A corollary arises for participants at this year’s James Madison and Constitutional Citizenship: Where are we constituted?

Surely, that’s the case for the Landmarks workshops: that a home, a monument, a farm, a harbor, creates such an impression on our consciousness that it changes our collective or individual conscience.  These places can be more than just history; they may serve as a compass or a sundial.  Or, as with Will at Montpelier, the cumulative experience can help us to generate ideas and activities which will propagate constitutional thinking.

As you continue to work with what you’ve gained, as you take it home to look at from all sides, please share your findings.  Even Jemmy couldn’t fully realize his imagination until he let it out of the philosopher’s closet.

Feel free to become your own Publius and use this liberty for free exchange.  (The site may ask for an email address, but it is never published or shared.)

Construct even just a line.  Some of the most exciting posts have been nothing but a constitutional question; yet, through dialogue and response we’ve managed to propagate ideas and even strengthen a community of constitutional citizens.

Many in one.  I hear it’s good for your manliness.

And everyone wants to know what you wrote! To kick off what we hope will be a season of sharing here’s my first attempt at writing Thomas Kuhn as a Dr. Seuss styled story for kids. Let me know if you need help getting your work posted….

The Original: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Normal Science

“it [a paradigm] is an object for further articulation and specification under new or more stringent conditions.

To see how this can be so, we must recognize how very limited in both scope and precision a paradigm can be at the time of its first appearance. Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of practitioners has come to recognize as acute. To be more successful is not, however, to be either completely successful with a single problem or notably successful with any large number. The success of a paradigm—whether Aristotle’s analysis of motion, Ptolemy’s computations of planetary position, Lavoisier’s application of the balance or Maxwell’s mathematization of the electromagnetic field—is at the start largely a promise of success discoverable in selected and still incomplete examples. Normal science consists in the actualization of that promise, an actualization achieved by extending the knowledge of those facts that the paradigm displays as particularly revealing, by increasing the extent of the match between those facts and the paradigm’s predictions, and by further articulation of the paradigm itself…

The existence of the paradigm sets the problem to be solved; often the paradigm theory is implicated directly in the design of apparatus able to solve the problem. Without Pincipia, for example, measurements made with the Atwood machine would have meant nothing at all.

A third class of experiments and observations exhausts, I think, the fact-gathering activities of normal science. It consists of empirical work undertaken to articulate the paradigm theory, resolving some of its residual ambiguities and permitting the solution of problems to whit it had previously only drawn attention. This class proves to be the most important of all, and its description demands its subdivision. In the more mathematical sciences, some of the experiments aimed at articulation are directed to the determination of physical constraints. Newton’s work, for example, indicated that the force between two unit masses at unit distance would be the same for all types of matter at all positions in the universe. But his own problems could be solved without even estimating the size of this attraction, the universal gravitational constant; and no one else devised apparatus able to determine it for a century after the Principia appeared. Nor was Cavendish’s famous determination in the 1790’s the last. Because of its central position in physical theory, improved values of the gravitational constant have been the object of repeated efforts ever since by a number of outstanding experimentalists. Other examples of the same sort of continuing work would include determinations of the astronomical unit, Avogadro’s number, Joule’s coefficient, the electronic charge, and so on. Few of these elaborate efforts would have been conceived and none would have been carried out without a paradigm theory to define the problem and to guarantee the existence of a stable solution.”

Kuhn, Thomas S. “The Nature of Normal Science.” The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996.

I first attempted to infuse the text with the political through elaboration. I had no intention of using the mode of a genre shift but it all made sense after working on the elaboration. Then I had to find a third mode that could be completed in a relatively short amount of time because I nearly ran away with the People of Penelope!

Re-Write #2: Genre Shift

Once upon a time in a small faraway place there lived the People of Penelope. The men, women, and children of Penelope did all the normal things that men, women and children do like laugh and sing and work and play, but all of this was done in a very special way. These laughing and playing people of Penelope believed that walking on their hands was the only way, so they wore boots on their fingers and caps on their toes! This all came to be when Penelope first began and its people had tiny little feet. As silly as it may be, living with tiny little feet proved to be no small feat for it took 837 steps to get from the bedroom to the bathroom and walking to school could take all week.  Now the persistent people of Penelope continued to plod along but they couldn’t help but notice that they got very little else done.

Horses, cars and even St. Bernard’s couldn’t provide relief. The tiny feet didn’t fit the stirrups or reach the pedals, and the poor dog barely escaped. A few children at play one day discovered what perhaps could be a brilliant new way. They think they may have seen it on T.V. or maybe it came to them in a dream, but walking on their hands got them to school with time to play. People watched with interest and fantasized about possibly cutting the trip to the refrigerator from 795 steps on tiny little feet to 5 simple strides on great big hands. The excitement grew and people wondered what other great things they might now accomplish and if this could really work.

With this promise in mind, an engineer designed a car that one could steer with tiny little feet while working the pedals with great big hands and looking out to the road from under the dash. Traffic coordinators decided they could move traffic lights to the fire hydrants so they could be seen this way, and Penelope grew more and more productive! There were great new plans to make walking on your hands the very best way from here to there and everywhere. A few older folks, however, were most unimpressed. You see they had never walked on their hands or even stood on their heads. They didn’t think they would be able to keep up and they were certain they wouldn’t like living in the world upside-down. The local gym saw a need and started classes to instruct the people on the proper form and strategies for speed and stability while all the local posters and signs were re-designed. They even decided to hang trees where the traffic signals used to be! Slowly the world upside-down began to look like the world upside-right as though this is the way it was always meant to be.

So now in the land of Penelope people laugh while they “talk with their feet” and sing when they feel “light on their hands.” Every now and then someone will insist that a world upside-down is simply bizarre, but the people of Penelope are quick to extol how grand life became when they started doing things this way and slow to see any reason to be back on their feet.

Sharing ideas powered those offline communities as much as it fuels discussions here. We hope you’ll find a way to share your ideas in the next 100 posts. Tech guru Chris Brogan recently contemplated how sharing matters online. He organized his ideas around two propositions… sharing moves information more effectively and adds value to the larger tapestry. A guru from another era suggested freedom itself requires us to exercise our minds so they venture abroad and contemplate what lies beyond. Whether you take your cues from the world of tech or the dream of Scipio, here are some of our top posts for thinking richly, broadly and creatively.

