About Me

Name: Virginia Daddy
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

A Test of Federalism?

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Friday, February 27, 2009 5:18:24 PM
In the next few weeks, months, and years, the United States of America has an important agenda on its hands.  This agenda is to push the limits of the Federalist system our government was set up under.  We will get to see its flexibility or lack thereof.  We will get to see if it can withstand the advances in technology that has in many ways made our nation smaller.  We will test the limits of free speech in ways yet unseen.  Perhaps more importantly, we will test the wisdom of those who stepped back from the limitations our Founders put on who could participate the most in our Republican Democracy.
 
What is the situation?  We have a new president who swept into office with promises of hope, accountability, and change.  The promises made by this president carry with them policies and legislation that will push the limits of our system.  This is because they will greatly expand the reach of the federal government in ways never before seen.  The budget, for instance, has already been exanded eponentially beyond previous levels, but there are other changes that will follow that will also cause trouble-- the ability of states to act on their own, the freedom of speech that has acted as a 4th branch of government will likely be restricted, and the responsibility to act on one's own behalf will be trimmed as well.
 
The test of Federalism will come not only in how the public reacts, but how our representatives at all levels of government respond to the expansion of the national government.  Also, I would expect, there to be important cases decided by our courts that will aid in determining the ultimate scope and outer limits of these governmental expansions. 
 
This article will not address how these will come to pass, as those topics are essays (perhaps books) in and of themselves.  But they will happen, at least these battles should happen.  They are brought up as a warning to those who care about our nation, for we are at a cross-road. 
 
The cross-road will not determine the fate of the nation, for it will go on.  But it will determine the type of nation it will be well into the future.  For, the people that pave the path can succomb to the pressure brought by hope and change, or they can overcome the temptation to blindly follow these lofty and idealistic, but hardly realistic, goals.  The decision to follow the emotionally uplifting sentiments of the trend and its easy intellectual foundation will conflict with the seemingly harsh realities that accompany the more logical and time tested policies that made this nation great. 
 
The cross road will require those who are willing to withstand the onslaught of new policies designed to bring people together and uplift all (without, of course, stating how that is to be done, or more importantly, when is it accomplished), to speak critically, loudly, but rationally.  It will require those willing to stand up to act at home and enforce the separation of powers our founders intended to work against the evils of an intrusive national government. 
 
I suspect many things brought by the new president will face challenges due and guaranteed under our Federalist system.  It was desigend to do exactly that-- protect against non-virtuous men and a Federal government that intrudes too much into our lives.  Part of the brilliance of the system is flexibility, but certainly, our founders thought there were limits to that.  Here, we will begin to really see what those really are.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (49) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Politics are the Scourge of Men

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Sunday, February 22, 2009 10:20:56 PM
In Politics if thou wouldst mix,
And mean thy fortunes be;
Bear this in mind, be deaf and blind,
Let great folk hear and see.
 
--On Politics, by Robert Burns, 1793
 
There's something about politics that brings out the worst in people.  Kind of like discussions or religion, there are few conversations that actually convince another.  Rather, the conversations only dig people in and nothing is ever accomplished, except for some high blood pressures.
 
The Founders realized this, I think, in their desire for a virtuous group of leaders.  They knew some would abuse power, which is why there are so many checks and balances in our Constituion.  But the goal was to have a nation led by people who knew what was right in leading, and who were able to hear and see the big picture.  They did not allow all to vote because they wanted the most virtuous to have that voice, to hear and see.  The wise thing for everyone else was to let these people lead.  The virtuous were those of considerable (but not too much) wealth and education.  Too much wealth and property showed a propensity to abuse power and to act unfairly or unscupulously.  But the acquisition of property showed enough education and wisdom to know how to act appropriately.
 
But the wisdom of that poem, now, I think shows itself in how so many people love to talk about politics, and now have more and more of a venue to do so.  People ought to be slow to speak, to be deaf and blind, if you will.  The old adage about the best thing to say is usually nothing is true in politics as much as any other subject.
 
