Tea Party

This past Friday, February 27th, "tea parties" were held across the country. Inspired by the now famous report by Rick Santelli on CNBC and the Boston Tea Party carried out by America's first patriots, the tea parties were a protest against the stimulus bill recently passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. Reports, found mostly on blogs and twitters with occasional support from the mainstream media, indicate that the parties drew anywhere from 100-500 participants per city and included organized speakers and marches... not bad considering that these were all organized in three days with most participants joining in as the protests were going on. Participants in Atlanta even braved severe weather and a close-call with a tornado!

I perused some pictures of some of the protests this morning (I didn't attend any since I was bringin' home the bacon and tryin' to stay off the dole that day). I always like to see the signs people bring to these events. I am never clever enough to come up with these. I have to admit to a bit of "slogan envy." (Although I was rather proud of the Libertarian t-shirts we made for a street fair we participated in a few years back.) My kids love to make signs for events like this. Maybe I need to organize more protests so that we can hit art and civics in one shot. *grin* It might help to spark my creative juices, too. Practice makes perfect and all that.

Some of my favorite slogans from the tea party signs were:

"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt?"

"Chains We Can Believe In"

"Why would YOU want to pay for MY health care?"

And a picture of a little girl (I'm guessing she was about 4) holding a sign that read: "I read as much of the stimulus bill as my Congresswoman" (seriously, it was 1100 pages and it was not available in its entirety until after the vote, so don't believe any Congressman who told you they read it before they voted... they didn't, they couldn't)

You can view pictures here and here.

I only hope that the energy and push to action that inspired these protests continues. We need to live the lives of free men and not just be content with the appearance of freedom. It begins with protest. Hopefully it will end with government action.

Other People's Money On Other People

Milton Friedman said there are four ways to spend money:

1. You spend your money on yourself.

2. You spend your money on other people.

3. You spend other people's money on yourself.

4. You spend other people's money on other people.

If this list sounds familiar, you are either very well-informed or you remember me mentioning this before. *grin*

The economic stimulus package that the House of Representatives is voting on today (you can read all 647 pages here) is a very good example of what happens under situation #4. Here is a summary from today's Wall Street Journal:

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

You can read the entire article here.

The Senate has their own version of the stimulus bill which should come up for a vote in a few weeks.

Sounds like the same old pork, different congress. Whether your political beliefs or understanding of the Constitution allow for a government stimulus of private commerce or not, shouldn't the majority of the bill contain laws which would actually stimulate something economic? Maybe they are trying to stimulate a faster economic downfall? In so, way to go!

So much for change.

Update: The House passed the bill this afternoon (Jan. 28th) 244-188.

Marshall Fritz Has Passed Away

Marshall Fritz passed away on November 4th at the age of 65 after a battle with pancreatic cancer. Mr. Fritz was a leader in the libertarian movement and is probably best known as the creator of The World's Smallest Political Quiz. He was also the founder of the Advocates for Self-Government and The Alliance for the Separation of School and State. Lisa Snell at the Hawaii Reporter has written a wonderful tribute to Mr. Fritz. It begins:

Marshall Fritz, the longtime libertarian leader who founded the Advocates for Self-Government and created the world-famous World's Smallest Political Quiz, died November 4th of pancreatic cancer at the age of 65.

I knew Marshall Fritz as the founder of the Alliance for the Separation of School and State. He wisely advised that "Sunday School, Monday School—Neither is the Business of Government." He wrote, "some people think that the American "public school system" is broken so they try to fix it. The truth is that public schooling is not broken. Rather, it is succeeding in its main objective—strengthening government by undermining parents..."

As education reform advocates argued about what counts as markets in education and what are legitimate forms of school choice—from vouchers to tax credits to charter schools—Marshall was never willing to settle for half-measures. As he advised in a 2005 reason piece, "Let a Thousand Choices Bloom," "Start with your own children. Remove them from school-by-government. You'll not be paying twice for education: You'll pay taxes for the state to harm other people's children, but you'll pay only once for education—your children's."

You can read her entire article here.


Most of my knowledge of Mr. Fritz comes from The World's Smallest Political Quiz and some articles I have read on the Advocates for Self-Government website. I was surprised that I had never heard of The Alliance for the Separation of School and State before, so I quickly skimmed through their site today. I will be going back there to read other articles, but this one caught my attention, so I thought I would share it:

Once upon a time, in a land not so far away...

It’s a lively community forum. A nice young woman named Jan Smith from Freeland (a tiny country tucked away somewhere in Western Europe) is telling us about how Freeland has solved many of the problems our local politicians have been struggling with. Some think our city council members could learn from Freeland’s example.

“One of the problems we’ve dealt with quite successfully is the gun issue,” Ms. Smith says. “Now remember, we’re a free country like yours— we believe in individual liberty and responsibility. We certainly allow citizens to own and use firearms. However, we noticed that this creates several problems. Many people just don’t take proper care of their guns. They don’t know how to clean them, how to store them, how to make sure they are safe. Other people modify their guns in ways that are illegal or not in the best interests of the public. This poses a danger not only to themselves, but to the community...

You can read the rest of it here.


(HT: Why Homeschool)

We were warned

I think I'll be listening to Peter Schiff from now on for an accurate report on the state of the economy. I'm definitely not going to listen to the people who just sat there and laughed at him... laughed. Even if he hadn't have been right on target, how disrespectful is that? What ever happened to civility in disagreement?

