Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

November 23, 2004

Justice Breyer and the Constitution

Filed under: Government — Bunker @ 9:09 am

E. J. Dionne Jr. has an article in the Washington Post about “conservative judicial activism,” Talking Sense On Court Choices. He speaks about lectures given by Justice Stephen Breyer which “offered a bold challenge.”

…the current trend among conservatives is to read the Constitution as sharply limiting the ability of Congress and the states to make laws protecting the environment, guaranteeing the rights of the disabled and regulating commerce in the public interest.

Both Breyer and Dionne seem to believe the Constitution is not what the Founders intended–a mandate for limiting the powers of the Federal Government. Breyer wants it to be more like a subsection of Federal Law.

Breyer’s master concept is “active liberty.” He argues that the point of our Constitution is democracy — to guarantee “the principle of participatory self-government” that gives the people “room to decide and leeway to make mistakes.”

That is exactly what the Constitution was written to prevent. The Constitution is quite clear in how participatory self-government can be used in the Federal system–by Amendment.

I doubt the man is stupid. But I think his mind has been clouded by all those years in court practicing law rather than studying the Constitution and the writings of its authors. He wants the Courts to decide constitutionality issues based on what the Justices believe the people want. The Constitution does nothing to limit, as he says, the ability of States to make the laws he describes. And the Constitution specifically mentions regulating commerce as a funtion of the Federal Government.

Will judges invoke their own narrow, ideological readings of the Constitution to void progressive legislation? Or will they join Breyer in viewing the Constitution as a framework that “foresees democratically determined solutions, protective of the individual’s basic liberties”? The fight over judges is not about politics, narrowly conceived. It is a struggle over what kind of democracy we will have. Breyer has helped us understand that.

I don’t think Breyer really understands. Or he chooses not to.

November 19, 2004

NEA and Art

Filed under: Government,Society-Culture — Bunker @ 5:40 pm

I am a supporter of the arts. And I enjoy many of them–painting, sculpture, music, theater, prose, and poetry. I’m not a fan of dance, although I enjoy the athleticism of ballet, and I can’t sit and listen to opera. I had the good fortune to spend some of my youth in England and France where I got to see some of the Old Masters’ work, but my favorite art museum is the Amon G. Carter Museum in my hometown. Any time I return there I am drawn to see what is on display.

Today, as I browsed the archives at Commentary, I came across an article written by Joseph Epstein, What to Do About the Arts (subscription required). As a former member of the National Council for the National Endowment for the Arts, he has the experience to judge how this entity has performed. Although he believes the NEA has its place, he blames it for the mediocrity that the arts in America have become.

Mediocrity, the question of what may be called quality control, was rarely discussed during my time at the NEA. It could not be. Most NEA panelists believed in encouraging the putatively disadvantaged more than they believed in art itself, and this made them prey to the grim logic of affirmative action.

It reminds me of one story I heard (no verification of its truth) that a “poet” had written a “poem” consisting of a single word. When no publication would agree to publish it, he went to the NEA and got a grant to purchase advertizing space in a poetry magazine, and used the space to “publish” his “poem.” Other groups, denied the grants sought, have filed suit claiming censorship–and won.

Poetry is the art which has suffered most. Today’s poets (speaking of the ones I’m aware of who receive acclaim) have no sense of meter or rhyme. Rhyme is not necessary, but a rhythm is essential if we are to separate poetry from prose. Otherwise, “free-verse” simply becomes a new name for short prose. I no longer read poetry; it seems quite mundane, requiring little skill and good marketing. Where are the modern incarnations of Jesse Stuart, Robert Frost, or even Rod McKuen?

I could not help noticing, too, the special obligation which the people who worked at the NEA felt toward what passed for avant-garde or “cutting-edge” art. The cutting edge, almost invariably, was anti-capitalist, anti-middle-class, anti-American, the whole-earth catalogue of current antinomianism. What was new was that the artists who wanted to seem cutting edge also wanted the government they despised to pay for the scissors.

