Citizen Tom

I suppose it probably appears to some that I think I have all the answers, but I do not think that highly of myself.  In fact, my political philosophy is such that that I think government should let people find their own answers.

One of the reasons I enjoy blogging is that I am searching for answers, and on-line discussions provide food for thought.  So it is that some of my most interesting posts find themselves on other peoples blogs.

This one started when Vivian J. Paige argued for civil unions.

Tom - I know I’ll never convince you of this but marriage really isn’t about sex or about procreation. If it were, we would outlaw sex outside of marriage and not allow folks who can’t have children to marry. Religion can impose these restrictions on what relationships they will recognize but the government - which supposedly represents all - should not be in the marriage business.

And, truth be told, the government isn’t in the marriage business. The government is in the civil union business. One can be married without a license issued by the government and yes, some people chose that route, just as others chose the civil union route, ie, no religious ceremony and only a license. So let’s call it what it is: the government sanctions civil unions and in doing so, creates a situation whereby one class of citizens is treated differently from the other. And that’s what the CA decision essentially says. (from here)

Here is how I countered.

vjp - I sympathize with your point of view, but I think it ignores quite a bit of history. In addition, the CA decision is immoral. It is an open secret that the CA court overstepped its authority. The CA court knows that it did so, but it will never admit it. Advocates for homosexual rights know that it did so, but they never admit it. Instead, the court and the advocates want to talk about the righteous of the decision. The irony of that is so strange and yet so typical of our day.

Mankind is an experiment. American society is an experiment. Since our creation human beings have been trying to figure what it means to be an intelligent, self-aware life form. Why do we exist? What is good? What is bad? In the frenzy of our experiments, we sometimes discard the wisdom of the past. We sometimes advocate things our forebears would have thought plainly foolish. We arrogantly perceive that what those in the past believed was simply foolish and ignorant. We sometimes even forget the world did not begin at the date of our birth.

Consider the past. Marriage was not consumated without sex. Before birth control, people had large families. People did outlaw sex outside of marriage. People of the same sex, who cannot even conceive children, were not allowed to marry. Because morality is based upon religion, government and religion have alway been interwined in Law. In fact, most of what I just said is still true in large portions of the world.

But to the average American, the “real world” ceases to exist at our borders. What makes us unique? The success of our Republic only partly based on the fact that our government represents us all. What has made our nation truly successful is how restrained our government tends to be. Our government focuses on protecting the right of individuals to make their own decisions. This right of decision includes most of the relationships we form. Where we each work, where we live, what we buy and sell, who we spend our time with…, these are decisions we make for ourselves. With relatively few exceptions, our government does not intervene in much of anything we do. Those exceptions largely occur when the perception exists that someone’s rights need to be protected. Unlike so many governments in the past, our govenment rarely permits one group to impose its beliefs on the rest of us.

Children are the weakest amongst us. Parents are their greatest advocates and protection. Marriage is the institution whereby parents afford children their protection. Marriage is not an institution that exists to certify and protect various types of sexual relationships.

What is the threat to children? There are those interested in shaping the future. For these people children are the most valuable commodity in the world. What some people will do to control impressionable young minds is an abomination. Have you ever heard of the Janissaries, for example? Read about how the Janissaries were first recruited (here). Yet compared to modern child soldiers (here), especially those sad recruits in some parts of Africa, the Sultans treated their Janissaries quite well.

The cornerstone of our nation is the family. We recognize that Mothers and Fathers love their children far more than anyone else is likely to. Because we protect the family, that is why most adults in our nation cherish the memory of the people who raised them. For the sake of future generations, we must protect the rights of parents and the institution of marriage from foolish experimentation. (from here)

The debate continued, of course.  In one respect vjp is surely right, she probably will not change my mind, and I probably will not change hers.  The changing of minds, however, is not what is important.  What is important is what is in people’s hearts.

We must not forget why families are important.  The place where we each first learned how to love is in our first home.  We learned from the example of the people who cared for us.  We learned from our parents and family something government is incapable of teaching us.  We learned how to love each other.

Somehow we must resolve these debates without destroying the very thing we are trying to protect.