(HT: Judy at Consent of the Governed)

A Spoonful of Sugar

On Monday, September 29th, the House of Representatives voted against H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. This original form of the bill numbered 110 pages and dealt predominantly with how the federal government would purchase "troubled assets", protect homeowners who are facing foreclosure, distribute monies, provide oversight of those companies receiving money, and other related issues. Many Representatives, when asked why they voted against this bill stated that either their constituents were against it, they felt it did not provide enough oversight, or that it is not the role of government to "save" private companies and citizens from the consequences of their bad choices.

On Wednesday, October 1st, the Senate passed an amended H.R. 1424 numbering 451 pages which has now been passed on the the House for a vote, expected to take place Friday, October 3rd. What is included in those additional 441 that led the Senate to pass it?

After skimming through both versions of the bill (there was no way I could read through all 561 pages this afternoon and keep 6 children fed, clean, and educated, so I had to skim the majority of them and then focus on reading the additions made), I have found that the question of oversight has been addressed and tweaked, but that hardly accounts for all 441 new pages. So, what does comprise the majority of those additions?

Bribes

All day, I have been hearing the media (mostly NPR as we don't have television reception nor do we have a great variety of good radio reception) use the term "sweeteners" in reference to the additions to the bill which made it "passable." Even Frodo, who attempts to avoid all things political when possible, couldn't help but notice the new term the media has been using to describe what in the past has been referred to as "pork." I understand why the politicians want to avoid the word "pork." It's an election year. Thirty-five of the 100 Senate seats are being contested this year, and all 435 Representatives are up for re-election. These politicians know that during elections years, you have to be against "pork barrel spending," so apparently they've decided, with the media as an accomplice, that items added to a bill to guarantee enough votes to pass it are now called "sweeteners." Maybe they thought the term would invoke images of birthday cakes and Christmas candy, but all I am picturing is a guy in a cheap, ill-fitting polyester suit standing in front of used car of questionable background annoyingly chewing gum and winking while saying, "How's about I sweeten the deal for ya, doll?"

But whether you call these additions "pork" or "sweeteners," what they really amount to are bribes. They are targeted spending measures intended to buy the votes of congressmen by making them look good to their constituents. Do they not see the irony of an emergency economic stabilization act containing spending the government can't afford? As of October 1st, the federal debt totaled:

$10,124,225,067,127.69

Wall Street is in trouble because they gambled on inflated house prices and used mortgages as collateral for their other financial dealings. When the housing market turned, these banks owed more money than the value of the mortgages they put up against their loans. Main street is in trouble because individuals gambled on the inflated economy providing them with ever-increasing incomes and ever-increasing home values by using adjustable-rate mortgages to buy houses they couldn't afford and left them houses valued far less than the amount of money they owed. So what is the government's answer? They are going to gamble that the "troubled assets" they buy today will be worth more in the unnamed future. In short, they are going to attempt to fix the financial crisis by engaging in the exact same practices that led to it in the first place.

So, what kind of promises does it take to get a congressman to vote for a strategy that it can't afford and has already been proven to fail? Here are some of the bill's "sweeteners" (these are all section or title headings that you can search for yourself in the bill):

-Renewable Energy Credit
-Transportation Fringe Benefit To Bicycle Commuters
- Seven-Year Cost Recovery Period For Motorsports Racing Track Facility
-Extension and Duty Modification Of Duty Suspension On Wool Products; Wool Research Fund; Wool Duty Refunds
-Permanent Authority For Undercover Operations
-Exemption From Excise Tax For Certain Wooden Arrows Designed For Use By Children (you can't make these up, people)
-Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (yup, there is an entire act tacked on as an amendment; actually there are three)

The members of the House stood up once and said no to government intervention in the financial markets. (It was government intervention that led to this problem in the first place, including the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989; Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992; and administration-based changes to the Community Reinvestment Act, first enacted by President Carter in 1977, and effecting changes in Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations both by President Clinton, in 1995, and President GW Bush, in 2003.) Let's encourage our representatives to stand up again to government interference. And let's make sure that, as we do so, we are willing to suffer the potential financial sacrifices that may be necessary to weather this adjustment in our financial markets as we move toward a more realistic, asset-based economy.

Yes, Minister... Mr. Secretary... Mr. President

Not sure whether to laugh or cry. Maybe we can take comfort in the fact that at least we're not alone... nope, still leaning towards crying... or at least fist-pounding. (And I'm definitely laughing. This is great stuff. Gotta love British sitcoms.)



If you've never seen the British television series Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, I highly recommend them. You are missing quite a treat.

HT: Consent of the Governed - thanks for the reminder)

You mean, they can go down?!

Hong Kong posts record surplus, unveils tax cuts, other concessions

HONG KONG (Thomson Financial) - Hong Kong on Wednesday posted its highest budget surplus on record for the year to March and unveiled tax relief measures to spur the economy in the coming year amid rising inflation and slowing global growth...

...[Financial Secretary John] Tsang said the government will cut income tax to 15 percent from April from the current 16 percent, while reducing corporate profit tax to 16.5 percent from 17.5 percent.

Tsang also said he is also waiving 75 percent of income taxes this fiscal year with a ceiling of 25,000 Hong Kong dollars, a move that will cost the government 12.4 billion dollars, but benefit 1.4 million tax payers.

Tsang offered other tax concessions, including waivers on taxes for property and alcoholic beverages. These concessions will put a dent on revenue for the coming fiscal year.

Read the entire article here.

Hong Kong regularly tops the Heritage Foundation/ Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom, just as they do this year. Click on over and see how the US compares. We actually moved up this year.