By no means does Epstein want the NEA to go away. It fills the void in some communities by sponsoring touring exhibits or shows to give some culture to those of us in the hinterlands. You know–Red States. But the grant process has become a travesty, and a means for those with lesser talent to make a living in the Arts. In supporting them, the overall quality of our Arts is diminished.

To me, “expanding the envelope” in the artistic world means taking the available tools and using them in different ways–using your mind to create art. Music is a prime example. People who create it use the same eight notes and their variations to create something new–different combinations, different rhythms, different instruments. Stomp is the one dance show that would interest me simply because of the creativity involved. Using urine or feces to create something unimaginative doesn’t make it art. It makes it unimaginative–waste.

I see the NEA getting further and further away from its original intent. In this time of Congressional budget legislation, I think it does us well to question whether the money spent on the NEA is money spent wisely. If not, it either needs to be eliminated, or significant changes made in how that money is spent.

November 17, 2004

Fight Mental Health Screening For Children

Filed under: Education,Government — Bunker @ 5:58 pm

The Congress has several spending bills to deal with before their term ends. One of the ways they do this quickly, and with little fanfare is through an omnibus bill. In that way, they can wrap up a lot of spending in a single document which the President must sign or veto at once, without recourse to discussion. This week, the House is to vote on one bill which provides for mandatory mental health screening of kids in public schools. Details are here. The bill itself, HR 81 IR, was introduced by Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee, one of our favorite Democrats–from Houston. The same lady who wanted to name hurricanes in a more politically-correct way. The first line of the bill says, “At least one in five children and adolescents has a diagnosable mental , emotional, or behavioral problem that can lead to school failure, alcohol or other drug use, violence, or suicide.” How did I manage to rear four children with no mental health problems? Perhaps a fifth would have been deranged! (And no comments from you, Slice!)

The behavioral problems have more to do with lack of discipline than any mental health issues. And yes, I am an expert.

Congressman Ron Paul, an OB/GYN physician for over 30 years, is desperately trying to keep the drug companies, politicians and federal bureaucrats from becoming parents to your children. Dr. Paul will introduce on Wednesday afternoon or Thursday morning (whenever the floor schedule allows) an amendment to the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Act for FY 2005 that will withhold funds for this new federal mental-health-screening program. He will urge his congressional colleagues to support his effort in a letter to be distributed tomorrow morning.

The Liberty Committee, a caucus of Congressmen with a libertarian bent led by Rep. Ron Paul, have agreed to the following wording to be added to the Omnibus Funding Bill to be voted on this week in the House:

None of the funds made availablefor State incentive grants for transformation should be used for any programsof mandatory or universal mental-health screening that performs mental-health screening on anyone under 18 years of age without the express, written permission of the parents or legal guardians of each individual involved.

I don’t want any funding going to this cause, whether the parents agree or not. I spent a couple of years as Commandant of a private military school where about a third of the junior high and high school kids were on Ritalin. Not one needed it. In fact, most were overachievers, intelligent, and simply bored with the mundane classes they endured in public schools. The acted up not because they had problems paying attention due to some mental disorder, but because their minds were racing far ahead of the pace the teachers set. When placed in a disciplined environment with plenty to do to keep their minds active and busy, they responded with intellectual zeal. What they had never had at home or school was a solid foundation of self-discipline, created through imposed discipline early on.

I don’t believe the federal government has any place in the education system. I certainly don’t feel they should be involved in mass mental evaluation. Are you concerned about total government control of your child’s life? This is not just a step in that direction–it is a huge leap. The evaluation will determine a mental rating for your child that will follow him/her for many years. It may require medication under threat to you of child abuse or neglect prosecution. It will make it very easy for school administrators to place your child in “special” classes if they don’t meet an arbitrary standard. And that does not necesarily mean special education classes, but may mean annual or even weekly mental health evaluations.