• Hobbes21 carried colored boxes into the classroom with My Serial of Boxes (Part 1), (Part 2) and (Part 3). We also tried our best to share Kevin’s presentation on constitutional thinking and teaching from the 2008 National Academy.

• After the 2008 NEH Institute at Montpelier, Larry saw Federalist thinking in poetry, On Theory, Poetry and the American Constitution.

• Contemplate what it might mean to organize your school with a constitutional understanding through Shayne’s post, A School Based on Constitutional Citizenship. Stepwinder and Hobbes21 contemplated the model for A Federalist Education with guidance from Einstein’s biography.

• Politicolor was talking about Rube Goldberg machines before an OK-Go video challenged all the cool kids to make their own. It was a question about the American People and an Incredible Machine.

• When Laura left the NEH Institute at Montpelier, she realized she was surrounded by Federalist Moments while Larry wanted to provoke More Serious Questions about Constitutional Thinking.

• And lastly, because it’s all a question of an engaged citizenry, Katie Reen shared A Letter to My Students Past, Present and Future while Hexxus007 shared his thoughts on current modes of political discourse with Civic “Bad Boys” and “Astro-turf.“

*****

You can make this a conversation by sharing your thoughts as a reply in the comments section on this post or any of the others. If you’d like to join us as a regular contributor, drop that note in the comments and we’ll let you know how to get started.

A few words from my fourth-graders (non-speakers) when asked today by the panel what they had learned from the experience: “I learned what private domain is.”  “Compromise.”  “Better research skills.”  “How a bill becomes a law.”  “How long it takes to pass a bill.”  “A lot about pollution and landfills.”

In our first few sessions, my 4th-6th grade students narrowed their choices for the project to these rough ideas: Save Bears, Clean-Up Michigan’s Rivers, Fix the Litter in Detroit.  The more we delved into the text, students discovered that those topics really weren’t clear proposals for public policy.  They also gained a ton of knowledge regarding sovereignty, as well as private sphere/civil society/ government.  The more they learned, the more focused their idea became, and their eventual choice–EXPAND MICHIGAN’S BOTTLE LAW–ended up as a wonderful combination of the early favorites.

The four areas of the portfolio–PROBLEM, ALTERNATIVE POLICIES, OUR SOLUTION, and ACTION PLAN–serve as a fantastic outline for anyone of any age attempting to bring about change.

The panel presentation in a committee room at the state capitol was the pinnacle of the experience.  Having misjudged time, our project came down to the wire (lesson learned: start early!); as a result, the kids didn’t first benefit and learn from a local session.  However, they could not have done any better than what I witnessed today.  Thorough preparation pays dividends, and I was so proud of my students for presenting without reading from a page.  (It does make a difference, I can tell you, as we were able to observe a high school group who did just that.)

We will be participating in Project Citizen next year, and in the years after!  Sincerely, the entire process has been one of the most valuable of my entire teaching career.

If you have any questions about Project Citizen, right down to the tooth ‘n’ nails, feel free to contact me at montessorinorth@comcast.net, or pose your questions here.

(Original font and color remain as translation allows.)

——————————————————————————

Hi, All,

So what do you think about this steroid madness? Do you think Congress should be involved in the whole process; if so, what part of the Constitution justifies such action? Or is this whole song-and-dance just about ego?

Another gaping whole,

Keith

—————————

I agree! I think that it is very strange that our elected officials are spending so much time on steroid use. Aren’t there are issues to be debating!

Natalie

—————————

Hey Everyone!

Remember that the Roman emperors tried to “feed and entertain” the masses in their efforts to cling to power. We are certainly not undernourished overall in our country and we have 24/7 entertainment choices, which now include the reality TV option of watching Roger Clemens lie infront of a Congressional committee. Here is smoke-screening of a high level by a Congress whose jurisdiction in this issue is dubious at best and a Congress which surely shares in the responsibility of whatever difficulties our nation is facing domestically and internationally. Perhaps the real work of our elected officials is too difficult for them to face up to in a truly honest fashion. Do you sense that there is a yearning among our populace not just for “change” but for truth?

Have a great weekend,

Jerry

—————————

Under the commerce clause and the elastic clause, perhaps Congress canget involved in just about anything. I think there are more pressingissues, clearly, and wish they’d be more mindful of things like healthcare for needy children, Iraq, the cost and financing of collegetuition, and climate change. But I love baseball, and am happy Congressis shining a spotlight on the steroid issue. Jerry, you wrote “Do you sense there is there is a yearning among ourpopulace not just for “change” but for truth?” For my personal benefit,I wish you would briefly expand on that statement as it relates to thecandidates. Of course, feel free to ignore me as you probably havebetter things to do on this blissful three day weekend. What the hell is everyone doing these days? Tomorrow, I turn 49. But as you all know, part of me is stuck in adolescence.

Larry

—————————

Larry,

Happy Birthday to another old fart like me. You are a young adult,not an adolescent! We have been hearing the lines, “same old same old” and “business as usualin Washington” and “time for change”, so often that they are beyond meaningless when our candidates say them. I don’t think that we believe mostof what our politicians say yet we carry on and permit business as usual tocontinue. We babyboomers especially were going to create change but wemellowed into expediency. I am sensing for the first time in a while a sort of messianic yearning,especially among the young, for substantive change. Most of the candidates for president represent the typical political caricature and then thereemerges something about Obama that rings a different note. He is notexperienced, he is not a policy wonk, he is not connected to the internalparty machinery as closely as other candidates, he does not have too manyspecifics when addressing policy. However, for all of these negatives, heseems to be appealing to that yearning for leadership that calls us to ourbetter selves. I am not saying I am an Obama backer yet but I am saying his growingpopularity seems to come from a different place in our frail human psyches.It is not necessarily the rational place that the founders envisioned as thebe all and end all of political realtions but something else, something thatrises from the spirit, the spirit of good which, in my opinion, does not getenough quality air time in the public arena. Too much thinking for a Friday afternoon!

Love to you all,

Jerry

—————————-

Jerry,

I know where you’re coming from re: Obama. Two years ago I recommended a student for the Alabama Model Senate program–100 young people who got to play the role of a US senator for a 4-day weekend–and Jacob had to pick a senator that he would portray. He wanted a Democrat who was “different.” I didn’t know much about Obama at the time, but he was getting a lot of press, so I suggested him. When Jacob got back to school, having researched Obama’s positions on a few things, he told me that Obama would be president one day. Jacob turned 18 recently, and voted for Obama in the primary–as did my own 18-year-old son.Does Huckabee strike anyone as a Republican Jimmy Carter? In 1976 Carter had an advantage in that he was not a member of the incumbent party, and the economy was weak (remember stagflation?). Historically, throughout the 20th century, if the economy has been strong in an election year, the incumbent party wins, but gets ousted if the economy is weak–which is why I think we’ll get a Democrat this time (I looked up GNP/GDP correlations once for a college econ class I taught); in other words, we vote with our pocket-books! That being said, I don’t think Huckabee has a chance this time around, but his personality really does remind me of Carter–a nice, kindly Southern gentleman-type.

