file such a suit as I am that an attorney would file the suit for her.  This law firm was the Hewell Law firm in San Diego, California, with Harold Marion Hewell as lead attorney.
 
The judge cut short the time of the court devoted to such madness by refusing to hear oral argument and dismissing the complaint on the pleadings alone.
 
The judge applied the "reasonable consumer" standard, and found that no "reasonable consumer" would have believed that the balls of cereal colored like berries in the cereal were real berries.  The court then said:
 
            "while the challenged packaging contains the word 'berries' it does so only in conjunction with the
descriptive term 'crunch'.  This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff allegedthe existence of any actual fruit referred to as 'crunchberry'  Furthermore, the "Crunchberries' depicted on the package are round, crunchy, brightly colored cereal balls, and the PDP clearly states both that the Product contains 'sweetened corn and oat cereal' and that the cereal is 'enlarged to show texture'.  Thus a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into believing that the Product in the instant case contained a fruit that does not exist."
 
What's even worse from a justice process standpoint is that the court points out that the same law firm brought a similar action against the cereal named Fruit Loops and lost that one too.  I cannot imagine, in my wildest dreams, how any lawyer in good consceience can file such an action---no matter how much money he or she sees in the offing.  This action against crunchberries was filed as a class action, hoping that the court would "declare a class" that could have been deceived to believe that the cereal really contained berries named crunchberries, and then the company would settle for many dollars rather than go through protracted lawsuit processes.  I hope that the Court, in the final orders, assessed costs and attorney fees against the plaintiff.
 
And, this was the second time the lawyers tried the con job---fruit loops were supposedly deceiving to people who thought that the little cereal loops were made out of real fruit.
 
Is it any wonder that lawyer jokes abound wherever you enter the internet.  "It was so cold outside this morning that I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets."
 
The case was so bad that the judge refused to even give the plaintiff a chance to file an amended complaint and try again.  Said the Court:
 
                   "Under normal circumstances, when this Court grants a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff is given a reasonable period of time, usually twenty (20) days, in which to file an amended complaint.  In this case, however, it is simply impossible for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint stating a claim based upon these facts.  The survival of the instand claim would require this Court to ignore all concepts of personal responsibility and common sense.  The Court has no intention of allowing that to happen."
 
    You wonder why the courts claim that their dockets are jammed?  Judges could clear out the dockets if they hit lawyers like this with sanctions in dollars.

 A famous statement attributed to Confucious says "Silence is a true friend who never betrays"! 
 
California Assemblyman Mike Duvall, discussed in the lead story, should have boned up on his Confucious and kept his mouth shut about his cheating with a lobbyist, about the crude remarks she made about sex (which will no doubt be the most famous saying in Sacramento for a decade), and about his cheating on both her and his wife with yet a third woman.

SPIRIT AND HEART CAN BE COACHED

    Too often today there is criticism of our public schools, without any balancing of credit.  Part of the reason is the mean spirited polarization of our people today.  The two political parties are so polarized that they can’t agree on anything.  In between are the millions of people independent of either party, who are turned off totally by the polarized attacks.

    As a result, super liberals support the teachers’ union, super republicans attack the teachers’ union, and rarely does either segment look at the bigger picture than the union.  The constant conflict as to the presence of the union in our educational system buries attention of the media and the masses to any creditable school accomplishments.

   Yesterday, I saw examples of creditable accomplishment that has to be recognized.   I watched my grandson play football.  He plays for the Fairmont Junior High School in Boise’s School district.  The 7^th-8^th grade “lightweight” football team is coached by Eric McDermott and Ryan McGill.  I have watched practices all year, and have seen both games the team has played.

   My observations have been of two coaches who teach the game of football in a patient, positive manner---they criticize, because criticism is part of teaching.  But, they don’t humiliate, they don’t berate, they make their point—sometimes quite pointedly---and move on to the next learning step.

    In the first game, without their starting quarterback, they lost 8-0, with a defensive effort that kept the team in the game right to the end.  Frankly, at the end of the half, I thought the game would get out of hand in the second half, with the score 8-0, and seemingly nothing to stop the other school from scoring.  Out of the halftime came a determined defensive effort that held that score, giving the offense chance after chance to score.  The 8-0 was not a bad beating, but there are no moral victories.  If there were, it would have been one.

    But, yesteday’s game was another story.  In the first half, West Jr. High rolled, literally rolled, over the defense of Fairmont and built up a 20-0 lead at the half.  Three interceptions had been thrown, and the defense didn’t seem to be able to stop any run.  I told my son, “this is going to be a long afternoon.”