 The California Supreme Court rewrote marriage law for the citizens of California today.

California’s Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation’s biggest state can marry - a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after - religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

“Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law,” declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: “We’re going to get married. No Tupperware, please.”  (from here)

Love?  Unreasoning lust or whatever it is, as far as four judges are concerned, it trumps Law, tradition, and common sense.

Here is the most laughable quote in the news article.

James Vaughn, director of the California Log Cabin Republicans, called the ruling a “conservative one.”

“The justices have ensured that the law treats all Californians fairly and equally. This decision is a good one for all families, gay and non-gay,” Vaughn said.

Conservative?  For some people, I guess the definition of a word is unimportant.  What matters is the feeling we attach to a word.

I will leave it to others to discuss the hypocrisy of the ruling.  Instead I have a question.  How does this court decision out of California increase the chances for the nomination of Bob Marshall as the Republican Party’s nominee for the Senate?  Do you remember who secured passage of a Marriage Amendment to the Virginia Constitution?  (See HJR 41 )   That was Bob Marshall.  We cannot know for certain, but like as not Marshall saved us from the same kind of trouble that California has just begun to suffer.

Socially liberal activist groups have been abusing our court system for years.  These people are slowly eroding our nation’s traditional values.   Consider just a few of the things they have done.

• School prayer - our nation’s schools have become secular institutions where the mention of God is viewed with skepticism and even hostility.  For example, our children are taught religion starts wars; nothing is mentioned about the contributions of Christianity to peaceful conflict resolution.
• Abortion - supposedly the courts permitted abortion only through the first trimester.  Yet the truth is pro-life groups had to fight tooth and nail to stop partial birth abortion, an abortion method that kills babies shortly before they are full term.   This success did not stop late term abortion.  It only stopped a particularly grisly method of killing babies. 
• Same-sex marriage - without any reasonable justification, the Supreme Courts of several states have taken it upon themselves to alter the institution of marriage.  These judges would have the tail wag the dog.  They would elevate the benefits of marriage over the responsibilities of marriage.  Marriage exists to provide a safe haven for the upbringing of children.  The idea that a same-sex couple should raise children is absurd.  Consider  the example.  The vast majority of children enter the world with the potential to become normal heterosexual adults.   Yet much human behavior is learned from the example of others.

Marshall has a proven record.  He will fight every bit as hard as the opposition to maintain the integrity of our traditions and our laws.  Consider again the most recent example, that rotten transportation bill, HB3202.   Our General Assembly knew that rotten bill was unconstitutional.  Nonetheless, the General Assembly still passed that rotten bill.  When every other member of the General Assembly had stood aside and treated the matter as settled, Marshall fought back with unrelenting tenacity.  When a lower court judge ruled the law as constitutional, Marshall took the matter to Virginia’s Supreme Court.  Because they would not give up, Marshall and the people who stood with him carried the day (see Marshall v. NVTA and here).

Bob Marshall is not content to hold his ground.  He fights to take back the ground we have lost.  That is why we need to nominate and elect him as Virginia’s next Senator.

Other Views

Naturally, the blogs are ablaze with this issue.

Leslie Carbone is dead set against the ruling (here).

Blacknell (here) and Below the Beltway (here) think this is progress. 

Raising Kaine gives kudos to Arnold Schwarzenegger, “one of the best governors in the country of EITHER party” (here).

Bear Drift recognizes “judiciocracy” when it sees it (here).

Vivian J. Paige observes that the California Supreme Court is “Republican-dominated” (here).   When you consider which Republican you want to nominate for the Senate, please give Paige’s observation careful consideration.

On Saturday, the Republican Party will convene the Eleventh Congressional District of Virginia Republican Committee.   Amongst other things, this group will elect its representation to the State Central Committee, the group that decides policy for the Republican Party of Virginia.  Wiith respect to that subject, I just received an email from Denny Daughtery, a respected member of the Prince William Republican Committee.  He has good advice for those attending the 11th district meeting.