Objections Addressed, Part 1

In October (Wow! I haven’t been here in awhile, huh?), I included a short post entitled Who is Ron Paul? All that was included in the post was a YouTube video and a simple observation and question: “He had me at ‘Constitution’. What about you?” Well, never ask a question if you don’t want to know the answer.

I received a few comments and emails with some questions and (passionate) responses that I wanted to address specifically and in some detail, so I will be doing that in a short series of posts over the next couple of weeks. Again, please leave a comment or send an email to agree, disagree, or otherwise propel the discussion. All I ask is that you do so civilly.

The most passionate response I received was from one of my dearest friends who I’ve known since college. I am christening him “Bill” for the purposes of this discussion. He and his wife are like a brother and sister to Frodo and I. Bill and Frodo usually get into intense religious and political discussions whenever they talk, and I always found this a little amusing since they probably agree 90% of the time, but if you walked in in the middle of one of their conversations, you might not believe it. It is like a tennis match between two relatively equally matched players but one has a slightly better serve and the other has the mildly superior backhand… neither is so superior that they become discouraged but their complimentary strengths make them better players in the end. Anyway, all that to say, I love him… be nice (to both of us). *grin*

Bill gave me his permission to publish his email:

Ron Paul is an insult to all those serving abroad, and does not understand the Constitution, at all. If he feels that only Congress should deploy troops, then STOP FUNDING THEIR MOVEMENT!

This is a symptom that afflicts so many - the idea that the military can have, in effect, 535 Commanders-in-Chief.

Of all the Republican candidates (and I don't know who I support yet), he is most offensive to me. Thankfully, most of America thinks so too.

Iraq is not a mistaken policy - sure, mistakes have been made, as in any war. To pull out of Iraq is shortsighted, and any potential leader that thinks so should be avoided at all costs.

I’ll start at the beginning:

Ron Paul is an insult to all those serving abroad, and does not understand the Constitution, at all. If he feels that only Congress should deploy troops, then STOP FUNDING THEIR MOVEMENT!

This is a symptom that afflicts so many - the idea that the military can have, in effect, 535 Commanders-in-Chief.

Dr. Paul is in favor of pulling our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. He has a few reasons for this, but the primary one is that the war was undeclared and therefore unconstitutional. After 9/11, Dr. Paul (as a member of Congress) approved the funds for our military to go into Afghanistan to accomplish a specific mission. In his address to the nation at the beginning of operation Enduring Freedom on the afternoon of October 7, 2001, President Bush enumerated our military’s goals as follows:

On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime.

As he concluded his address, President Bush stated:

To all the men and women in our military -- every sailor, every soldier, every airman, every coastguardsman, every Marine -- I say this: Your mission is defined; your objectives are clear; your goal is just.

The goal was clear, shut down the al Qaeda terrorist training camps, capture their leaders so they could be brought to justice, and maim the Taliban’s military capability. Our soldiers fought well, and on March 8, 2002 then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated:

We've now pretty much completed the phase of taking the Taliban out of Afghanistan's government and putting the al Qaeda on the run. They're no longer capable of using Afghanistan as a safe haven and that's terribly important…

…It is not possible for bin Laden to be using Afghanistan effectively as a haven for terrorism. He's not recruiting there. He's not training there. He's not raising money there. He's on the run.

Also, numerous sources (you can read some here, here, and here) believe that Osama bin Laden fled into Pakistan during the battle of Tora Bora in December of 2001.

My understanding of these events is as follows- We did not declare war when we went into Afghanistan because a terrorist group that was being actively supported by Afghanistan’s government attacked us on our own soil, therefore the government was complicit in the attack and in effect declared war on us. Therefore, we were retaliating to an active declaration of war by a foreign power. According to the War Powers Act of 1973, the Congress and President may use military force without an official declaration of war for 60 days. After the 60 days are over, Congress must either officially declare war or cease military actions. There are a few instances where this 60 days can be extended an additional 30, but after that, the Congress must declare war or forces must be brought home.

Within this 90 day time frame (assuming a 30 day extension), the majority of Taliban strongholds were toppled (the most notable being Kabul, Kunduz and Kandahar) and all known organized factions of al-Qaeda were known or presumed to have fled to Pakistan. Hostilities should have ended or war should have been declared.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the power to declare war is given to the Congress:

The Congress shall have power…

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, according to the Constitution of the United States and the War Powers Act of 1973, the United States Congress should have either declared war or removed our troops from Afghanistan by January 7, 2002 (90 days after the start of operation Enduring Freedom). Had the Congress declared war, the President then would have continued in his role as Commander and Chief according to the powers given him in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

No one, and definitely not me or Dr. Paul, is suggesting that there should be 535 Commanders in Chief. That would not only be ludicrous, but it would also be in violation of the Constitution. The founding fathers wisely separated the ability to declare and fund war from the ability to command the military. They wanted to provide an obstacle to the corrupting nature of power and try to prevent any one branch of the government (specifically the President given the tyrannical monarchy they had just successfully severed ties with) from having complete control of the military. It is rather difficult to use the military to establish a dictatorship if the purse has been welded shut.

Alexander Hamilton addressed this issue in Federalist Paper #24: The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered:

A stranger to our politics, who was to read our newspapers at the present juncture, without having previously inspected the plan reported by the convention, would be naturally led to one of two conclusions: either that it contained a positive injunction, that standing armies should be kept up in time of peace; or that it vested in the EXECUTIVE the whole power of levying troops, without subjecting his discretion, in any shape, to the control of the legislature.