I am sure I am in the category of shutting up, though I know I will continue to speak.  But I hope to speak slowly and hope that my points will encourage my readers to think more deeply about an issue and not dig in for battle.  It is this latter reason that such conversations are rarely successful.  I will not give in, and I will be honest and forthright.  But I will be open to correction and hopefully well received.
 
But in the landscape of politics now, I see little to motivate.  Far too many mindlessly talk away, and far too little actually listen.  Is it any wonder why people are so upset with the politicians on both sides?  I won't tune out, but it is increasingly hard to really care as long as people won't stop and think.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (50) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative Infighting...

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Friday, February 20, 2009 12:32:35 AM
"Pride is the root of all evil," many people say.  I believe it.  But what has happened to the conservative movement?  Has it become prideful in and of itself and lost sight of its original goals?  Or have the people that make up the movement become prideful so that they are lost in what they think will best acheive the goals of conservatism, and fail to consider or work with others who share the same outlook on governance?  Or, is not a matter of pride at all but a matter of different points of view on how to make conservatism work?  Or, is it a difference in opinion on exactly what conservatism really is.
 
I don't know the answer to those questions, but would expect its a little bit of all of these things.  The conservative movement that swept the nation in the early to mid 90's looks lost.  It can't seem to find its way, and the group who made it up is now very far apart in how to move forward and win back the government.  Some say "Vote Republican regardless" while others say "Only vote conservative."  Some view comprimise as the solution, and others expect a mass return to conservative values when the public is given a good conservative option, which has been lacking for some time, and thus hope such a leader will arise.
 
This bridge will only grow, though, until one of two things happen-- people lay aside their pride and listen to others within conservatism, or a devestating and drastic event happens to bring the sides together under a common cause.  The first can happen, but it seems unlikely given the chasm between the two sides.  Many conservatives place their principles before the party, and will not budge.  This is a valid position in that following a party just because can quickly become meaningless if the party does not subscribe to those principles held dear.  Contrarilly, the party loyalists have a point to say that nothing positive will happen without the numbers to win elections and get the right people into office.
 
But the problem is not new, and has actually repeated itself often in world history.  Of most importance is the quick split of the founders who began with very consistent and common goals.  However, soon after they achieved the bigger goal (the creation and adoption of the Constitution and its federal system of government), the good will and unity was shattered.  The likes of Alexander Hamilton grew to distrust the likes of James Madison.  These two men had previously written the Federalist Papers, along with John Jay, for the express purpose of convincing the nation to adopt the Constitution.  When they conspired together to write these treatises, they were strong allies, yet after ratification, when it came to the application of the tenets and principles of the Constitution, they found themselves bitter enemies.
 
I wonder if this same phenomonen is what is driving the discord of the Republican party and many conservatives in this great nation.  It is one thing to be united to get to a place to where you are in charge, and to work together to defeat a common enemy.  It is something entirely different to live day to day and rule once you are there.  As Hamilton and Madison discovered, success in achievng a common goal is only part of the equation, for what you do when get there also matters.
 
Is there a solution to this now?  I don't know.  It is possible we could unite again under one of the situations I spoke of before-- a letting go of pride, or another event to bring us together.  But it is also possible that the two sides go their separate ways, as did Hamilton and Madison. 
 
Of course, it is also possible that the Democrats will see a split as well.  Not all Democrats see completely eye to eye, and they, too have been united for the last eight years after they feel the Presidential election was pulled from underneath their feet.  President Bush was their bitter enemy, no matter what.  Despite the brief time after 9-11, they demonized him to no end, and they all joined in the effort.  Now, they have 'defeated' Bush by electing majorities in both houses and the presidency.  The power is now theirs, but will there be a split in how to address this new found power, power they have been dreaming of for years? 
 
I'd imagine their will be.  And what happens will be interesting.  Will it be enough to fracture the Democratic party in the same way the Republican party has been broken?  Will whatever remains of the former organized Right be able to capitalize on a troubled Left? 
 
Whatever happens, my hope is that those of us on the right side of the divide will keep the proper perspective to be able to pounce when we need to pounce, and that will entail not getting lost in our pride.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (70) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Recommended Readings

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Sunday, February 15, 2009 2:40:20 PM
I think a required reading for any student of American politics ought to be the Federalist Papers.  I have not read them all but am trudging through them now.
 