A wise man once said, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
 
We in the 11th district have been greatly blessed to have been represented the last several years on the state central committee by Rick Hendrix, Patsy Drain and David Ray.  Rick, of course, has been an active member of our Prince William Co. GOP committee and its parliamentarian.  Although they live in Fairfax County, Patsy and David have also regularly attended our PWC GOP meetings and have been very responsive to our needs.
 
These stalwarts face very formidable opposition at this Saturday’s convention because of their support for nominating our U.S. Senate candidate by convention, rather than primary.  They did so to insure that our nominee is selected by Republicans and not by non-Republicans. 
 
That did not endear them to our powerful congressman, Tom Davis, who badly wanted a primary in which to run for this seat.  When the convention method of nomination was chosen, he pulled out of the race.  Now he is backing an alternate slate at this Saturday’s convention. 
 
I want state central committee members who think for themselves and do not take orders from elected officials.  We need state central committee members who will put first the needs of the party as a whole and the desires of the rank and file members, and who will stand up to candidates or public officials when their personal agendas conflict with the party’s best interests. 
 
This is going down to the wire.  Please make sure to attend.  And when you do, cast your votes for those who have faithfully represented the conservative majority of the party’s grassroots workforce–Rick Hendrix, Patsy Drain and David Ray. 
 
Denny Daugherty

Do we want the Republican Party to be a political party that serves its members?  Conventions allow the party’s rank and file to select candidates who will stand for the ideals that party members support.  Primaries dilute the vote of the party’s rank and file.  That allows the party’s label to be highjacked by candidates who can at best be counted upon to pay lip service to the party’s ideals.   Thus the choice is clear.  Vote for Rick Hendrix, Patsy Drain and David Ray.

Oops!  Someone observed that Keith Fimian forgot to have an official campaign kickoff.  Well, better late than never.  I guess that is what the Republican Party gets for running a businessman instead of a professional politician. 

Leif Erickson and Christopher Columbus both discovered the New World. The reason why we get Monday off in September for Columbus Day and that there is no “Erickson Day” is that Leif didn’t make a big deal about what he found. Columbus made a splash when he got back to Spain, wrote up his experiences and went on a “book tour” through Europe. He created a buzz about what he found and the rest is history.

Well I’ve been running since November, and I’ve made no secret about our campaign for Congress, but we’ve never publicly launched the campaign. We are not going to repeat Leif’s mistake, and are officially kicking off the campaign with a big “To-Do” on May 17th at the Firehouse in Fairfax.

Senator John Warner, Congressman Tom Davis and other local leaders will be there to celebrate the public beginning of our campaign. I hope you can make it too.

We’ve already made our own buzz about the campaign. FoxNews.com did a story that included our campaign just last week, and the articles about the fight on the Democrat side always include the fact that the Fimian campaign is waiting for the survivor of that contest.

Two other things I’d like to bring to your attention. We have opened a headquarters. The campaign is working out of 10540 Warwick Avenue, Fairfax, VA 22030. Our HQ is a little house with plenty of parking. Please feel free to stop by anytime you’d like for any reason. You can’t miss it since it is painted, a pleasant shade of yellow. We’ll be having a “Grand Opening” at some point in the near future and you’ll be invited.

The final note is to mention two folks who are our Volunteers of the Month. Mike Melillo and Tim Barnes deserve special recognition for being outstanding volunteers this month, in the office 3-4 days every week, making telephone calls and many other grassroots duties. That’s a tough job, and I really appreciate it.

I am constantly humbled by the efforts of our volunteers. I know I can never say “thanks” enough for everything people like you and others have done for me and my campaign, but I want you to know that I will never forget all that you do.

Thank you.

Keith
PS –– I hope to see you at the Kick-Off this Saturday, May 17th, at 6:30pm.
It’s at the Fairfax Volunteer Firehouse.
For details, go to: http://www.KeithFimian.com/KickOff

Unauthorized and paid for by nobody.

 

This was a busy meeting, and at the end, the School Board approved the Fiscal Year 2009 budget.

Author’s note:  PWC School Division’s website is oddly integrated.  So a funny security message pops up when you link to the documents the School Board reviews at its meetings.  I will still link to those documents, but I do not expect you to trust an anonymous blog.  To find the document yourself, go here and look for the topic under the Electronic Agenda (May 7th).  The video of the School Board’s meetings is available here.