(Laura)

————————————-

I feel like I have been fooled by Huckabee. I disagree with his policies but I have been telling people for over a year that he seems to be a man of integrity and one that I would be comfortable with coming out of the GOP. Then the campaign started and the more I found out about him and the more he had a chance to talk and try to explain his views the less and less I liked him and the greater the feeling of being duped by him grew in me. He does have that “aw shucks” Southern gentlemen feel and he is certainly charismatic and engaging, but I would not call him a man of integrity any longer. He lost that when more and more information came forward regarding the pardon of the rapist. He really lost me when he disclosed that he didn’t believe in evolution and believed the Constitution should be altered to fit God’s laws. I am sorry but that just steps right over the line for me and brings all the scary theocrats out of the woodwork. Being agnostic I really don’t want anyone’s idea of God or their God’s law invading my civil liberties or how I live my life. Many would have me stoned for how I live or for who I chose to spend my life with because it does not fit into their narrow view of right and wrong.Obama is inspiring and has the gift of rhetorical speech and of the big three left standing he is the one I would like to see make it to the finish line. Does he speak the truth or does he just have an elegant way of reaching people and inspiring them to believe once again? I am not sure. I want to believe but I am not sure he will be able to deliver if he is successful in winning. Not because he lacks experience or conviction or anything they will throw at him in the election but because the politicians are completely in the hands of those that donate all the money to their campaigns and they will not do anything that may cost them an election and end the good times. I believe the Clintons will say anything you want to hear in order to get elected. I use to respect McCain in 2000 but his pandering to the right since the despicable treatment he received at the direction of Rove has turned me off. As I have stated in an earlier stream I do not believe the politicians are completely at fault for pandering to what the voters want to hear because we reward those that do and punish those that tell us the truth.As far as Congress and steroids, what a waste of time. Will it matter to anyone if Roger is found guilty of perjury because the guy has already shown people, kids especially, that there are very lucrative rewards for cheating. Yes, he may lose his legacy but no one is going to take away the millions he has made over the years. Athletes have been cheating for decades at the Olympics for the chance to win a Gold Medal. Roger and Barry have shown just how lucrative it can be when you apply it to a paid sport. Speaking as an Astros fan and a fan of Chairman Waxman, I wish he would call off the witch hunt on Tejada as well. What exactly does he wish to accomplish by going after him? Are they trying to flex their muscles and show they still have some power to make people tell the truth when they allow Alberto Gonzalez and his minions to get away with obvious perjury over the Attorney purge, torture questions and the FISA bs? It is a waste of Congress’ time but it is baseball and of course they all had a chance to get a picture and autographs from “The Rocket”.

(Kerryn)

——————————————

Happy Birthday, Larry!

Jimmy Buffett had a song line that applies: “growing old, not up.” Not that 49 is old–I’ll be 48 in July, so I’m not far behind you! Have a lovely day–and long weekend!

Love,

Laura

——————————————-

Okay, has anyone else been to an Obama rally? I went to see him in Hartford the night before super Tuesday. He was amazing. He literally had us on the edge of our seats with our hands in our palms. I totally “felt” everything he was saying and am seriously going to volunteer for his campaign if he wins. I personally think it goes beyond rhetorical talent to actually believing in what he is saying and believing that change is possible, that the system can be better than it is, that it can be all of the things that we’d hope it would be. This is honestly the first time I’ve ever been so moved by a political figure and the first time I’ve ever believed that a politician could actually bring about true change.

xo,
Rachel

———————————————–

Okay, so I just read through my last email and, yes, I am obsessed with Barack Obama. I am a groupie. He is my new political boyfriend (thus, replacing both James Madison and Cicero)

(Rachel)

———————————————-

David Brooks, the conservative columnist for the New York Times, haswritten some things that underscore why I like Obama: “The third reason Obama should run for president is his worldview. Atleast in the way he conceptualizes the world, he is not an orthodoxliberal. In the book, he harks back to a Hamiltonian tradition thatcalls not for big government, but for limited yet energetic governmentto enhance social mobility.” and “Out of that perceptiveness comes a distinct way of seeing the world.Obama emphasizes the connections between people, the networks and thewebs of influence. These sorts of links are invisible to some of hisrivals, but Obama is a communitarian. He believes you can only makeprofound political changes if you first change the spirit of thecommunity.” and this was a clincher for me as I compared Obama to other Democrats: “But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He doesnot lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the courseof this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from thestrain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin LutherKing Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as amotivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties ofgood and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs betweenthe good and bad within each individual.” In the past, I have voted for Democrats, Independents, and Green Partycandidates across various levels of government. I definitely lean towardObama this year, and am jealous that Rachel saw him in person.