   Then, the halftime.  I watched the team huddled at the end of the field, and noticed no arm waving, no loud shouting, nothing that would note that the coaches were reading out the team.  That pleased me because these are kids,and they don’t need spirit broken.

   But,what came out of that half-time was nothing short of miraculous.  If I were still in the sports broadcasting business, I would have been using the old “my oh my, can you believe this?” which was kind of my standard excitement over great play.  The defense came out inspired, positively inspired.  Sleepwalkers in the first half, they RAN on to the field when the ball turned over.  They yelled to each other, they talked to each other, they high-fived after a good play.  And, did they play!!!  Stop after stop after stop.  The offense benefited from a change of strategy, switching quarterbacks,mixing up plays, using the pass which had been disastrous in the first half.  The offense scored, and that seemed to boost up the defense to an even higher level.  They recovered a fumble (my grandson was in on that one, can’t help putting this little prop in), and the turn over lead the offense to another eventual score.  The defense held again and again and again, until the offense put in the tying score.  Another turn over by the defense, and the offense had a last chance to drive to regular game victory, but just couldn’t pull it off.  The last play was what seemed to be an obvious pass interference that broke up a good pass play----but the lack of call didn’t throw the coaches into a fit, they simply got ready for the overtime.

   In overtime, the offense scored, missed the conversion and led 26-20, after trailing 20-0 just two quarters before.  So, once again the defense had to hold.  Again, they ran on to the field, with players and fans now calling to them to hold.  And, hold they did.  Runs cut down, and then a final pass attempt and up went the arms of the defensive end and hit and diverted the pass (did I mention that my grandson played on that end positon?), and victory was Fairmont’s.

   I don’t know the names of the players, but numbers 24 and 11 ran and passed effectively throughout the second half.  The offensive blockers finally came to the game and gave some protection as the runners swept right and left for long gains.  And, the defense, honestly came awake.

   Those coaches did something at the half to awaken heart and spirit, and that is a great example of sound teaching.  The kids learned what it is to come back, what it is to work together as a team to win what seemed to be a hopeless loss.  They learned how to work a changed strategy.  They learned from two coaches who did not berate, did not humiliate, did not deflate players.  Instead, they showed great patience and confidence, almost though they expected this team to come back and win.  That feeling is contagious to the kids----and to the fans who, after watching the change start to take place, really got into the game.

    I have never been prouder of any team on which a member of my family or extended family played.  Having lived as long as I have and spent as many of thousands of hours in ballparks as I have, I know that 7-8 grade kids don’t revive like this team without more than competent, understanding teaching by coaches.

   The Boise school district should be very proud of having two coaches like these, Fairmont school, students and parents should be elated to have two such good teachers as these coaches.

    Next time you hear someone knocking the school districts, ask him if he’s ever heard of Eric McDermott and Ryan McGill.  If he hasn’t he ought to go see a Fairmont Junior High School game.

WHAT IS A “PROFESSIONAL”?

  The easy answer to the question is “a person receiving financial return” for performance of a job or service.   Usually the term is used when we describe someone who is paid to perform services in a recognized “profession” or a line of work for which there is required specialized training.

  Baseball players who bat .290, who whine about the rest of the team not doing its job, who “hold out” for more money, who make excuses for losses, are “professionals”.  Judges who steal from the public, who unconstitutionally commit juveniles to private detention centers for financial kick-backs, who  refuse to disqualify themselves from cases involving parties who have contributed millions of dollars to the election campaign of the judge, are “professionals”. Politicians who lie, who use mean spiritedness to polarize the community, who support and are supported by special interest groups and lobbyists are “professionals.”

  But, I like the example of a professional discussed by George Will when he did his best writing as a sports writer.  The “professional’s” name was Jamie Quirk.  Ever hear of him?  Probably not unless you are a diehard, orange and black Baltimore Oriole fan who is high on trivia.

  Quirk was a journeyman catcher who played with the Orioles, Royals, Brewers, Cardinals, White Sox, Indians, Yankees and Athletics.  In 1989, he came to the Orioles in mid-season.

  Very likely, Quirk never made much more than a rookie makes today.

   On October 5, 1989, Will reported on Quirk in an article posted in Toronto.  In the Toronto half of the 8^th inning of the game that day between the Orioles and Toronto, Baltimore lead 1-0.  With one out, there was a Toronto runner on third, and the Orioles were just five outs away from tying the Blue Jays for first place in the league.