Blessing

Pastor Tim Hager of the Manassas Assembly of God provided the blessing.  He reminded us that the people of our nation have been asking for God’s blessings on our country and our leaders since its founding days. 

Consent Agenda

The School Board approved a number of interesting items without discussion.  These included:

• The award of a contract for the Enterprise Elementary School renewal to Sumter Contracting Corp. in the total amount of $2,936,000.00.
• The award of a contract for the Potomac View Elementary School addition to John L. Mattingly Construction Co., Inc. in the total amount of $2,491,000.00. 
• The acceptance of the Teaching American History Grant from the U. S. Department of Education.  The grant provides forty 5th grade and sixty 6th grade history teachers with a week-long summer colloquia, full-day professional development workshops, and regular study group and coaching sessions designed to raise student achievement.  (Here is a news article.) 

Social Studies Course Sequence Adjustment

To match up with the sequence recommended by the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE), the School Board approved the administrative staff’s proposal (see here) to rearrange the Social Studies course sequence.   The changes will begin to take affect next year. 

With one exception, the School Board was highly supportive of the changes.    Because he feared a possible reduction in rigor, Dr. Otaigbee expressed some concern.  What the changes do is add a Geography course in the 5th grade and push back or stretch out the existing courses.  The staff argued that the changes give students and parents more choices and allow teachers to cover the subject areas with greater rigor. 

Citizen Comments

As has become usual of late, those providing comments included citizens with something to say about the Math Investigations (MI) program. 

Steve Santee spoke first.  He noted that the textbook selection process is suppose to be unbiased.  He complained that Dr. Ruth Parker was the Keynote Speaker for the Kickoff Meeting of the 2005 Math Textbook Committee.  Because Dr. Parker has received many National Science Foundation (NSF) grants, Santee said she has a bias towards the TERC Investigations program and its MI textbook series.  He also reviewed some of Dr. Parker’s arguments for the MI program (Dr. Parker has been a speaker at some of the school division’s math sessions for parents.).

The bias certainly seems to be there.  TERC’s own website notes NSF’s sponsorship of the textbook series (see here) and cites Dr. Parker as an advocate (here).  Here is the website of Dr. Parker’s organization. 

(Author’s Note:  When I was looking into Dr. Parker’s background, I discovered the learning theory upon which TERC based the MI program, Constructivism.  It occurs to me that one might get too caught up the advocacy of a process, in this case a learning process, and lose sight of the end goal, learning mathematics.  I wonder whether we have such a problem with the MI program.

Consider the issue from the perspective of an education major, particularly someone with a doctorate.  The primary contribution that an educator makes to the education of children comes from their expertise in learning theory.  Since this expertise is not subject matter expertise, I am afraid educators occasionally need to be reminded that learning theory is a means to the end, not an end in and of itself. 

What is Constructivism?  Here is a Wikipedia article.  Here and here are websites that link to other sites on Constructivism.

Note that Constructivism is ideological.  That is, the merits of this theory are debatable.  Although the proponents of Constructivism claim that their technique is based upon proven research, the subject of learning theory falls into the realm of soft science.   While often useful, the subject areas we associate with the soft sciences, psychology, for example, are often based upon conjecture and consensus.  We call the soft sciences “soft” because these subject areas are so complex we do not yet have the capability to conduct rigorous, reproducible experiments. 

There is also an additional problem, expertise.  Traditional education techniques tend to be straight forward and easily implemented.  To use traditional teaching techniques, the primary requirement is subject matter expertise.  The more complex Constructivist approach requires both a good understanding of this learning theory and subject matter expertise.  That means greater skill and devotion is required from the instructor.  Without instructors who have the requisite skills and concern for the students, Constructivist teaching methods will most likely produce poorer results.

Consider the problem this way.  If you had the choice of being taught by someone with an education degree or subject matter expertise, which would you choose?)