Larry

——————————–

We’re gearing up for the Obama/Clinton debate in town this Thursday. I went to the grand opening of Obama’s office this weekend and it was packed! The last time I was in a crowd like that there was loud music and a hint of cannabis in the air! The campaign is boasting of a ridiculous number of “precinct captains” and that they trained 4,000 of them this weekend. The paid staff hadn’t been on the ground long enough to decipher some of our idiosyncrasies so I sincerely doubt they’ll have 4,000 local precinct captains delivering on a great deal these next couple of weeks. The office and the staff weren’t prepared to capitalize on the amount of attention they received. They were thinking “Texas” and weren’t prepared for Austin’s ready army of activists. The excitement really has been fantastic in so many ways. I’ve worked primary elections before where well-meaning citizens came in to vote but weren’t prepared for the idea of a primary. When we asked them to select either a Democratic or a Republican ballot there were often looks of confusion. (Yes, both parties use the same polling place on the same day.) On top of that, Texas Democrats actually have a hybrid system with some delegates awarded through the primary election and some awarded through precinct caucuses that same evening. Each senate district has a set number of delegates to award through the turnout of these caucuses. The number of delegates in play for each senate district correspond to turnout at the last caucus and the number of supporters for the party’s eventual nominee. So many of my colleagues in education had never heard of these precinct caucuses before and these meetings are designed to be the very roots of the party! Obama’s campaign is focusing a lot of attention on this “Texas Two Step” and trying to educate voters here about the process. Crammed in a room with 100 or more of my newest friends, only a handful of us had any idea what the paid staff were talking about when talking through the caucus process. I ended up being the go-to person for questions about how the elections office actually manages the whole process. So many adults there who consider themselves activists were blown away to find out they had been missing their precinct caucuses for years. Which brings me back to another one of my favorite themes…if you’ve never worked an election before, volunteer to do it this November (or sooner if you have local elections between now and then). There are so many issues of critical importance regarding accessibility and ballot security. All of that as well as some of these local quirks like a “hybrid system” of awarding delegates all become much clearer after participating in the process from this perspective. I have a secret wish that no one would be allowed to participate in the debate over voter verifiable paper trails unless they have first worked an election and been responsible for the care of the machinery. I know I just hinted at limiting speech in order to protect the voter’s ballot but I think we’d have a much more productive conversation if we approached it from that shared experience. So, back to Rachel and Obama, I’m doing what I can in Texas. Barack needs to win something they don’t expect him to win and Texas is probably his best chance for that on March 4th. I’m also writing a short op-ed to send to my hometown newspaper in Fostoria, Ohio. I’d encourage any of you who are excited about this campaign to do something similar. Write out why you’re so passionate about Obama and send your thoughts to your friends and families in Wisconsin (if you’re quick), Texas, and Ohio. If you can then edit those thoughts into a letter to the editor or a short opinion piece, consider
sending it to newspapers in those areas if you can find some “connection” to provide local interest. I’ve really enjoyed reading your opinions and insights on these campaigns and think there are some big ideas there we all ned to take some responsibility for contributing to the public dialogue. And now, I’ll step off the soap box…how did I get up there in the first place? I think it’s Larry’s fault.

Best,

Shellee

—————————————-

Hey People! If there’s to cold up there, common enjoy me in one of our beautiful and warmmmm beaches around the Island. Remember if you are planning to visit Puerto Rico, there’s a free tour around sponsored by Mr. Jefferson. Take careAnd by the way…theres a Obamamania in Puerto Rico!!! Could it be possible that at the turn of fate WE the islanders decide eventually the winner?

Elmo

———————————————–

Shellee, Keep up the good work and thanks for inspiring the rest of us.Unfortunately, the Obama bubble has burst this morning as I heard a reportthat he actually used words in the English language that someone else hadused before him!!!!!!!!! So much for the vision thing………..Save us Hillary.

Jerry

———————————–

Yeah Jerry… I’ve been quiet through all the conversations about the Obama v.Clinton. Have a found another follower????

H (Heather)

——————-

Alright…alright! Enough of this banter! I have a question that has been gnawing at me for weeks-the same question I posed to my fellow Democrats at the recent Nebraska caucus. Why couldn’t the Democratic Party come up with a candidate for president with some executive experience? It’s disappointing to think that the Democrats finally have an opportune moment in history to retake the White House and all we’ve got is a freshman Senator and a former First Lady living her political career off of name recognition. I’d throw my support behind Hillary if she didn’t come with a built-in “I ain’t votin’ for that bitch” voting block. I’ve had my fill of Obamamania. Change in this context seems nothing more than empty rhetoric. Hope is a wonderful thing, but it don’t put legislation on the table. The Clinton clan may be upset by the recent “Where’s the beef?” moment from an Obama speech, but I’m just stuck on Where is the Beef? Don’t get me wrong, there’s no way I’m voting for Emperor McCain. The Hundred Years’ War ended a long time ago. I just wish I had a better choice. If any of you Hitllary backers or Obombers can provide me with some solid rational reasons to back your candidate -BRING IT ON. Regardless of the outcome I have a feeling I’ll be sitting at home Election Night watching election returns and cranking up the Yoopers classic hit “F@*# You I’m Drunk” (That ones for you, Larry).

Here Endeth the Lesson

Lord

———————–

The Lord has spoken! It takes you a while, Kevin, but when you get revvedup, we all listen. I completely understand your position and support what you say. However,there are times in history when people want to wash themselves off and feela bit of hope. We may be suckered by rhetoric but it feels somehow alright.(Bad metaphor, but it’s like taking a laxative…..we got to get the badstuff out!)

Back to work.

Jerry

————————

So Sayeth the Lord!

(Keith)

———

And on the eighth day the Lord pondered politics????

H

(Heather)

—————–

Lord V, those are some solid points. I ask you, though, have you been to an Obama rally? The guy is so inspirational and, for once, I’m going to let myself hope that the system can be better than it is right now, that it can be what I want it to be, that we really can have a more just social and political order. Call me idealistic, but I’m rolling with it.

Rachel

——————

Lord,

Unless I am mistaken the only democrat in the race with the executive experience was Gov. Richardson. If you were not a Richardson fan, who exactly did you want to come out on top? Or did you have another candidate in mind that decided not to toss their hat into the ring? It is hard to vote for someone that doesn’t want the job. I mean the whole field of democrats were all a bunch of senators and a rep. from Ohio. While there were some impressive resumes among the early contenders they were still senators without a lot of executive experience. Am I forgetting someone that was in it early and dropped out?I am not sure I could convince you of why you should support one of those remaining but I am just curious, who are you looking for in this campaign? Jerry, you are dangerously funny.

k (Kerryn)