If he came afterwards to peruse the plan itself, he would be surprised to discover, that neither the one nor the other was the case; that the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected; and that instead of the provision he had supposed in favor of standing armies, there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity.

As to Bill’s frustration “ If he feels that only Congress should deploy troops, then STOP FUNDING THEIR MOVEMENT!”, I am a little confused as to why this statement is included here. Since the original deployment of troops in October of 2001, Dr. Paul has not voted to continue funding the troops in Afghanistan or Iraq. Dr. Paul didn’t even vote to send troops into Iraq. He has earned his nickname of “Dr. No” by consistently voting against any unconstitutional legislations, resolutions, etc. that are introduced in the House of Representatives. On October 8, 2002, Dr. Paul voted against House Joint Resolution 144 which gave the President unconstitutional powers over the US military. Basically, the resolution hands over constitutionally established congressional powers to deploy the military to the executive branch. This clearly breaches the system of checks and balances the Constitution was meant to establish. On that same day, Dr. Paul voted against the Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 (which included funding for undeclared wars) as presented in HR5010. (These votes took place in the 107^th Congress.) He has continued to vote against such unconstitutional spending and troop deployments. (The Washington Post has a great site where they track the voting records of all members of Congress. It is a wonderful resource but can be a bit difficult to navigate. You’ll need patience to find older votes since they are listed chronologically with the most recent first. The New York Times also has summaries of voting records for all of the Presidential candidates for a variety of topics. You can see all of their voting records on the hostilities in Iraq here.)

Bill, in the case of finances as they pertain to current US military actions, I believe you are preaching to the choir. As far as your understanding of the constitutionally appointed roles of the Congress and the President where the military is concerned, I think you are severely in error.

I will address the remainder of Bill’s email in a separate post in a few days.

Also, I wanted to note again that these are my opinions and understandings of these issues. Although I believe that they align to those held by Dr. Paul and that I have faithfully represented his stances here, I encourage you to read his opinions for yourself. Check out his voting record at the sites I mention above or go to his campaign website or congressional website for more information.

I just couldn't help myself...

I saw these two headlines on an internet news service, and I knew I couldn't wait two weeks before saying something.

First headline: Stem Cell Breakthrough Diffuses Debate

Excerpt:

Scientists have created the equivalent of embryonic stem cells from ordinary skin cells, a breakthrough that could someday produce new treatments for disease without the explosive moral questions of embyro cloning.

Research teams in the United States and Japan showed that a simple lab technique can rival the complex and highly controversial idea of extracting stem cells from cloned embryos.

Gut Reaction: "Finally!"

Thoughtful Reaction: "Will it really be accepted?"


There are some flaws in the technique. The primary one being that in the transition process, the DNA of the skin cells is altered thus increasing the risk of forming cancer. Because of this risk, human applications are being delayed. The developers of the technique feel that this side-effect can be avoided with some changes to the technique.

Overall, this is wonderful news. The technique is cheaper than clone harvesting, a large number of potential of skin cell donors and ease of procurement means a larger pool of stem cells available for research and treatment, and the need for the cloning of babies and abortions to harvest stem cells is removed. It seems to be a win-win all around.

Second Headline: High Court to Weigh Ban on Gun Ownership

Excerpt:

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years...

...The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

Gut Reaction: What?!

Thoughtful Reaction: What?!

At first, I was simply amazed that this case even got this far. The Constitution clearly states in the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

When the Second Amendment was first proposed, many, including James Madison, expressed concern over what the term "militia" meant and what exactly the amendment was proposing. In a letter to Mr. Madison, Tench Coxe, a delegate to the Continental Congress from Pennsylvania, pointed Mr. Madison to a series of articles he had written in the under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian." On June 18, 1789, the (Philadelphia) Federal Gazette(Philadelphia) Federal Gazette ran the article "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution" by Tench Coxe (aka "A Pennsylvanian") which read, in part:

The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

We are the people. The amendment gives the people the right to keep and bear arms. We are the militia. The amendment confirms the necessity of a well regulated militia and is therefore confirming that the removal of the right of the citizenry to own guns ("and every other terrible implement of the soldier" according to Coxe) is not up to the government. If fact, government prohibition of weapon ownership is strictly prohibited.

James Madison himself, in Federalist Paper No. 46, when addressing the concern over the federal government's ability to call up and control the militia (or the greater fear, maintenance of a standing army with the increased ability for government oppression), states that this fear is impractical since the populace of America will be armed:

Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

That this is even being contested amazes me, but another fact in the case stuck out to me. Did you see it? "The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment." Thirty-one year ban?! How did this ban pass in the first place? Why did it take this long for someone to contest it? I find this scary.

I'll be keeping my eye on this scientific breakthrough and the upcoming Supreme Court case. In the meantime, back to work. The finish line looms larger than yesterday and will be larger still tomorrow. (Plus, I need my rest so I can clean my house for Thanksgiving guests.)

Remember, Remember the 5th of November

If you are from Britain or a history buff (or homeschooled *grin*), the title phrase probably recalls the story of Guy Fawkes. Guy Fawkes was a member of a Roman Catholic, anti-Protestant group who attempted to assassinate King James I and blow-up the British Parliament on November 5, 1605 in what has become known as the Gunpowder Plot. Guy Fawkes Day is still celebrated in Britain and involves fireworks, bonfires, and the burning of Guy in effigy. Recitation of the following rhyme is popular among British children as part of the celebration of Guy Fawkes' capture:

Remember, remember, the 5th of November
The Gunpowder Treason and plot ;
I know of no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes,
'Twas his intent.
To blow up the King and the Parliament.
Three score barrels of powder below.
Poor old England to overthrow.
By God's providence he was catch'd,
With a dark lantern and burning match

Holloa boys, Holloa boys, let the bells ring
Holloa boys, Holloa boys, God save the King!