A couple of things you'll learn: special interest groups were to be feared and freedom of speech was not universally accepted and many thought it unnecssary to have a specific clause in the Constitution about it.
 
Anybody know if they are required reading now in any schools?  For me, they were not.
 
I wonder why?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A True Love's Kiss?

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Sunday, February 15, 2009 12:01:19 AM
A true love's kiss
Still exists
Yes, it does.
 
Are you looking for it?
Do you believe it?
For it is there.
 
A true love's kiss is there to find
And true content will follow.
But do you see?
 
Or have you forgotten?
I can see why.
Too much to tell for sure.
 
Do you remember?
When being with a love can
Just flutter you away?
 
Do you remember how natural
It was, just to be?
In love?
 
Or did you forget?
Did the expection get too high?
So that now, it cannot be?
 
Can it?  No.  It cannot,
You say.
Too much has happened.
 
Too little love to give, and
Your heart's been broken,
You cannot remember.
 
But you can. 
If you believe in a love's kiss.
And if you seek.
 
But, here's a warning
You don't have to look high.
Just right there with you.
 
You can find a true love's kiss.
And here's some more:
It starts with you.
 
But you must believe.
And you must want it.
Its easy, though.
 
Just look where you don't
Expect to find the magic.
Its there, and everywhere.
 
So, what makes
A true love's kiss?
Openness.
 
Openness to see.
To see what your love's about.
That's makes a love true.
 
Openness to know.
To know what's true.
That love's beyond these moments.
 
And, then, when you see
You will know the true love's
Kiss.
 
MP
2/14/09
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Warning from the Depression?

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:39:59 AM
"Every journey to a forbidden end begins with the first step; and the danger of such a step by the federal government in the direction of taking over the powers of the states is that the end of the journey may find the states so despoiled of their powers or-- what may amount to the same thing-- so relieved of the responsibilities which possess of the powers necessarily enjoins, as to reduce them to little more than geographical subdivisions of the national domain."
 
--Justice Sutherland in Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (298 US 238 (1936))
 
A quick history-- this was dicta from a case overturning a piece of New Deal legislation giving government more power over commerce.  A number of years later, it was overturned.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Movies to Show Your Kids and Expose them to "Real" Culture

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Saturday, February 07, 2009 10:20:08 PM
Here's a post about nothing, really.  OK, so it is about something, if you want to find something here...
 
But anyway, my family and I thought it would be fun to take some time together and watch a movie.  Since there is little that we have iuin full length form for the boys and what little we have has been seen far too many times.  So, we searched TV and found a classic: Spaceballs.
 
Spaceballs is one of my all time favorite movies-- relatively clean and silly humor, Mel Brooks, right?  So, my wife and I decide we will watch that together.  Of course, the boys were a bit too young to really appreciate the finer humor of Brooks, but they did enjoy Barf the Mawg (part man and part dog--his own best friend).  They enjoyed the little people that helped Yogurt with his merchandizing (is there an S in that word?).  And they really liked the flying school bus that Lonestar called his own.  Although, Pizza the Hut was terrifying to the older as he put a pillow over his face during that seen.  :(
 
Now, they didn't watch the whole thing, but as they started moseying (how do you spell "mosey") off finding balls to kick and throw and whatever else little boys do, I got to thinking...  I wondered what would be the movies that I will want them to see when they grow up and appreciate fine films.  My dad did that to me, and I got everything from Lucille Ball to Monty Python to Rocky Horror Picture Show.
 