————————–

Lord Volt,

Did you see? Barack answered your questions himself with his speech in Houston tonight. As best as I can remember his points: 1. He would be a president who has studied the Constitution, believes in the Constitution, and would obey the Constitution.2. He hasn’t been stewed and steeped in the ways of Washington until all the hope has been boiled away.3. It is his central premise that the only way to bring about real change in America is if we can bring new people into the process. Those are words he has delivered on too. I enjoyed reading his book the Audacity of Hope that included his understanding of the Constitutional expectations of elected representatives and the people they represent. When is the last time you had something like that on the table from a presidential candidate? Our elected representatives in Congress let us down with their authorization to use military force before Bush ever had the chance to mess it up. There’s a “check” they were supposed to provide on the President’s power and they missed it. Worse than that, they gave it away. Before Obama’s campaign, every analysis of voters between the ages of 18 and 24 always included the term “apathy.” That analysis has now disappeared while pundits remark on the energy and record turnout of this same group. It’s up to you to convince me that expanding the conversation to include new people and new ideas is a recipe for disaster. Where is our commitment to a belief that only those who have held this particular shade of office before can be trusted in a position to do it again? I don’t remember that pledge in any of our founding commitments. I do recall a tremendous faith in the people. That’s something I see in Obama’s campaign that I have missed in the others. You can call me a sucker for rhetoric but I deeply believe in the “fierce urgency of now.” I deeply believe that the “same old people in Washington doing the same old things” isn’t going to lead us to anything promising. The commitment to not only end the war but to end the mindset that got us into war is important to me. I want a vision guiding our policies and diplomacy that is grounded in faith and hope instead of terror and fear. He also included in his speech tonight an echo from Kennedy, “Never negotiate out of fear and never fear to negotiate.” Obama then asserted that we’re a strong and powerful enough country to meet with our adversaries and and lay it all on the line. He has a firm commitment to the belief that we should never resort to military force without exhausting every avenue to a diplomatic resolution. That’s the kind of leadership I can respect. And, I’d like to remind you that we’re at the end of a Presidency of a Texan with what he was able to sell as very successful executive experience. Do you really expect me to believe that kind of experience proves anything about the reliability of the possible set of outcomes? Most of our state governments are organized so governors are little more than toads on a log….cccrrrooooaaakkk….you tell me what that experience proves. He can effectively warm the seat behind the big desk? Quit clinging to that security blanket of cynicism and wrap yourself in the power of a movement instead. It won’t hurt, I promise.

;^) Shellee

—————–

We’ve all studied the Constitution, etc., too, and if teaching teenagers isn’t executive experience I don’t know what is, but I AM NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT–mostly because I don’t want to be! No thank you, fish-bowl life is not for me. Maybe most governors have had enough. Y’all make me ROTFL!!!

Love ya!

Laura

—————-

Wow, Shellee, you are on fire!! Thank you for noting Obama’s refreshing points from last night’s speech (even though he looked like he needed refreshment badly; I hope he gets a bit of rest). I agree that there is a sense of urgency in our decision-making in November. Most of us are not happy with the way we look and feel as a nation. Increasing participation in the dialogue is a good thing. As he pointed out, real change happens from the bottom up and we need to be heard. The United States is in such a unique position in the world and in history to influence how inhabitants of this planet relate from this point on. The neo-cons, oilmen, and war-mongers we’ve been saddled with seem incapable of thinking in different ways. We must never forget, for all their exploration of the dark side of human nature, there is also a good side and let’s mine that for a while and see what happens. I cling to such hope and I believe many others do as well. (Remember, I am a N.Y. Mets fan!…..and they WILL win the World Series this year!).

Jerry

—————–

Hey guys… what have you been sending? Almost all of your e-mails havebeen blocked for “inappropriate langugage.” Ah, the joys of living andworking in conservative southern Ohio. Oh well, at least we get snowdays…

(Megan)

——————

Actually, I’m a little concerned about the tenor of this campaign. The last time we as a nation were this disenchanted with “same old, same old” government, tired of being led by insiders, etc., we got a Clinton; before that, we got Reagan (both of whom had executive experience, btw). And Kennedy, and FDR, and Harding…and Lincoln, Jackson, Jefferson, and Washington! However, while how we look and feel as a nation may be indicative/symptomatic of who we are as a nation, they’re not definitive. If we’re content with that, the candidate who generates the most enthusiasm wins–surely our governmental ancestors didn’t pledge their lives fortunes, and sacred honor for appearances. Do y’all really think there is some substance to support Obama’s style? For McCain & Clinton, substance is same song, 110th verse, in two-part(y) harmony; Obama has good ideas and preaches like he means it, but doesn’t have much of a track record. Maybe I’m uninformed, but what SOLUTIONS can he deliver? I’m not wild about some of Hillary’s solutions, but at least she’s good at documentation. Obama’s telling us what’s wrong (and I generally agree), but how does he plan to make things right? Enthusiasm is necessary, but not sufficient–we need depth, too. It may very well be there, but I haven’t seen it yet. Here in the rural deep South we’re constantly inundated with persuasive speakers–political stumpers as well as pulpit pounders. I’ve been to Billy Graham crusades, tent revivals led by Brother Billy-Bob, Reagan and B. Clinton rallies, you name it. Same style, different subject, periodic substance. I’ve seen so many people manipulated by that brand of rhetoric–either turned off of politics and/or religion completely, or becoming so fanatical that they’re beyond reason (it’s fun to be Catholic and non-partisan; they don’t know what to make of me!). I like the “difference” in Obama’s campaign, I appreciate the enthusiasm, but when I watched his speech on TV last night, I got nervous. After all, Hitler spoke charismatically, too, before equally enthusiastic crowds. And Jim Jones’ followers were true believers. May we always maintain a healthy bit of cynicism! On a slightly different note, could I get your input on something? I had to deal with a student this morning who objects to Obama because he’s black and Hillary because she’s female–and Victor is merely the only one who was bold enough to voice it–yet this is a heavily Democratic area–there may not be a dozen Republicans in the entire county! I responded for the umpteenth time that I don’t believe it’s right to vote for or against anyone because of biology–skin color and body parts don’t define good government–but it went in one ear and out the other (competing with pervasive local rhetoric). Any insights would be appreciated. Being responsible to help young people learn to think and discern for themselves is a weighty one!

Laura

——————–

There’s a line between drinking the Kool-Aid and respecting the Kool-Aid man for breaking down walls. Okay, that’s not the best analogy cuz that dude’s just plain scary.

Re-boot. I believe that thoughtful Americans can get caught up in hope as long as they realize that, in the end, it’s the people that have to sow the seeds, tend the garden, and mind the weeds in order to reap the harvest. Without a whole lot of specifics, that’s Obama’s message.

It’s a message that appeals to Americans who want this country to grow up. When we live in fear and await direction ala the Bush years, we incapacitate ourselves. We regress as a nation. We have put up walls and restricted our freedom in the name of security blankets. But more than that, so many Americans have forgotten that we’re the ones who have to do the work. I wasn’t around for the Kennedy years, and I know that he has his critics; but for my generation his words still ring of self-determination, independence, and empowerment.

This is the message we want to hear, isn’t it? “Ask what you can do for your country.” I know I do. I want to be told, Go on. Get out there and do it. I wanted to be treated as if I am capable.

