See You at the Pole (nationwide, students will pray Weds. at public school flagpole gatherings)

See You at the Pole web site ^

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

See You at the Pole™ is a student-initiated, student organized, and student-led event. That means this is all about students meeting at their school flagpole to pray—for their school, friends teachers, government, and their nation. See You at the Pole™ is not a demonstration, political rally, nor a stand for or against anything.

See You at the Pole™ is scheduled annually on the fourth Wednesday in September, which is September 26 in 2007. The suggested starting time is 7 a.m. If that doesn't work for your school, choose a time that will work for your school, but let everyone at your school know!

[do the dhue]

The Fall was, and is, the great equalizer, which I believe is behind our distinctly anti-government American Creed, to paraphrase Samuel Huntington.

That is interesting. It took me a while to digest. And this is what I came to: are you and Sam saying that our Fore Fathers were anti Government (less power in the hands of the few and checked and balanced), in order to preserve the Constitution and those it governs?

[governmentstillsucks]

That is interesting. It took me a while to digest. And this is what I came to: are you and Sam saying that our Fore Fathers were anti Government (less power in the hands of the few and checked and balanced), in order to preserve the Constitution and those it governs?

Our creed has historically been anti-government, but not in the anarchistic sense. He who governs least, I suppose. In a climate made up of fear of tyrannical despotism and philosophically Calvinist leanings with regard to man and civil authority--not to mention other influences--I think the idea of limiting government was inevitable.

It is very hard for me to imagine Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, et al, getting behind a bureaucratic juggernaut like we have today, which very well may bring us Soviet-style health care and an even greater loss of freedom than decades past.

[governmentstillsucks]

I need to add this:

Not everyone was on board when it came to the Constitution that we have today. If you're familiar with the Federalist/Anti-Federalist controversy from 1787-89, I'm probably reciting some very old news here.

[do the dhue]

I think you are right about Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, and others. I think they wanted the power for day to day Government to be in the hands of the State and the Fed was to protect us from an outside threat, maintain the peace, and maintain a level playing field. That was about all the Responsibility that they gave they Feds. The rest was to be left to the State. So, I don’t think they would like the size of the Federal Government today.

[governmentstillsucks]

So, I don’t think they would like the size of the Federal Government today.

I don't like the size of the federal government today, and I am half the man the any of them were! Today's megastate would be called tyranny in the early days of the American republic.

[do the dhue]

I don't like the size of the Government too but I also have mixed feelings. Please do not take me wrong here. I hate the actual size of the Government. I know we have tons of fat that needs to be lost. I also think like this though: some bureaucracy may need to exist. For an instance, what would happen if we had 52 Food and Drug Administrations. Maybe it would be be better, but I am sure that it would not be a level playing field for all States. I could see a Federal Highway Department (or Transportation) that would maintain our Federal Highways (which I love). Does each State need a NASA? I don’t think so. And all I am saying in this post is that there could be Departments worth keeping besides the Defense Department. But we do need to get rid of the Department of Redundancy Departments on a Federal level and remove the fat in the ones we keep..

[governmentstillsucks]

I don't like the size of the Government too but I also have mixed feelings. Please do not take me wrong here. I hate the actual size of the Government. I know we have tons of fat that needs to be lost. I also think like this though: some bureaucracy may need to exist. For an instance, what would happen if we had 52 Food and Drug Administrations. Maybe it would be be better, but I am sure that it would not be a level playing field for all States.

And you raise a very good question: Just who should be in charge? Interstate commerce is the business of the federal government--so what happens when one state exports products that don't match the standards of the importer?

I could see a Federal Highway Department (or Transportation) that would maintain our Federal Highways (which I love). Does each State need a NASA? I don’t think so. And all I am saying in this post is that there could be Departments worth keeping besides the Defense Department. But we do need to get rid of the Department of Redundancy Departments on a Federal level and remove the fat in the ones we keep

In all of this, I think it's important to consider the scope and control given to a federal government. For example, the Department of Education must go. Before it was a department, it was called the Office of Education--but why should we allow either? Why is it that the government is best suited to act as a benevolent dictator in so many aspects of our lives? Can't each individual state handle education, abortion, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms regulations--just to name a handful of issues? And that isn't without considering preexisting federal laws, which do trump any state legislature that rules to the contrary, provided that their Supreme Court doesn't strike that law down in a heartbeat.

I agree with you about NASA, because I shudder to think what some of the bottom-five literacy states might produce.

[do the dhue]

I agree with you about NASA, because I shudder to think what some of the bottom-five literacy states might produce.

LOL - got what they would produce right here:

I concur that the Department of Education must go. Folks home school their kids and they turn out smarter then some (and I am being nice) of the public school students.

I think the scope should be the original responsibilities given to the Government by our Founding Fathers: defend us from and outside threat (Defense Department and Intel), maintain the peace (DOJ is acceptable and I think an FBI is acceptable), and maintain a level playing field. Maintaining a level playing field would include a commerce department, highway department, maybe a FDA, maybe an EPA (although, I would rather see them in the same category as education), Treasury, Veterans Affair, and State is needed

I have questions here:
Now, what does the Dep of Ag do? Why can't each state handle this? Labor and Energy? What do these guys do to maintain a level playing field?

What does the Department of Interior do? I think Dept Housing Urban Development and Health Services should be left to the State.

And the DEA? Are they worth all the money?

I think these are debatable, but I would have to see what some of these departments actually do before I can determine if they help maintain a level playing field for all States and people.

I wish it were this easy too. :-)