Hip hip Hoorah !
Hip hip Hoorah !

A penny loaf to feed ol'Pope,
A farthing cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down,
A faggot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar,'
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head,
Then we'll say: ol'Pope is dead.

(That's about as cheery as Ring Around the Rosy, isn't it?)

If you are a movie buff, the phrase "Remember, Remember the 5th of November" may bring to mind the Guy Fawkes mask clad freedom fighter (known as "V") of the fictitious, socialistic London of the future as portrayed in the movie V for Vendetta (based on the graphic novel). You can see V in the picture to the right. (The poster behind him is one of the many slogans used by the totalitarian government that attempts to place the government in the position of a god.) The movie's opening voiceover draws on the children's rhyme:

Remember, remember, the Fifth of November, the Gunpowder Treason and Plot. I know of no reason why the Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot... But what of the man? I know his name was Guy Fawkes and I know, in 1605, he attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament. But who was he really? What was he like? We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can still change the world. I've witnessed first hand the power of ideas, I've seen people kill in the name of them, and die defending them... but you cannot kiss an idea, cannot touch it, or hold it... ideas do not bleed, they do not feel pain, they do not love... And it is not an idea that I miss, it is a man... A man that made me remember the Fifth of November. A man that I will never forget.

And here is the speech given by V when he addresses the people of London and reveals his plans to overthrow the totalitarian government and expresses the importance of a unified citizenry if change is to take hold:

Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.

As of yesterday, November 5, 2007, "Remember, remember the 5th of November" has taken on new meaning. It is the day the Ron Paul Revolution took a giant leap forward. Yesterday, the Ron Paul campaign raised $4.3 million dollars in 24 hours. The fundraiser was prompted by an independent Ron Paul supporter through his website www.thisnovember5th.com, but was embraced by the campaign (according to an article by ABC News, Who Are Ron Paul's Donors?). Donations came from both already active supporters and donors and more than 21,000 donors who registered with the campaign for the first time yesterday. As of today (November 6th) at 3:30 central time, the Ron Paul 2008 website is reporting this quarter's total fundraising has reached just shy of $7.4 million which surpasses last quarter's surprising $5.1 million and is more than half of this quarter's goal of $12 million.

So, are you ready to join the Ron Paul Revolution and celebrate a victory next November 5th?

*Note: I haven't forgotten about responding to the comments I received (via both email and the comments section) to my last Ron Paul post. I am up against a work deadline, and a "cut and paste" post like this is easier than a researched, thoughtful post. I'll begin posting responses to the other post in a week or two (I hope... as long as I keep chugging along on this deadline).

Sorry about the weird formatting on the rhyme. Not sure what's going on. Looks fine in writing mode, but it's off when I post. Oh well.

Beware the Cheshire Cat

From a Baltimore Sun news blog:

“Every parent in America should have the right to send their children to the school of their choice – including the right of responsible parents to choose home-schooling,’’ Giuliani said, drawing strong applause from an audience that includes many home-schooled teenagers from around the nation.

Read the entire article here

It's like nails on a chalkboard, isn't it?

Sure, it sounds good the first time you read it. Maybe even the second time. Then you see it. "Responsible parents." You pause.

"Yeah. I'd agree with that. Who would want irresponsible parents to homeschool?" you think. Then it hits you... who gets to decide who's responsible? Giuliani? Congress? The state? The local school board?

How would they define responsible? Have children who pass standardized tests? At least one parent holds a teaching certificate? Doesn't use curriculum put out by a religious publisher? Uses a whole language reading method vs. a phonics-based approach?

What would it take to determine if a parent is responsible? Would they assume that every parent who took the time to fill-out the government-mandated paperwork is responsible? Would they do a background check? Would they send a case worker to your home?

The Cat only grinned when it saw Alice. It looked good-natured,
she thought: still it had very long claws and a great many teeth,
so she felt that it ought to be treated with respect.

`Cheshire Puss,' she began, rather timidly, as she did not at all
know whether it would like the name: however, it only grinned a
little wider. `Come, it's pleased so far,' thought Alice, and she
went on. `Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from
here?'

Alice speaks to Cheshire Cat

`That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the
Cat.

`I don't much care where--' said Alice.

`Then it doesn't matter which way you go,' said the Cat.

`--so long as I get somewhere,' Alice added as an explanation.

`Oh, you're sure to do that,' said the Cat, `if you only walk
long enough.'

Alice felt that this could not be denied, so she tried another
question. `What sort of people live about here?'

`In that direction,' the Cat said, waving its right paw round,
`lives a Hatter: and in that direction,' waving the other paw,
`lives a March Hare. Visit either you like: they're both mad.'

`But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.

`Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm
mad. You're mad.'

`How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.

`You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'

[snip]

'I wish you wouldn't keep
appearing and vanishing so suddenly: you make one quite giddy.'

`All right,' said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite
slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the
grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone.

`Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin,' thought Alice; `but
a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in
my life!'

So, beware the Cheshire Cat. That smile brings with it madness and claws.

Who is Ron Paul?

This is Ron Paul:




He had me at "Constitution".
What about you?

This video is professional and informative. It is a great introduction for those who would like to learn where Ron Paul stands. BTW, the CNN Situation Room segment shown at the beginning of this video is one of the better overall candidate bios that I have seen in awhile.