I don’t want to be told what I can’t do. I don’t want to be told what I can’t say. I don’t want to be told to sit around and watch the colors on some terrorist barometer. If I’m going to submit, passively, to such dictation, I’ve surrendered me. If we do so as a nation, we’ve surrendered our freedom and what we are when we proudly call ourselves Americans; and that’s the road we’ve placed ourselves upon…

Executive experience matters little. Certainly, it’s not business acumen or gubernatorial exposure that will decide whether the President’s going to respect the supreme law of the Constitution.

However, if we, as Americans, can re-learn our power, then we’ll be able to bring strength back to the checks and balances. It’s only as strong as us.

There’s a tendency to shiver at the thought of a powerful speaker. But when the message is not “follow me or die”, but “follow yourself and live” I think those are words to which I can cheer. I can do so because: 1) on the level of a citizen, I’m rooting for what we can be as a community, and 2) on a personal level, I’m believing in me.

My two pennies.

Keith

——————

My 18-year-old son just read your stuff and mine, and said “I’m a cynic and I like Obama….” OK maybe there’s hope for American youth after all!!I guess I need specificity. I like hope with backbone, not mere wishful thinking. As to being or not being told what to do, I’d rather not. However, some of Obama’s (and Clinton’s) philosophy sounds as socialist as Bush’s do fascistic. It’s hard to sort it all out, do lesson plans, grade papers, prep kids for the SAT-10, and select $1600 worth of new books for the library. Guess I’ll have to sleep when I’m dead!Simply put, are Obama’s ideas better? Or simply different?

(Laura)

———————

Laura,

Interesting about your students opinion towards Hilary and Obama, because I had a completely different experience. I am involved in Kids Voting, so my students were able to vote in the preliminary election and I had a polling booth set up on campus, stickers, etc., to give them the experience of what the voting experience is all about. A majority of my students (6,7,8) voted for Obama because of his race. I work on the Southside and in Tucson where immigration is a very “hot topic,” and I found it interesting that my students selected Obama when he is not supportive of illegal immigration and they are very pro-immigration. My students voted for some candidates who are no longer in the race. Additionally, they voted for Hilary because they thought it woud be “cool” to have a female in charge. Its very discouraging to me, that my students are not educated, and would vote for a candidate based on such little knowledge of their stance on political issues, etc.. The teachers here are so caught up on standards and AIMS that there is little talk of the election. I know at this age, students do not vote, but there should be some time given to the election; especially, with the apathy of this age population. I feel so disheartened that they would be so excited to experience the voting process, but have such little insight into the “bigger” picture regarding the candidates.

Highly Discouraged,

Melissa

————–

Here are the engaging, sometimes hilarious, ideas of an incredibly intelligent lot.

–Keith

The responses, in order received and original font (where it transferred), prefaced with each author’s name:

Elka–Hmmm. . . . Great question! You little pot-stirrer you! My knee-jerk response is to say yes, but I’m gonna think on it some more.

——————————————————-

Jerry–It seems that one of the outcomes of our Constitutional system, envisioned by the framers, was to allow factions their natural lives. The interplay among them and the individuals who make them up would be the catalyst for political stability, yet provide the arena for creative energy to keep the system evolving. What I perceive in our so-called two party system today is a stunting of movement both within and between the parties. New ideas have a hard time affecting the direction of the major parties which control the means for election and the political agenda once in office. Historically, third parties have shaken up the entrenched parties but then have faded or have had their platforms absorbed by the Democrats or Republicans, and then it is back to business as usual.

To make a long story short, we are politically flat-lined! Entertainment is passing for political dialogue and the polulace is moving further and further away from effective participation. Remeber the Caesars……keep them fed and entertained! Or how about Adolph Hitler….”Isn’t it good for leaders like me that the people don’t think.”………..Gotta run now…..the View just came on!

Love ya,

Jerry

———————————————————————–

Jon–a three party system could create more factionalism. And, although I think a three party system could really complicate our existing governmental systems; these complications notwithstanding, however, it seems to me that a three party system could offer more perspectives, choices, and ideas, that is, ideally, more quality ideas, choices and perspectives. Here’s the rub, there will always be positives and/or negative consequences along with any change: so the question that remains to ask is, “Will the benefits outweigh the negative consequences?” In this case, I’d be willing to find out. However, strictly speaking, we have more than a two party system already, do we not? It seems to me, the reality is that two parties simply dominate over all the others. Is that not so?Now are you sorry you asked? Jon.

———————————–

Larry–For me it depends on what is meant by factionalism (and faction). To answer your question, I guess we would get the same total amount offactionalism, roughly. The existence of three parties wouldn’t affectthe amount/magnitude of factionalism. Three parties would simply givefactions more options/choices/vehicles for acquiring and holdingpolitical and economic power. Larry (Does anyone understand what I mean?) (Keith/Maximus, you were mulling factionalism? wtf? Why not mullsomething more important like beer’s exclusion from the food pyramid,or how Max pulled the Grinch’s fully-loaded sled up the mountain above

Whoville, or why homeless people in LA have cell phones?)

——————–

Larry,In response to: [(Keith/Maximus, you were mulling factionalism? wtf? Why not mull
something more important like beer's exclusion from the food pyramid,
or how Max pulled the Grinch's fully-loaded sled up the mountain above
Whoville, or why homeless people in LA have cell phones?)]Surely you know me well enough to realize that I was drinking beer for breakfast while pondering factionalism among sneetches: some with stars on their bellies, some without. All this after a long conference call with Donovan and the wise, cell-phone toting homeless guy from LA.Thanks for all the responses, folks. I’m going to copy-n-paste ‘em to the website www.politicolor.comPeace, y’all!Keith
————————————————————–

Laura–Politics makes strange bedfellows (Shakespeare?). If there are 3 (relatively) equally powerful parties, none would ever have a true majority, or even a plurality. We’d see a lot of coalition-building by necessity, if anything were ever to get done.

If the people wanted our government to make any changes (like progress, maybe?), they would HAVE to get more involved (b/c the squeaky wheel gets the grease–I’m awash with quotes today!). Otherwise the inertia continues, regardless of “party.”

Makes it tough to teach government/poli sci classes–high school seniors are already jaded!