   Quirk was catching for a rookie pitcher who had, in the words of George Will, a “knee-buckling curve”.  The rookie was 22 years of age, Quirk was a 35 year old veteran.  Quirk called for a curve ball, low and away from the batter.  The pitch was in Will’s words, “too much of both..it went in the dirt, bounced to the screen, the runner scored.”  With the score then tied 1-1, the game went into extra innings and Toronto pulled out a win in the 11^th inning.

   The official scorer called the pitch a wild pitch, putting the blame squarely on the young pitcher. But, in post-game interviews Quirk called it a passed ball and took the blame.  He said “A major league catcher has to block that ball….I should have blocked it….I’m a professional catcher.”

   As Will then said:

     “Maybe he should have, maybe not.  Two things are certain.  One is that America would be immeasurably improved if more Americans---teachers, workers, journalists, everyone---had Quirk’s exacting standards of craftsmanship and accountability.  The other is that Quirk, who will be thirty five this month, did a manly thing in trying to block blame from reaching a twenty-two year old pitcher.”

   Isn’t that a fact?  Wouldn’t our nation be better off if all of us took accountability, lived up to the rule that actions result in consequences.  I think about the face-off several weeks ago between a police officer in Cambridge, Massachusetts and a professor from Harvard.  You remember the case:  a 911 call was made about suspicious activity at a home, it appeared to the caller that some man was having trouble getting into a residence.  An officer responded and asked the man, the professor, who came to the door for his identification.  Instead of showing it, the professor angrily replied that he shouldn’t have to show his i.d. in his own home.  Outside the house, the words continued between the two, and the officer arrested the professor and took him into custody in handcuffs.

   Immediately, sides were formed in a country which has become so polarized that there is hardly a middle ground.  The officer defended his actions; the professor defended his and claimed racial prejudice.

   When all the facts were in, it became clear that both went too far.  A professional law officer could have avoided the arrest by simply using his radio and checking some facts.   A professional professor could have avoided leaving his house and continuing a war of words.

   But, neither stepped to the plate and took responsibility for a mistake. Neither had the character of Jamie Quirk. How easily he could have let the blame fall on the young pitcher. He didn’t even have to make the accusation, the official score keeper had already done that by ruling the pitch a “wild pitch”,in other words, error on the pitcher.  Quirk could have just remained silent and let the blame fall on the pitcher under the scorer’s ruling.  But, he didn’t.  He said “I’m a professional catcher”, and should have blocked the ball.  A professional officer should have avoided the conflict; a professional professor should have avoided the conflict.

   We see the same in the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States every day.  Professional politicians who refuse to take responsibility for their actions, who rush to blame others and polarize the country even more.

   We saw the same in the case of the two judges in Pennsylvania who were caught with their hands in the cookie jar of the taxpayer’s dollars, who were caught selling the constitutional rights of juveniles.  Neither would take responsibility, leading a federal judge to reject their plea bargain agreement.

   Every day we see refusals to take responsibility.  We see financial “experts”, that is “professionals” who shift the blame for the need for the bail-outs.  We see professionals at the Securities Exchange Commission shift the blame for not detecting the Madoff scam that ruined so many Americans.

   We would, indeed, be better off if there were more professionals like the journeyman catcher of the Orioles.

   George will went further to compare Quirk’s simple act to a much greater and more important act by Dwight Eisenhower during the hours before the D-day invasions.  He drafted a prepared statement to be issued in case the invasion failed.  His first draft was “Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and the troops have been withdrawn.”  After reading the statement over, he changed the last words to read “and I have withdrawn the troops.”  Will wrote that by taking personal responsibility “Eisenhower stepped up to the pitch.  He took responsibility.  Quirk was like Ike.”

   Baseball has survived as the American pastime because of journeymen players like Quirk who took on the responsibility of carrying their teams, with none of the fanfare which surrounds the “stars”. 

   In the famous “sudden death” title game between the Baltimore Colts and the New York Giants, Johnny Unitas took responsibility for refusing to call for a field goal which would have won the game, choosing instead of driving the team to a touchdown, and a final run by Alan Ameche.

   In the famous “ice bowl” title game between Green Bay and the Dallas Cowboys, when Vince Lombardi called for a run on 4^th and one, he put himself on the line to take the responsibility if the game was lost.  When questioned about his decision, he simply replied that if his team couldn’t make one yard, they didn’t deserve to win the championship.

   We can learn a lot from those in sports who step up and take responsibility.  We can learn a lot from the presidents and leaders of the past who took responsibility. It’s time for the polarizers, politicians, talk show “experts”, the bureaucrats and the media, to “step up to the pitch” and be professional. Stop the polarizing, take responsibility for being professional.

 Indeed, “America would be immeasurably improved if more Americans”  in every walk of life displayed Jamie Quirk’s “exacting standards of craftsmanship and accountability.”

TRUTH IN POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT---IS THERE ANY SUCH THING?

September 6, 2009-------by Fred Kelly Grant

   My son Andrew believes quite strongly that all politicians are alike in that they say one thing and do another.  His view is that elected officials will say anything that needs to be said to get elected, and then do what they want when in office.

  Under his view, there is not much to be said for the truthfulness of any elected official.  For years, I have argued with him, taking the position that there are differences between elected officials, just as there are differences in simple human beings.  I have always taken his view to be that when a human being decides to run for elected office, he or she changes from being a “simple human being”.

  I considered his view to be pessimistic, not realistic.  But, as each day rolls around, I find myself coming more and more to his view.  I now do classify his position as close to realism than pessimism.  The latest event to bring me closer to his view is announced in this morning’s Sunday New York Times.

  The paper reports that the Justice Minister of England, Jack Straw, announced just yesterday to the London Daily Telegraph that the release of Lockerbie bombing was definitely linked to an oil deal with Libya.  We may have had our suspicions, but on just this past Wednesday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised Parliament that there “was no cover-up, no double dealing, NO DEAL ON OIL” involved in the bomber’s release.

   The “bomber” is Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahl, the only man convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which refers to the bombing of a Pan American flight over Lockerbie, Scotland.  270 people died, 189 of them Ameicans.  Al-Megrahl was a Libyan terrorist who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

   Just a week ago, the Scottish Justice Minister Kenny Mcaskill made the decision to release the bomber who reportedly has prostate cancer.  His decision was immediately challenged by the Scottish Parliament and criticized by law enforcement officials worldwide.

   President Obama called the release a “mistake”, and suggested that if the bomber indeed was terminally ill he could have been kept under house arrest, but kept in Scotland.  F.B.I. Director Mueller called the decision an insult “to justice” and to the “rule of law”.

   Mcaskill was summoned to the Scottish Parliament to defend his decision.  He swore to them that the decision was his and his alone, and was not influenced by England or by any deals with Libya.  He swore to them that the decision was made strictly on a compassionate basis.  His statements were challenged by members of the Parliament who asked where the bomber’s compassion had been when he caused the death of 270 innocent men, women and children.  Mcaskill stood mute to the question.

    Mcaskill’s decision took more heat when the bombe was received in Libya to a hero’s welcome, as hundreds cheered the return of the man who murdered so many Americans.  Mcaskill had told the Parliament that Libya promised him that the return home of the bomber would be handled low key.  The statement brought hoots from members of Parliament and shouts of “naïve”.

   British Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued a statement supporting Mcaskill’s statement that England had nothing to do with the decision to release the bomber.

  But, now with the announcement by the English justice minister, Gordon Brown’s prior statement and Mcaskill’s denial of English involvement get knocked into a cocked hat.

  Straw, the English senior member of Brown’s cabinet, admitted that an oil deal was a “big part of the decision”.  He said “it was a very big part of that.  I’m unapologetic about that. Libya was a rogue state. We wanted to bring it back into the fold and trade is an essential part of it – and subsequently there was the BP deal.”

  “The BP deal”, he refers to was a $900 Million oil exploration agreement between Libya and BP, Britain’s largest company, in January, 2008.   BP (British Petroleum) worked hard to beat out other international companies to get the deal, the first available after trade sanctions against Libya were lifted.  The sanctions had been placed because of the Libyan government’s involvement in the bombing of the Pan American flight.

   Reference to the 2008 “agreement” means that the release of the bomber has been planned since as early as January, 2008 if it were part of the basis for the deal.  Straw said that oil trade played a “big part of [his decision]and subsequently there was the BP deal.”

   So,PM Brown has been lying to the government of the United States about the deal for over eighteen months, a lie that continued right up to September 5, 2009 when the justice minister let the cat out of the bag.

   The Conservatives in the House of Commons are beside themselves with anger over Brown’s lie to them just this past Wednesday when he denied that oil trade had anything to do with the decision.  They, the Scottish Parliament and the United States are angry about his lie about having no involvement in the Scottish decision to release the bomber.