HT: Heather at Stepping Heavenward

A Heretical Thought?

Henry, over at Why Homeschool, has an insightful article speculating on when the decline in the quality of American education began.

October 4th was the 50th anniversary of Sputnik. In 1957 the Soviet Union was the first nation to put a satellite into orbit. This exciting event caught the rest of the world by surprise.

At the time many in the United States claimed there was a need to respond, that the United States needed to prove they could do better and thus sprang the beginning of the effort to put a man on the moon. Another response was greater state and federal government interference in education. Like chicken littles, they said the sky was falling and justified dramatic and increasing changes in education.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

An Open Letter and a Response

After hosting a GOP debate, CNBC thought it would be a good idea to put up an online poll to see how viewers responded. It didn't take them long to decide that their unscientific, online poll was resulting in an unscientific, unfavorable result and to take the poll down. You can follow the link below to read the letter by CNBC's Managing Editor, Allen Wastler explaining why they decided to remove the poll and his opinion on the matter:

An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful

There was a very well-written response to Mr. Wastler's letter by Michael van der Galien of The Van Der Galien Gazette (my apologies to Mr. van der Galien for the absence of the required umlaut in his name, but I have no idea how to make that happen here):

CNBC to Ron Paul Supporters: Knock. It. Off.

However, I felt that a "letter" posted in a comment to Mr. van der Galien's response was intelligent and concise (I am printing it in it's entirety here as it is impossible for me to link to a specific comment):

Dear Allen,

I’m sure you’re getting plenty of emails attacking your character and judgment after your latest admission of tampering with the polls due to activism that favored Ron Paul. I apologize for my fellow Americans who have foolishly clung to the oddball notion that politics is a participatory process and that by getting active and supporting their candidate, they are exercising the democratic imperative. As we both know, real election-day polling doesn’t rely on the activism of a voting base. I, like everyone else, am required to hand over my voters’ registration card to Zogby and wait for my phone call.

As a Ron Paul supporter, it’s embarrassing to see my fellow Americans taking steps to organize themselves in order to make a good showing in these online polls for their candidate, when it’s clear that the voting bases of these other, more popular candidates are not willing to match the efforts with the same kind of activist enthusiasm. As the saying goes: the nail that sticks out gets hammered down. America is truly being serviced by your hammer.

In Sincere Apology,
(me)

*Note: The "(me)" above is not me, it's some other me.

HSLDA Shouldn't Endorse Federal Candidates

I learned this evening, through the MeetUp group Homeschoolers for Ron Paul, that the Home School Legal Defense Association Political Action Committee (HSLDA PAC) has endorsed a candidate in the GOP Presidential Primary race... former governor Mike Huckabee. This endorsement by HSLDA President J. Michael Smith and HSLDA Chairman Michael P. Farris was actually made in July via a letter to member voters prior to Iowa's Ames Straw Poll. (Obviously, the news took a while to trickle down here. Probably couldn't stand the heat.) I searched the HSLDA website, and could not find any mention of the endorsement. HSLDA is a 501(c)3 non-profit and prohibited by law from making political endorsements; HSLDA PAC is not a non-profit and can endorse candidates to their hearts content even though they have ties to HSLDA. Nice little loophole there, huh? (This would be so much simpler if the government would simplify the election process, but that is a post for another day.) I was able to find a copy of the letter here if you are interested in reading it.

As a member of HSLDA, I felt I should write to them and express my disappointment at their endorsement. Here is what I wrote:

Greetings!

I am writing to express my disappointment at HSLDA's endorsement of former governor Mike Huckabee for the position of Presidential Candidate in the 2008 GOP primary.

I agree that former governor Mr. Huckabee is a friend of homeschooling families, however, I do not believe that HSLDA should be endorsing ANY candidate on the federal level. Using the rule of subsidiarity, education of any kind (government school, private school or home school) should be handled on the local level. When national education organizations, such as HSLDA, promote a Presidential candidate, it is not only purporting its favor of a specific candidate but also condoning the federalization of the education system in America. This federalization is a losing situation for homeschoolers. In the event that HSLDA feels it must endorse a candidate on the federal level, it should reserve that endorsement for a candidate who supports the de-federalization of America's educational system.

HSLDA could be a better resource to its members by educating them on the stands of every candidate and pointing out which are friends of homeschooling by emphasizing their voting records and other actions in this realm.

Please take a constitutional stand and help reduce the interference of the federal government in the lives of homeschooling families by refusing to endorse candidates for federal positions based on issues that should not be handled at the federal level.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to seeing a list of all homeschool friendly candidates for races at all levels of government on HSLDA's website in the near future.

Blessings,

Seriously, I think that they should not endorse any federal-level candidates, and that includes Ron Paul. The only possible exception that I could think of would be if they endorsed a candidate who was determined to eliminate the Department of Education for being unconstitutional, but since that is obviously not something they plan on doing, I would rather that they endorse no one.

Some interesting tidbits that I uncovered while I was preparing my letter to HSLDA:

1. According to The American Spectator, the Federal Election Commission is investigating HSLDA's endorsement of Huckabee saying:

"It doesn't appear from the materials we've been given that HSLDA PAC was involved in any way with the planning of this endorsement," says an FEC staffer. "Everything was through the nonprofit arm. It doesn't appear that these folks even attempted to build a firewall, so it makes us wonder about coordination."

That's just what you want to hear about the organization that you pay in case you have need of legal representation, huh?