——————————————————

Rachel–Okay, I’m weighing in with my two sense here, and I’m actually going to reframe the question a little. My understanding, based on what I’ve read, is that if the US had a proportional representation system rather than a plurality system, we’d have more political parties. The question, for me, is would we have more or less factionalism (in the sense of different factions actively pursuing their own interests), and would this factionalism be expressed differently? PR systems tend to have more parties because parties have a chance of gaining representation in the legislature even if they gain only a small percentage of the popular vote; as you all know, Weimar Germany is an extreme example of this. Plurality systems, on the other hand, tend towards two parties because elections are “winner takes all.” The Green party, for instance, has a hard time gaining representation in the US. Does this mean that PR systems with more parties have less factionalism?

Rachel

——————————————————————–

Tim–the question of party may be irrelevant. its about interest groups. these (sigs) will exist always at a small scale. the nature of party is large scale. so even if there wwere many parties there may always be factions within party. tim

———————————————————————–

Luis–by their very nature, factions threaten the integrity of a whole (didn’t will stress this??). as larry suggested, a two-party system is the best way to temper and moderate their effects given the numerous interests that vie for power. the question of a three-party system strikes me as academic given that most states endorse the winner-take-all system. then again, i live in congressman tom tancredo’s district along with all the other god-fearing white people whose disdain for brown people is tempered only by their love for margaritas and mexican food–so long as the menu is printed in english. most of my neighbors would be tickled if tancredo were to run as the third-party representative of the “minuteman party” to round up them dang illegals.

i think rachel pointed out the importance of allowing multiple interests to compete. given the potential pitfalls of interest group dynamics (interest group liberalism, elitism, etc.), perhaps we should be asking questions about the nature of factions and the influence they exert:

–should money be considered a form of protected speech under the first amendment? if so, do wealthy PACs, 527 groups, etc. exert undue influence in ways that favor wealthy interests?

–have cozy relations between defense industries and the pentagon encouraged more fleecing through the production of new military systems needed to fight the evildoers? given that america now allocates more than 40% of the budget towards defense, is it realistic to assume that all interests exert equal influence in american policymaking?

–does grassroots lobbying have much relevance given the explosion of PACs and 527 groups?

now who’s being academic??

all the best,

lmt

——————————————————————-

Mario–Interest groups and factions are two different animals, in the following way. Ithink ofinterest groups as having no loyalty to any political party. Instead, bydefinition, theyare only interested in themselves. On the other hand, political parties arecreatures ofideology. In our case, the dems and reps represent different points of view.However, theproblem is one that we discussed this summer. The parties have lost sight of theideal ofamerica. The partie have lost the soul of the Constitution. Instead, interestgroups, $$$,PACs, and all those other first amendment groups have distorte the parties. Bynature, anytwo perty system has to cater to the center to remain in power, oor at least themessageneeds to gravitate to the center or the prty risks losing control. It’s like whatcicerosaid about political systems will by their nature inevitably deteriorate if thesystemfails to adapt. The two party system is an adaptation for stability. On the issueoffactions, not interest groups, the two party system co-opts, seduces and embracesdifferent factions so that the ruling party, which is not necessarily themajority, canremain in power. The message is easier to get out. We are no more a draconiannation todayas we have been for decades. I remember when I was younger, nalysts would talkabout theBalkanization of the USA. Well, the two party system prevails, but the message oftheconstitution is lost for the forseeable future. Even Obama, who was on messagefor solong, is now having to lose his heart for the sake of compromise and results. Weneed a

voice that yearns for the madisonian republic.

—————–

Kevin–Hey Keith and Larry! Long time listener first time caller. If you want third parties – we got ‘em in spades. We got Communists, Socialists, Greens, Nazis…even the Purple Party (they want to introduce monarchy to America – now that would be a novel approach). The problem is our third parties don’t win elections. The electorate is too afraid of throwing their vote away to a losing effort. The tradition of the two-party system limits the choices. Only a strong candidate (Ross Perot) or a divisive issue (slavery) can bring a third party to power. As for interest groups – they are factions and we have those in spades too! The diversity of our population leads to hyperpluralism. We have so many interests going in so many directions that we end up with legislation that doesn’t do anything. The details of legislation are left up to agencies and interest groups (iron triangle). What should we do about all these factions? Just ask Madison (Federalist 10). You smother liberty to squash the factions. Anybody want to put out the fire of liberty? As for our pitiful two parties – they are huge coalitions with very little direction. They are political amoebas that absorb any faction or voter that comes in their path. They are loosely formed around vague ideologies – liberal and conservative, but are willing to cross that ideological line to gain a vote or two. They act as enormous funnels leading the voters to the booth. What we are left with is a candidate-centered system floating in a plethora of factions. The party label becomes a name-brand label. Obama, Clinton, Guiliani…what does it matter? As long as they look good and sound good they will get votes. Why bother with Democrat and Republican? Why not Ford, DelMonte, or Budweiser. Ooops! You knew it would all come back to the beer. By the way, there is a Friends of Beer Party. They are very popular in Prague. I’d vote for them! Now there’s a true party platform. Vote Early, Vote Often. I’m Lord Voldemort and I want to be your next president. Brought to you by Republicans for Voldemort. Dick Cheney Treasurer

——————–

Kerryn–I have been pondering this for a while myself. I am not sure it would create greater factionalism but rather give people a bigger choice to express the inherent factionalism that is a part of the US. If you take into consideration the number of special interest groups and politically motivated groups that already exist then it would just be an extension of that.

I mean right now you have Christian conservatives that have voted for the GOP because they support their conservative moral agenda but not necessarily their economic agenda. What’s the Matter with Kansas comes to mind as an example of this. Harris describes how social conservatives have flocked to the GOP and cut their own throats economically. Are they making a choice or are they constained by the two party system. Their moral beliefs would not allow them to vote for a candidate that may be 98 % with their goals but will vote for gay rights or pro-choice thus negating them as a valid choice for these particular voters. Would more political parties solve this or make it worse? I have no idea.

I agree with Laura that more parties would necessitate more coallition building in that no one party could probably sustain the needed majority to force through their agenda, which should make things better in theory. Would it result in greater harmony? I seriously doubt that, but it would give us better choice when going into the voting booth. Right now we are often faced with the choice of the lesser of two evils or essentially throwing away our vote in order to make a politcal statement that will fall on deaf ears.

For instance would John McCain have sold his maverick soul in order to win favor with “W’s” GOP or would he have stuck to his guns and still rejected Jerry Falwell and others as he did in 2000 if he thought he had a viable chance as a third party candidate in 2008 or even 2004? Until the alternative parties start making strides at the local and state levels then we will be stuck with the 2 party system we have now. I mean look what happened to the debates after 1992 and 1996 when the League of Women Voters was told thanks but no thanks if you are going to allow anyone into the fray. The Dems and GOP decided after these elections that it was good to the king and didn’t want to allow anyone else into the dance any longer. They were scared and used their political muscle to force out the “David’s” of the world.