Greg Barlow spoke next.  He mentioned that he had been sifting through the information that the PWC school division had provided as the result of the FOIA request.  He expressed frank amazement that the school division had selected the Investigations textbook series.  He noted that the school division had to waive school division regulations.  The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) reviews textbooks and grades them according to how well they satisfy the Standards of Learning (SOLs).  With respected to satisfying SOLs, VDOE rated the Investigations text unsatisfactory for the fifth grade.  Even more astounding, it appears that only one member of the textbook committee reviewed the fifth grade book.

The third commenter spoke favorably of the MI Program.   Unlike the first commenter, she was impressed by Dr. Parker.  She thought if she had been taught using the MI technique, she would be much more comfortable with math.  She has a third grader attending Antietam E.S.  She is happy with what he is learning.  She specifically noted that his instruction consists of a mix of the MI program and traditional math.  This speaker also commented on the International Baccalaureate (IB) program.  She lauded the goals of the program but she thinks the accreditation process (See here and here for more details.) is too expensive to justify when the school’s budget is so tight.

Revisions to the Code of Behavior for 2008-09

The revisions (see chart here) were fairly wide ranging and included references to electronic devices, bullying, harassment, student privacy issues, discrimination, school bus rules, weapons and prohibited objects, and so forth. 

The draft “Code of Behavior” is here.  The proposed changes did not seem to strike the board as controversial. 

The proposed changes will be considered for approval at the next meeting.
(Author’s note:  All in all, The “Code of Behavior” is the type of bureaucratic document one expects from a government monopoly.  I suppose the only thing worse than having a regime with too many rules is trying to live in bureaucracy that keeps the rules secret — or under a regime that makes up the rules to solely to suit itself.   Nonetheless, because the School Board must enforce the “Code of Behavior” so it must treat the document seriously.  While it may be a pain, I encourage the parents and students to read it.)
  
Budget Recommendations for FY 2009 Approved Budget
With the decline in county revenues, the school division to further reduce its budget by $25.7 million.  As the result Superintendent Walts has had to reduce the projected budget.  Thus Walts gave the School Board a briefing on the proposed “savings.”  Here are the slides he used. 

Board Matters

The board considered several subjects to be approved at their next meeting.

• Policy Updates — This time the School Board reviewed the final changes/updates related to the school division’s policies discrimination and equal opportunity in employ.  Once the changes are approved, next meeting, the school division intends to put its ”Policy and Regulations Manual” on the school website.  Effectively, the point of most of the changes seems to be a consolidation of existing policies into one place.
• Revisions to Policies and PWCS Education Foundation MOU– This got fairly legalistic.  The PWC school division had to update is policies for accepting funds from nonprofits and its Memorandum of Understanding with PWCS Education Foundation.  According  to the staff, the foundation has a history of providing seed money for useful projects.    The presentation included the SchoolFusion demo on this website.  Providing money for SchoolFusion for a three-year period is one of the foundation’s projects.  The goal is to consolidate the entire school division on the SchoolFusion interface.  Lattin has seen a more detailed demo, and he praised it.
• Traditional High School– The push continues for expanding the existing program to high school.  The object here is to approve a survey to be sent to parents and to start planning for a task force to setting up some kind of program.  The problem is money and time.  Initially, staff proposed just sending the survey to the parents of seventh and eighth graders at Porter and Pennington.  That did not go over well with some of the board members.  So Walts proposed extending the time line for the survey.  Johns did not seem happy with this development.  I expect we will have some behind the scenes dickering.

Two board members commented on the MI program.  Lucas said she had attended three school (seven classes) to see how the program is working.  She said she would reserve further comments for the board’s MI work session.  Otaigbe said he thinks the solution is to allow parents a choice, “that the war will not end until we provide parents a choice.”  He gave as an example the effort the school division is making to provide parents the choice of sending their children traditional schools.  Parents should also be able to choose whether they want their children taught traditional math or via the MI program.

Ramirez read a statement blaming the school’s budget woes on the Board of County Supervisors (BOC).   She said the budget has been cut $38 million and then she list all the reductions and what she fears will result.  In particular, she castigated the BOCS for their efforts with respect to illegal immigration.  She argued that the supposed savings the will result from ridding the school system of a certain population will not materialize.  She said that when the children leave, the money will leave too.  She then offered the observation that programs such as the traditional high school cannot be done because of the budget cuts.  As the result of budget cuts, the traditional high school cannot be defended because it only supports an exclusive group of students.   