2. I did a search on HSLDA's website for "Huckabee" and came up with 11 hits. Six of these were for interviews with the former governor on HSLDA's radio spot Homeschool Heartbeat. The remaining 5 pertained to Mr. Huckabee's thoughts and policies on education (with homeschooling implications) or homeschooling specifically, generally all pro-homeschooling. (If you do your own search - for anything - on their site, ignore the hit count in the upper right-hand corner of the window. It is not accurate. You have to scroll through and hand count.)

3. I also did a search on HSLDA's website for "Ron Paul" and came up with 25 hits. All 25 hits pertained to legislative decisions or opinions of Dr. Paul. All were in support of less government intrusion into the lives of homeschooling families. None were related to interviews. (As with the hits for Mr. Huckabee, some of the hits for policy were for a single piece of legislation or issue that was being discussed multiple times.)

4. A search for "Fred Thompson" at the HSLDA site yielded one hit. It was for a vote HSLDA found favorable (in 1997).

5. A similar search for "Giuliani" yielded no hits.

6. A search for "Mitt Romney" yielded one hit. It was in regards to sex education in Massachusetts schools. HSLDA mentions in the alert that the purpose of sending the alert is not directly related to homeschooling but to "family issues in Massachusetts."

7. And just a little FYI... there is no constitutional right to education stated (explicitly or otherwise) in the US Constitution. (This has been upheld in numerous Supreme Court decisions, including the case of San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez- see Section II,B, paragraph 9 of Justice Powell's court opinion.) Therefore, education falls under the stipulations of the 10th Amendment:

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

I am definitely against HSLDA endorsing any candidate, but I am a little disturbed that they don't even seem to be logical in their endorsement. Given my discoveries in #2-6 above, HSLDA has mentioned Ron Paul more times when speaking of legislators who support freedom for homeschoolers than of any other candidate. So why aren't they endorsing Ron Paul instead? The lack of logic all-around on the behalf of HSLDA just astounds me.

If you are a member of HSLDA, please go to their website and send them an email (you'll need your login information) letting them know that you believe their endorsement of Mr. Huckabee, or any federal-level candidate, is an endorsement of federalized education which is bad for homeschoolers.

If you are not an HSLDA member but would like to make them aware of your disapproval of their endorsement of federalized education via their endorsement of federal candidates, go to their website for contact information. (If you can't find it, let me know and I'll dig it up for you.)

And no, I won't ban you or anything if you contact them and give a different point-of-view than I have expressed here. Why? It's your right.


For purposes of full disclosure, please note that I am a member of both HSLDA (although not of HSLDA PAC which is, as far as I can tell, a separate entity) and of Homeschoolers for Ron Paul. I am also a member of a local Ron Paul MeetUp group.

Update: (09/20/07 @ 8:09pm) I have added a link to HSLDA PAC's website above. Also, according to HSLDA's "About & FAQ" page, they are a 501(c)4 non-profit, not a 501(c)3 as stated in the American Spectator article that I referenced above. What's the difference? I haven't a clue, really. All I learned about 501(c)s I learned on Wikipedia, here and here.

School Officials Fail Constitution 101

Apparently the first amendment doesn't apply in government schools. I must have missed the "Caution: You Are Entering A Constitution-Free Zone" signs.

Mom defends daughter's right to blog speech

By Brigitte Ruthman
Waterbury Republican-American
Sept. 5, 2007


NEW HAVEN -- Poised, intelligent and articulate as she may be, 17-year-old senior Avery Doninger was outside her legal bounds when she used derogatory language to describe administrators at Lewis S. Mills High School, a federal judge has found.

U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz's precedent-setting decision Friday to uphold the school administration's decision to punish Doninger for a blog entry she made outside of school in April chips away at First Amendment rights, her mother Lauren and her attorney Jon L. Schoenhorn said.

Wait... it doesn't stop there.

As punishment, school officials at the 2,843-student kindergarten through 12 school district covering Burlington and Harwinton prohibited Doninger from running for class secretary for a year, a position she had held since her freshman year. Despite the ruling, Doninger would have won her seat back this year because so many students voted for her as a write-in candidate. The school ignored the write-in support, a decision her supporters claim violated their right of free choice. Students were prohibited from wearing T-shirts emblazoned with "Team Avery."

You can read the article in its entirety here.

So, what are the lessons that the school is teaching to its students (and the the court apparently believes should apply to everyone)?

1. You have a first amendment right to free speech as long as you don't offend someone in authority. (Assuming that said authority works for the government.)
2. If you offend someone in authority, that authority has the right to openly discriminate against you and use their power to enforce that discrimination.
3. You may not stand in support of anyone who has offended a shared authority or you will be treated like a co-offender and have your constitutional and positional rights (in this case, the right to participate in school elections and the right to free speech) taken away.
4. The judicial power of school authorities is equivalent to that of local police and magistrates and extends to all spheres of life and not just the area over which they have been hired, appointed or elected to oversee.
5. That we are a government of the government, by the government and for the government.
6. It takes a government to raise a child.


What do the parents of Avery Doninger and the other students at Lewis S. Mills High School have the opportunity to teach their children?

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?

...The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which I have also imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

- from "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"
by Henry David Thoreau

HT: Judy at Consent of the Governed

Preach It, Sister!

Almost a year ago now, I was given the privilege of proof-reading the manuscript for the first in a planned fiction trilogy. I thought the book was wonderful and really enjoyed reading it. It was hard to put down, and I think I read it through three times before I was forced to actually send the manuscript back so that Jennifer could get to work on editing and revising. (BTW, Jennifer, if you're reading this, please keep writing. I am dying to know what happens!)