So would we be more factional as a nation if we had more parties, no I don’t think we would it would just be more obvious of the vast diversity of opinions and agenda that are already there.

Sorry for the long winded answer, but I am avoiding dealing with school. 2 1/2 weeks of hell left and then I am out of here. I will be unemployed and scared out of my mind, but I won’t be here.

k

——————————-

Larry–Self-interest is the basic stuff. When it is collectivized andexpressed in a political system, it is called faction. Parties are oneform of faction, a faction of factions perhaps. Larry (As you can tell, I’m stuck on roots. I like this from Fed. No. 10:“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man.)

————————-

Jerry–Put any group of people in a room and observe their interactions. There willbe a natural coalesence that takes place. Gender, language, ethnicity,interests, mutual benefit, etc. will all come into play. Is faction natural?I say yes. The burning question is how a political paradigm can both allowfaction to express its inherent energy yet somehow enable it to contributeto the common good. Jerry Tony Soprano may have an answer for us!

————-

Laura–Self-interest takes us back to Hobbes! Adam Smith offered a perhaps more civic-minded direction w/ “enlightened” self interest. For either, we have to see how the common good benefits more than it costs us, before we buy into it.

The trouble arises when there are competing definitions of the common good. That’s when natural affinities, interest groups, factions, parties–even gangs–enact a philosophy of factionalism –us v. them, my way or the highway, my side’s bigger/stronger/smarter than your side so we can beat you (up!), or (my personal favorite) you do it your way and I’ll do it God’s way–and winner-take-all has been standard in this country since the Jackson administration!

I wonder if Old Hickory got the idea from Robespierre (I know he wasn’t well-educated, but the French Rev. would have been “current events” when Andy was a young man). Why did we as a nation adopt the spoils system as normative? Do y’all have any flashes of insight?

And how can a political paradigm be designed to foster the common good without manipulation?

————

Mario–Remember our Aritotilian primer from the Academy? “Man is by nature a political animal.”We look for community. We can call that factions, if you will. However, the factions orcommunity must to thrive be loyal to a vision of the whole to promote the foundationalideals of the whole. I think that it is the vision of “We the people” that we have ignoredfor the sake of self-interest. Vote Obama.

—————–

My thought was that a three-party system would better balance power amongst the power-brokers. It would bring heightened attention to peripheral interests, rather than the few that become the basis of elections: recently (and not so recently) 1) Security and 2) Economy. These causes have dominated the political scene for so long, I wondered when Liberty would again blossom as something for which to fight. It seems that we just scrape to hold on to what we have, that there is no growth toward what could be better: education, environment, solving our energy crisis. We seem stuck in this mode of reaction rather than pro action. Hope is a catch word used by most politicians, even if they don’t have the good luck to have been born there. Yet Hope is such an empty word: it doesn’t imply action at all, more like a waiting. Inspiration has come through the great speeches of our leaders (in government or out) who call for action ala JFK or MLK. The more we rely upon our video and audio to take us places, the more we forget how to ourselves create as well as create ourselves. Does anyone even talk about free will anymore, or is this just “Radio Nowhere”?

*Steps Down Off Soap Box*

–Keith

——————-

Laura–On hope: depends on whether that hope has any basis in reality or is only wishful thinking. If a doctor diagnoses cancer, but that type of cancer tends to be treatable and recoverable, a hopeful prognosis is based in reality (proven methodologies, statistics, etc.). If the treatment approach is “oh, maybe it’ll go away on its own,” that’s wishful thinking, not genuine hope.

On holding on to what we have: there’s an old story about a chimp that stuck its hand in a jar containing something to eat. It starved to death because it wouldn’t un-clinch its fist to remove both fist and food from the jar. Had it released its grip and poured out the snack, it would have lived longer.

Will holding on to what we have improve us as a nation or kill us? Pardon the teacher-esque buzz words, but I think we need a new set of problem-solving strategies.

Say we let the security issues simmer along on the back burner for a while. Yeah, they’re important, but the systems in place can run themselves for a bit–and it’s true that we haven’t had another 9/11-level invasion. Let the system work and refocus for a while. Same thing with the economy. Yeah, it’s important, too, but the leading economic indicators have been improving slowly for some time. Let it do its thing for a while turn the nation’s attention to other issues (like education, health care, environmental concerns).

Now what? The federal government has agencies that address these “peripherals,” but policies change every time the administration changes (like the tax code does–which is why I’m not an accountant!). There seems to be no coherent philosophy, no guiding principles that give direction to policy-making, and no leadership willing to make the tough decisions that might cost elections ( a.k.a. popularity contests) down the road. The “leaders” kowtow to whomever scratches their backs in the right places.

The whole “debate” thing is a sham. There is no public debate over real issues that affect your life and mine, and nothing is ever solved or resolved. Politicians can promise and posture all they want to, but only those who actually watch the entire display are even marginally qualified to form an opinion. The rest of us get 30-second sound bytes featuring the brilliance or the showmanship (Howard Dean’s scream!) of the media darlings and the bonehead remarks of the rest.

Maybe Keith is right: a viable third party might upset the existing apple-cart enough to force reorganization of the power structure. Just because it hasn’t happened in our lifetimes doesn’t mean it can’t happen (hope!). At any rate, I’m increasingly of the opinion that the internet is the greatest opportunity we have to foster the American treasury of creativity, inherited from our forebears–idealism tempered with pragmatism, justice with mercy, concern for each with concern for all. It gives little ol’ me a voice and a forum that I doubt I’d have otherwise. Will anything come of my ideas? I don’t know, but it could happen (hope again!)

Have any of you read The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman? I saw a presentation by the author about a year and a half ago, went home & told my husband about some of the ideas, and he said I didn’t know what I was talking about it. Then our stock-broker showed a power-point on the book at a Rotary Club luncheon, and Robert came home telling me about it!!! Go figure. Anyway it starts out telling economic success stories in India and China, but reaches beyond the global economy to domestic economic and education policy–two students in my econ class last year did a book report on it, so I had to peruse it then. Might be worth reading if any of you ever have time to read again! (Wasn’t this past summer a luxury in that regard???)

Just my two cents’ worth! Got a busy weekend ahead–take care!

Laura