(Author’s note:  Ramirez’s statement made little sense.  For example, her proposition that the children of illegal immigrants bring more money into our school system is nonsense.  Following this reasoning, we may as well invite all of the world’s poor into Prince William County.  Won’t we make a bundle?  Predicably, the news media has pick up this storyline (here) and is treating it as a serious concern.  

Yes, it is true that the state and Federal government fund our school system based upon the number of students enrolled in our schools.  However, I seriously doubt citizens in Prince William Count think this funding scheme provides sufficient justification to flood our county with illegal immigrants.  In fact, if this is going to be used as a lamebrain excuse to support illegal immigration, I suspect most people would prefer changing the funding scheme.)

Since the meeting there have been some news articles on school budget woes.  The Potomac News focused on salaries, “Teachers taken for granted.”  The Washington Post noted that school budget woes are an area wide problem (see here).

FY 2009 Approved School Budget 

The School Board:  

1. Approved the FY 2009 school budget in the total amount of $1,174,770,049 (see here).
2. Directed the Superintendent to forward the school budget by fund totals to appropriate staff to further prepare the budget by state category.

The approved FY 2008 budget was $1,104,415,824 (from here on page 64).

Note that the school division prefers to talk about the operating fund.  The FY 2008 the approved operating fund was $762,139,617 whereas the FY 2009 fund is $799,007,689.   These “budget cuts” were defined by what the school division wanted to spend. 

Times change.  Technology changes.  People remain too much the same.  So it is that advice given at the founding our nation still remains good advice. 

When George Washington decided not to run for a third term, he gave a Farewell Address.  That is, he wrote a document to thank his countrymen for the honors that they had bestowed upon him and that provided counsel he hoped might help in the years to come.

A large part of the document dealt with foreign entanglements.  It seems to me a good time to review that section of George Washington’s address once again.  The Cold War has ended, and the United States’ status as the world’s sole remaining superpower is slowly fading.  What strategy should we adopt for this changing situation?  Is Washington’s advice still relevant today.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. (from here)

When I got insulted here, I missed the allusion. “Blind squirrel”?  So out of curiosity, I decided to look it up (here), and I found a little treasure trove of Russian proverbs.  Here are some examples.

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes. 

Eat what is cooked; listen to what is said.

A wife is not a pot, she will not break so easily. 

A lonely person is at home everywhere.

An enemy will agree, but a friend will argue. 

Do not make me kiss, and you will not make me sin.

God wanted to chastise mankind, so he sent lawyers. 

The tallest tree is rooted in the ground.

There’s no harm in wine; it’s drunkenness that is at fault.

When you meet a man, you judge him by his clothes; when you leave, you judge him by his heart.

With lies you may go ahead in the world–but you can never go back.

You do not need a whip to urge on an obedient horse.

You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.

To a large extent, the point of blogging is the amusement it provides.  It is best to keep that point in mind.  

Time to get back to work.  Lyle Beefelt, our new Chairman, has called a meeting.

CALL TO MEETING

By the authority of the Plans of Organization of the Republican Party of Virginia and the Prince William County Republican Committee, I hereby call a meeting of the Prince William County Republican Committee, to conduct its regular business on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 7:00 PM to be held at the McCoart County Government Building, 1 County Complex, Woodbridge.

AGENDA FOR MONDAY, MAY 19, 2008 

1. Call to Order — 7:00pm
2. Invocation — 7:05pm
3. Pledge of Allegiance – 7:10pm
4. Campaign announcements – 7:15pm
5. Club Announcements — 7:30pm
6. Approval of previous meeting’s minutes — 7:40pm
7. Election of Officers — 7:45pm
8. Appointment of Legislative District Chairmen/Reps. — 8:05pm
9. Magisterial District Officer Elections — 8:10pm
10. New Business — 8:30pm
11. Admission of New Members — 8:40pm
12. Adjourn — 8:45pm

Sincerely,

Lyle Beefelt

Unit Chairman