Since then, I have been able to enjoy Jennifer's writing through her blog, I Will Read 10 Pages. She has a wonderful post on there that I highly recommend, Why the 11th Hour Pisses Me Off, about global warming. She explains (vents) beautifully about why all this global warming hysteria is just plain aggravating... and wrong.

Thank you, Jennifer, for some sanity.

4 Ways to Spend Money

I was visiting a homeschool message board today where a mom shared that some of her friends who send their kids to government school were discussing the long lists of supplies the kids were expected to bring the first day of school. I understand students being required to bring items like pencils, paper, crayons, etc. I even understand the teacher requiring that students bring certain colors or styles of items... to avoid competition over who has the nicer notebook or to teach children how to better organize their schoolwork by organizing assignments in different colored folders. However, what I don't get are 1) the collecting of items and putting them in a communal group to be dispersed by the teacher later and 2) the requirement of students to bring truly "classroom" supplies... like tissues, dry erase markers, and toilet paper. Isn't that the cost of providing education? Shouldn't these items be included in the school's budget? We spend just over $8000 per student on average for government education (according to 2002-2003 school year stats kept by the Dept. of Ed). We can't afford toilet paper with that?!

I have to admit that I am a bit cynical (maybe that's an understatement. LOL!) when it comes to lists like this. A coworker of dh's had a kid in the local government school, and his dd told him that she had to stand in line every morning to sharpen two of her pencils in the classroom next door since there was no sharpener in her room. The father, assuming his dd was exaggerating, asked the teacher about it the next time he saw her. Sure enough, the teacher confirmed that there was no sharpener in her room because it wasn't provided for in the budget. The dad offered to buy one for the classroom, and the teacher asked him not to because when the school board toured the school at the end of the year while they were writing up the next year's budget and assessing what was needed, they would see that her classroom had a sharpener and not provide as much money in the budget for classroom expenses as they did the year before! The teachers were purposely lacking in supplies so that they could complain about what they didn't have and get money. What they were spending it on, I have no idea.

This reminds me of Milton Friedman's list of the four ways to spend money (the humorous examples in this version of the list that follows is by PJ O'Rourke from his book All the Trouble in the World: The Lighter Side of Overpopulation, Famine, Ecological Disaster, Ethnic Hatred, Plague and Poverty):

1. You spend your money on yourself. You're motivated to get the thing you want most at the best price. This is the way middle-aged men haggle with Porsche dealers.
2. You spend your money on other people. You still want a bargain, but you're less interested in pleasing the recipient of your largesse. This is why children get underwear at Christmas.
3. You spend other people's money on yourself. You get what you want but price no longer matters. The second wives who ride around with the middle-aged men in the Porsches do this kind of spending at Neiman Marcus.
4. You spend other people's money on other people. And in this case, who gives a s**t?

The government schools (well, let's face it, I could just say "the government" and leave it at that) is functioning under #4.

There is one benefit to these back-to-school lists, though. Back-to-school sales. I love to stock-up on school supplies at the end of summer. Wading through aisles and aisles of neatly packed reams of paper, colorful boxes of crayons, and 3-ring-binders that just scream, "Buy me!" (Well, they don't really scream, but this is what I tell Frodo to justify my purchases. LOL!) But even with my addiction to the smell of newly-sharpened #2's and eraser rubber, we spend considerably less per student than the local government school. About $200 per student. I know that doesn't include costs like rent, electricity, salary, and such, but the Department of Education's cost estimates don't include pencils, crayons or toilet paper, so I'm guessing we're still much lower.

Off my soapbox. :)

Um... What He Said

Not As Easy As I Thought It Would Be

As I mentioned here, one of the positives I saw in our recent move was less-intrusive homeschooling laws as compared to the state we just left. All I have to do here is pick-up a form where I provide the kids' names, ages and grades, the fact that they are homeschooled and the location where school is taking place. Sounds simple enough, right?

A little over a week ago, I called the office of our School Superintendent to find out when and where I could pick-up the necessary form (it needs to be in by mid-September, but I wanted to get it filed while I was thinking about it and was trying to avoid driving over to the school while school was in session... the government schools started this past Monday.) I was told that the Attendance Officer handles such matters, and I would have to speak to her. The receptionist at the Superintendent's office was very nice and gave me the name and number of the Attendance Officer then forwarded my call to her office. There was no answer, and I didn't bother to leave a message since I realized I was calling during the lunch hour and figured I would just call back after lunch. About an hour later I call back and there is still no answer, so I leave a message asking where the office is located and when would be the best time to stop by to pick up the form.

Fast forward a few days. I still haven't received a response from my phone call, but I have figured out where the office is, so we decide to stop by while we are out running errands. We drive around the school campus (it's pretty big since it houses the county's elementary, middle, and high schools plus all of the county school district's offices and athletic fields), and we can't find the office anywhere. We find the Superintendent's office, so I decide to see if someone there can point me in the right direction. Again, the receptionist is very nice. She tells me where to find the office (an unmarked trailer that we passed a few times), but tells me that she doesn't think that the Attendance Officer is in today. She calls over to check, and sure enough, no one answers. While she writes down the number for me, she sighs and says, "I have no idea what her office hours are. She is a state employee, not a school district employee, and I haven't figured out her hours yet. She comes when she wants, I guess." With that disheartening piece of information, I thank her and go home.

I have called once since then and still have heard no response. I am planning on calling again tomorrow and leaving another message, but I am not sure what else I can try after that.

Less intrusive? I guess so (until I fail to fill-in the form and find the Attendance Officer at my door).

Easier? Nope.