   The short of it is that once again the all mighty oil dollar trumped all rules of decency, law, honesty, and loyalty to friends.  England influenced the release of a mass murderer to a hero’s welcome in the country which employed him to do its terrorist activities---influenced the decision in order to secure a multi million dollar oil deal for its largest company.

   Then, England’s government lied to the world, and to its strongest ally, the United States. 

   Now, PM Brown is scurrying this Labor Day week-end to find some way to weasel out of the jam he is in with his own Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the United States President and Congress and the relatives of the murdered victims.

   Perhaps even worse than the lies, from my perspective, is the reasoning used by the English for the release.  Granted, they did what they did out of greed for oil and profit.  But, then to admit the obvious, that “Libya” is a “rogue state”, and be naïve enough to have us believe that an oil deal could “bring it back into the fold”.  Who in the name of heaven “wants” Libya “back into the fold” except those who thrive on oil profits.

   Col. Gadaffi is a terrorist dedicated to the downfall of the United States, Israel and any ally of the United States.  When evidence made it clear that it was Libyans who bombed the United States Pan Am flight, Gadaffi refused to allow extradition of the terrorists for trial.  When even the spineless United Nations imposed trade sanctions, Gadaffi still would not yield, and protected the murderers.

  Finally, after intervention by Nelson Mandela, Gadaffi allowed the terrorists to be removed and tried under Scottish law.  Gadaffi then acknowledged that his government was responsible for the actions of the bombers and paid reparations.  As though “reparations” in money could replace the lost loved ones who perished at the hands of the murdering bombers.

   In 1973, Gadaffi issued his then famous “God damn America” statement to Time Magazine, and there is no evidence that he has ever changed his stance.  Most recently, he said that within just a few decades the Muslims living in Europe would turn it into a Muslim continent, removing western threats to the Muslim kingdoms.

   So, it is this terrorist Muslim leader that England’s justice minister intends to “bring back into the fold”, a “fold” which it has never been in from the beginning of time.  And, it is an oil rich deal that caused the release of a terrorist murderer to this “rogue state”, a murderer who returned to a hero’s welcome honoring his murders of American citizens.

   It is no wonder that Gordon Brown thought he had to lie to cover up the real reason for the release.  Now, we wait to see how long it will take for the Conservative party to make enough trouble for him in the  Parliament and with the Queen to bring about the end of his government.

  Well, Andrew, I come one more step toward fully accepting your view of politicians---realism, not pessimism.

Peggy Garners comments: Ya know Fred, you jump on a situation like this one but let pass Mary Jo K. like it never happened, and give Teddy boy all the acolades you have in your vocabulary!  Shame on you!

 

 

One more Peggy Garner comment:

What lessons, notably about patience and common ground, should our political leaders take from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's legislative achievements?

 

Not everything is a crisis, but if watch television news you would think so.

One of the problems about patience and finding common ground in politics and government is that every problem America faces is turned into a crisis. When politicians hear crisis they think they have to act immediately or else the Republic itself will collapse. 

And once that happens the ones in power scramble to "solve" the crisis and the ones out of power offer their own "solution" which is completely the opposite of what the other side is saying with usually not much common ground between them. 

Then the media takes over and 24/7 tells us about the impending doom if we don't act. We work ourselves into a lather, left hollerin' at right and vice versa, and then the political consultants take over and create mini-campaigns to push their side of the argument-TV ads, polling, direct mail, robocalls and all the stuff that goes into campaigns. We turn a public policy issue into a battle instead of a debate with different points of view. 

Problems remain unsolved as both parties jockey for position and they only can see as far as the next election. Voters also see both parties using wedge issues which have nothing to do with tackling the tough issues and are only meant to divide the electorate. And we wonder why we have the political polarization that we do. 

I also think that the political class mistakenly believes that every issue or problem has a legislative solution. Some things just have to work themselves out over time. 

And that requires patience from both the people and their elected representatives. 

Two parts of the Cowboy's Libertarian's Code say. 

"Life has isn't fair and it isn't the responsibility of the government to make it so." 

"Life has risk. We can't litigate, legislate or regulate our way out of every problem." 

Maybe if we thought more like this we would be more patient and find common ground instead of jumping from "crisis to crisis".

Patrick Dorinson

The days of fancy speeches and adoring rallies are over. The American people have been aroused from their infatuation and will now be judging President Obama on the cold hard facts not his rhetorical flourishes.