We are taking some of the most intelligent self-starters in this country and turning them into automatons through drugs, when we should be celebrating their ability to advance faster than their peers, and offering them opportunities to develop their skills. Instead, we drug them and make them sit quietly while others catch up. A quiet, bored student is better than an active, bored student.

Sales of Ritalin must have peaked, and the drug companies need a new market. And the psychologists.

At the bottom of my left column you will find links to your congressmen and Senators. Use them.

NEA

Filed under: Education,Government — Bunker @ 10:38 am

National Education Association makes a plea we’ve heard often in the last two weeks from many groups that supported Kerry:

This is a great opportunity for the Administration to change the tone of its discourse with the education community, particularly the 2.7 million members of the National Education Association who are in schools all over this nation.

What they are really saying is that Dubya has an opportunity to make them relevant once more. Do any of these groups ever consider that they may be wrong?

November 16, 2004

Electoral College

Filed under: Government,Politics — Bunker @ 11:56 am

We are trying a new feature at Homespun Bloggers. Each week we will all take on a topic, and add our own thoughts on it. This week the issue is the Electoral College. I don’t have strong feelings on the subject, but I’ve not heard anything proposed that would work better. We have a diverse group, so comparisons should be interesting. As new posts are added, I’ll attempt to add them on my own post. If not, they will all be available at the above link.
****************************

Is it time for the U.S. to end the Electoral College? I’m sure there are many who believe so. They want this to be a democracy, with direct election of our President. I can understand the frustration some feel. When the candidates spend the entire run-up in a select group of states, it seems that the rest of us are being ignored.

Actually, that’s precisely what the Electoral College is supposed to prevent. The concept was to keep voters from selecting a “favorite son” and split the vote so strongly that the election would end up in the Congress. It was also a means of keeping the more populous states from having undue influence. I’m sure that in looking at the focus on Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, the theory seems to have been disproven. In reality, it works quite well. Some of that is explained in this history from the Federal Election Commission site. Twenty pages, but quite readable and informative. Every state, regardless of population, has at least three electors. And that provides more balance–not complete–but more.

The concept is still quite valid, although there may be reason to modify it in some way once again. But the modification will have to come through state legislatures or Amendment. The Constitution leaves the procedure up to each state, and not all do it in exactly the same way.

What the EC systems does well, is restrict the most populous states from overpowering the election. This was pretty obvious this year, where New York and California went strongly for Kerry, but didn’t tip the scales. Bush did still win the popular vote, but in 2000 that wasn’t the case. It also prevents the need for Congressional involvement in elections like 1992 and 1996 where no candidate received a majority of the popular vote, but Clinton won enough electoral votes to take over the Oval Office. Something the Founding Fathers were quite concerned with was this separation of powers, and keeping selection of the Executive Branch out of the hands of the Legislative Branch. If an election can be determined without recourse to Congress or the Courts, it needs to be done that way. And I’ve not heard a single proposal that does that as well.

More thoughts here:

  • Considerettes
  • Redhunter
  • Mud and Phud

    • The CIA Fights Back

    Filed under: Government — Bunker @ 7:28 am

    Stephen F. Hayes writes in Weekly Standard about the cleanup going on at the CIA. Some are concerned about the Porter Goss approach:

    “What’s your take on Porter Goss’s leadership at the CIA after nearly a month in office? Is he making an effort to reach out to the rank and file or is he pretty much relying on his ‘special advisers’ to run the place for him?”

    Look, reaching out is a Kumbayah thing. A spy agency, or any other government agency, should be more interested in work being done and done right rather than whether the bureaucrats feel validated by their boss. And does “reaching out” not work both ways?

    November 12, 2004

    Opportunity Knocks

    Filed under: Education,Government — Bunker @ 7:01 pm

    Here is an opportunity to do something right with the No Child Left Behind funding.

    Dubya, do nothing before you call Bill Cosby.

    « Newer Posts — Older Posts »

    Powered by WordPress