So, here goes the start (and its in no particular order) to a list that I welcome additions to:
 
1)  History of the World, Part 1.  Yes, I like Mel Brooks, and who doesn't think its good to be the king?  And who wouldn't think singing about the torchering and converting Jews funny?
2)  Die Hard.  Osta la vista, ...  Oh, the language is foul but its one of the all time classic action adventure movies.
3)  Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  I've been watching for tweny years now and still find something new that's funny.  I mean really, don't you want to know how those coconuts really got to Britain and how Arthur became king?
4)  The Cutting Edge.  Hockey meets skating and its really nothing but a chick flick.  Ultimately, don't ask, but I like that movie. 
5)  Better Off Dead.  French fries and French bread and $5.  Need I say more?
6)  Goonies.  An 80's search for lost pirate treasure to save the neighborhood full of the usual characters, including at least one Corey.
7)  Rad.  If I can ever find the movie, but what fun it was to watch an entire movie about BMX bike racing.  Hey, to a 10 year old boy, that was where it was at.
8)  The Princess Bride.  Princess Buttercup, and Andre the Giant, and Billy Crystal, and a villiam with six fingers.  Oh, and a farm boy become pirate who assists in the revenge bidness.  Inconceivable!
9)  Glory.  Civil war, great movie.  'Nuff said.
10)  National Lampoons Vacation (Summer and European).  Oh, those Griswolds.  They've seen Christmas, and Vegas isn't worth it, but the other two are among my all time favorites. 
 
Now, there are many more.  This is definately not exclusive.  And I welcome your thoughts on movies to show your kids when you have them or if you already had them, what did you show them?
Tags: Movie Fun  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (23) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

As Conservatives, did you know?

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Friday, February 06, 2009 1:03:08 PM
...That the idea of free speech was not settled directly by the Founders when they wrote the Bill of Rights?
 
...That the idea of the extent of Congress's power was not settled when they wrote the Constitution?
 
...That the role of the judges is not explicity defined in the Constitution and that many of the powers it has taken today have been inferred from various parts of it?
 
...That the Founders were not necessarily on the same page as to the funstion of the government and its relation to the states?
 
...or that one idea united the performance of those who may be elected, that of virtue, but despite this uniting idea still disagreed on how the virtue would be best ensured as well as the reality of ensuring it?
 
These observations do not destroy Conservatism in the slightest, but since we rely on the Founder's intent, it does change the assumption.  It seems the truth of the matter is that these men really didn't entirely know what was the best way to govern.  What they did know, and I think this ought to be something we press hard today is the idea of virtue-- that government will only work when its leaders are virtuous and seek the common good.  Now, what is virtue and what is the common good?  Well, these both could give rise to lengthy discussions, but virtue must be looked at from the Protestant Christian perspective since that is largely what these men were.  It might be too much to say that they wanted a specifically a Christian nation, but it is probably not too much to say that the virtue was influenced by its values.  The common good is a bit more complex, but probably the biggest factor was property ownership and its protection.  Property ownership usually demonstrated much about the person and was often seen as a sign of being virtuous.  Having too much property was a sign of greed, but having at least some showed industriousness, education, and a propensity to fair dealings.  The inferences from that indicate that the common good meants something other than what liberals say is for the common good.  The Founders, I think, would be appalled to see many of their politics in its application to the common man.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thought for the Day, What The ****?

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:04:46 PM
Obama capping executive pay.  Here it comes...
 
Restricting freedom of contract.  Not a step in the right direction, even if folks are upset with the executive pay.  Certainly, it is often outrageous, but do we really want government dictating pay for private companies?  Absolutely not for it is only a step to full government involvement.
 
I hope someone challeges the order, if it goes into effect.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thought for the Day, Feb 3

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:12:05 PM
Politics is a scourge that distract us from what it most important in life, namely our relationship with our community.  As part of this specific relationship I assume some others: your faith, your family, and your neighbors.  This is not not say that politics has no role in our life, but that it all too often is viewed in a big picture encompassing people across the globe while forgetting those who live next door to you.  I firmly believe the world would be much different if we helped those across the street before we help those in Africa.  Not only would it be much different, but also much better.  Yet, with the advent of technology, broadcast news and the internet it is so much easier to overlook those in need right in front our faces in favor of those across the globe. 
 
We are to pay attention to politics, but not to the national and global extent to which we do.  We do this at our own peril.  If we promote the conservative ideals at home and show those closest to us their virtue, they will be much more palatable to people than by nationally thumping people over the head with those same ideas.  When they are applied, they show their value, yet when unneccessarilly preached, they sound paternalistic.
 
The moral-- act at home and worry less about the national scene.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »