The Pint: A battle EU metric importers couldn't win

A blurb from last month, that I'll hope to refer back to next semester when we teach about the European Union and its struggles when its bureaucratic rules, backed up by legislation from the European Parliament challenge national sovereignty, sparks fly. What's a sovereign nation to do?

In this, the latest example involving the EU and its members, the EU bureaucrats, using their wide range of discretion, seem to have backed down. The defenders of pints, miles, and pounds (as weight, not money) are not entirely satisfied. By the way, those of us not in the UK (or the Republic o Ireland) might not understand that the pint is the most important of these traditional measures.

EU gives up on 'metric Britain'

The European Union is set to confirm it has abandoned what became one of its most unpopular policies among many British people."

It is proposing to allow the UK to continue using pounds, miles and pints as units of measurement indefinitely..."Under the plans which have now been scrapped, even displaying the price of fruit and vegetables in pounds and ounces would have become grounds for a criminal prosecution."The decision to back down was made by Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen... 'I want to bring to an end a bitter, bitter battle that has lasted for decades and which in my view is completely pointless. We're bringing this battle to an end.'..."John Gardner, director of the pro-imperial British Weights and Measures Association, said: 'If a trader tries to conduct his business in just imperial measurements that will be illegal.'"

The UK Metric Association said the statement does not mean that traders can go back to weighing and pricing in imperial measures, and it will be 'business as usual'..."

Ken Wedding on his blog, Teaching Comparative Govenment and Politics, http://compgovpol.blogspot.com goes back on some Minnesota history when metric rationalists seemed to have been gained the upper hand and even in the US people saw km/hr speed limit signs, learned that a dime (part of a metric system) weighed about a gram, and that a meter was about a yard long.

In 1977, the NCAA sanctioned a Division III metric football game between Carleton and St. Olaf Colleges here in Northfield, Minnesota. But the enthusiasm for imposing metric (even in Europe)uniformity may be waning.

Yet another victim on nationalistic pride. The Brits and Irish will raise a pint to that.

Romney in Heaven? No, Just Iowa

Latest national presiential polls have Hillary Clinton with a double-digit lead over her Democratic rivals, and Rudy Giuliani ahead of his GOP competition. But as we should know by now, presidential races -- and nominatons are done by state-by state and two of the state's that have a huge early impact are New Hampshire (home of the nation's first primary) and Iowa, which hosts its nominating caucus in the cornfields on Jan. 14, 2008. Iowa now promotes its "Firt in the Nation," nominating contest.

One has to look back to just 2004 to prove that "All Politics is Local," but with a national significance. Democratic also-ran John Kerry, who was buried in national polls won the Iowa Caucus -- the word coming from the Algonquin origin meaning "gathering of ruling tribal chiefs." Reportedly, he focused on meeting Democrats throughout Iowa's 99 counties. Meanwhile, Howard Dean, who had an apparently large blogosphere, finished a distant third. Then was YouTubed out of the campaign by his post-Caucus Scream Speech.

http://www.marriedadults.com/howarddeanscream.php

For more on the Iowa Caucus, link here: http://www.iowacaucus.org/iacaucus.html

Iowa and New Hampshire may be demographically than the rest of the nation, that's why some have suggested that we go to nation-wide primary. But there is no doubt that are state-centeed electoral process can throw are curve ball to the media scorekeepers that have Hillary and Rudy ahead of the field of presidential contenders.

This week, a Newsweek poll shows Hillary locked in a tight three-way race with Barack Obama and John Edwards and Mitt Romney hold a sizable lead over Rudy and others in the GOP race among likely Iowa caucus goers. See the political cartoon above, Rudy and John McCain may be hurting in Iowa because they blew off the Iowa Straw Poll in August, while Romney has been stumping among the Hawkeye Huskers all nearly all summer.

The headline, "Romney in Heaven? No, just Iowa," comes from the line in the classic baseball film Field of Dreams. Romney's religion (Mormon) and its importance may be a blog for another day.

For now, consider the presidential nominating process in the United States. Does it work for you that suffrage is a state issue and Iowa and New Hampshire get the prime time early spotlight?

Loser pays?

Last week, the United Auto Workers staged its first national strike against the world's largest auto maker, General Motors, since 1970. The UAW walkout lasted just two days. But the troubles for the auto maker -- and the auto workers -- remain. As does the health care crisis in this country, where the largest number of bankruptcy claims have been made by sick people who have weak, or non-existent medical insurance.

The once healthy American auto industry, claims to be unfairly burdened by health care costs. Part of the compromise settlement that GM and the UAW met was pushing a good portion of health care costs for employees and retirees off to the union, in exchange for a promise to protect American jobs -- although GM has over the last 20 years moved much of production to foreign countries like Mexico.

In 2005, in an OP-ED column written for the Wall Street Journal, GM CEO Rick Wagoner, said that GM planned to: "Trim $1 billion in net material costs in 2006; and, in cooperation with the United Automobile Workers, reduce GM's retiree health-care liabilities by $15 billion, or about 25%, for an annualized expense reduction of $3 billion. "

The chaiman went on to say health care costs were a fundamental problem cutting into GM's profits:

"So what are the fundamental challenges facing American manufacturing? One is the spiraling cost of health care in the United States. Last year, GM spent $5.2 billion on health care for its U.S. employees, retirees and dependents--a staggering $1,525 for every car and truck we produced. And the figure is going up again this year. Foreign auto makers have just a fraction of these costs, because they have few, if any, U.S. retirees, and in their home countries their governments fund a much greater portion of employee and retiree health-care costs. "

Meanwhile our government, with millions of uninsured Americans -- including children -- is being pushed by many on the left to finally do something to avoid this healthcare crisis. A bill to provide coverage to children who get caught in the middle has passed Congress but is likely to be vetoed by President Bush. Here's why according to Stephen Colbert:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/28/the-wørd-on-health-care/

House bill H.R. 676, sponsored by Rep. John Coyners (D-MI) , "To provide for comprehensive health insurance coverage for all United States residents, and for other purposes," has been sitting in committee since Feburary.

Documentary filmaker Michael Moore, in his film SICKo, calls for a socialized medical coverage for all Americans. His proposal is linked here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/health-care-proposal/. It is obviously politically controversial. While Moore will not feel sorry for GM -- see Roger & Me -- he might have a supporter in Wagoner, who would like to shift the burden to the government.

http://slate.com/id/2169131/

The GM CEO, and the liberal activist who once took the company's chairman to task. A health care crisis can make strange bedfellows.

What does all this mean? Simply put, we all are facing a social security crisis in this country. And millions are facing a health care train wreck. For years, if it cared to look, our government has seen it coming. What should they do? What should We the People demand?

Share your thoughts. Have you seen SICKo? If you have, tell us what you think.

Protecting the thoughts we hate

"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought -- not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." -- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Justice Holmes, in his opinion in the 1919 landmark Supreme Court case, Schenck v. United States, set the "clear and present danger" precendent as the only time that the government has the constitutional right to surpress the right to free speech and thought. In Schenck v. United States, Holmes announced this doctrine for a unanimous Court, famously declaring that the First Amendment would not protect a person "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

Today, the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in New York, speaking at Columbia University. Earlier, in a prelude to the UN General Assembly meeting, Ahmadinejad said he had wanted to go and lay a wreath "to show his respects" at Ground Zero. He was rejected by New York authorities. He will run a gauntlet of protesters at Columbia decrying his outrageous views, including his denial of the Holocaust, his call for Israel to be wiped from the face of the earth, his country's development of nuclear weapons and its sponsorship of terrorism.

A USA Today editorial states: "The public display of Ahmadinejad getting to taste two fundamental pillars of democracy — free speech and the right to protest — should speak volumes about what the United States stands for, and what he and Iran don't. "
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/our-view-on-ahm.html

But others have an oposing view. And even a satirical view, including this report of the Irania president getting Tasered.
http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?id=1929

Ultimately, Ahmadinejad and his views will get more media coverage then the top agenda item on the UN General Assembly docket: the Global Climate Crisis. My questions for your are: 1)Is the Iranian president Infotainment, or his he the real story? And, 2) Should the Ahmadinejad and his hateful rhetoric be welcomed here?

Media and Government Rather Close for Comfort?

In the midst of our Unit: Political Parties, Campaigning, Elections, the Media and Linkage organizations; we have a signficant statement in the way of a $70 million lawsuit filed by Dan Rather against his former employer, CBS and its parent company media conglomerate, Viacom, Inc.

We will teach that the media has three traditional roles: Gatekeeper, Scorekeeper and Watchdog. We have also said that the media in the U.S. has played the role an adversarial press since Watergate and the Vietnam War.

If the media plays those roles, then they "are supposed to be a pain in the ass,'' as the late David Halberstam said. But Rather's suit says, well, these days the media is linked rather close to the government.

He claims he was used as a "scapegoat" (not the racehorse, or watchdog animals journalists are used to playing) and CBS intentionally botched the aftermath of a discredited story about President Bush's military service to curry favor with the White House. He was removed from his "CBS Evening News" post in March 2005.

"Somebody, sometime has got to take a stand and say democracy cannot survive, much less thrive with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news," he said on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"They sacrificed support for independent journalism for corporate financial gain, and in so doing, I think they undermined a lot at CBS News," he told King.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hUVO6cyEPAt-CaWVsvqXELJ0_DCw

An article in your packet suggests similar linkages. Read the packet article on the corporate connections to media outlets in this country. Then link your thoughts on whether or not we still have a free press in the U.S. Or is it rather to closely linked with corporate interests and the government itself.

What would Ghandi Do?

Sarah V. poses for a picture with Rajmohan Gandhi after the professor's talk during last week's Celebration of Peace.

During last week's talk reflecting on the life of his grandfather, Mahatma Gandhi, Professor Rajmohan Gandhi used this story to look for the purpose of people and government in time of "War on Terror" that is in conflict with "Peace and Ahimsa (the Sanskrit word for non-violence)."

"A little girl asked here parents how wars start,'' professor Ghandi started.

"Wars start over land,'' her mother said.

"No, wars start over economics,'' the father said.

"They are fights over land,'' the mother countered, only to be stopped by the father's exclamation of "ECONOMICS!"

The little girl, sighed. "Now I really know how wars start,"

Professor Gandhi's talk to students of Waubonsie, Neuqua Valley, Naperville North and Naperville Central centered around the themes that propaganda in the "so-called" Muslim vs. the so-called "Western World" are standing in the way of the prospect of potential of peaceful global world.

"Today, there is a belief, or propaganda that America is the enemy,'' Ghandi said. "Likewise, in america and the West there is the thought that there is something wrong with the Muslim world as a whole."

The grandson, who at 72 years of age, said he is still honored to be referred to as the grandson of Ghandi. He said Ghandi's relevance was as much about bringing Hindus and Muslims together as much as it was achieving (non-violently) India's independence. He later went on to say,

"Those who commit acts of violence in the name of justice are ordering the public to pay the price.''

The professor went on to push you guys to to get involved, and maybe change the world. "An individual has conscience, government doesn't have consceince . Institutions don't have conscience. Government needs opposition, disent, often to provide the role of a conscience."

Interesting. But what if individuals have opposing coscienciousness, and being linked to governments both locally and nationally, they are enganged in a tug of war that often uses labeling dialog and sometimes violence.

I could not help be think of the "What would Jesus Do?" catch phrase. Substituting, "What would Ghandi Do?" when thinking of the crosscutting cleavage that has become national news right from our own backyard. The debate/protest/delayed opening/and lawsuit over the Planned Parenthood clinic is a complex one to find "Ahimsa" in our pluralistic, polarized society.

I am a Catholic, anti-abortion, but pro-choice. Does that make me a flip-flopper? I guess I wish I could turn to Ghandi for guidance.

What do you think Ghandi would do, or advise on the two side of the local clinic conflict. Linked here is Time magazine's story on the local controversy and the national grassroots lobbying so-called pro-life movement.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1662487,00.html

Military Mission: Democratization

During yesterday's Senate testimony, General David Petraeus took tough questions from five potential new bosses. Senators Biden (D), Clinton (D), Dodd (D) , Obama (D) and McCain (R) all put the commander of troops in Iraq through questioning. They are all hoping to be the next Commander in Chief

But maybe the hardest question came when the senior Republican Senator on the Armed Servies committee, John Warner (who is not running for President) asked the question we asked in our classroom on 9/11.

Warner asked Gen. whether the current strategy in Iraq "will make America safer."

Petraeus replied, "I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."

Warner repeated his unanswered question: "Does that make America safer?"

Petraeus said, "I don't know, actually. … I have not stepped back. … I have tried to focus on what I think a commander is supposed to do, which is to determine the best recommendations to achieve the objectives of the policy for which his mission is desired."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/washington/12scene.html

The General's answer may be politcally embarassing. But maybe that's because his job can only be part of the answer in the complex equation in the first trend in comparing political systems: Democratization. Remembering our foundations, Gen. George Washington had much help from political thinkers.

According to political scientist Samuel Huntington, the modern world is now in a "third wave of democratization" that began during the 1970s. the first wave developed gradually over time; the second wave occured after the allied victory in World War II, and continued until the early 1960s. The second wave was characterized by de-colonization around the globe. The third wave is characterized by the defeat of dictorial or totalitarian rulers from South america to Eastern Europe to some parts of Africa. Recent political turnover in Mexico may be interpreted as part of this "third wave" of democratization.

Huntington outlines some factors on why democratization has occured:

• The loss of legitimacy of both right and left wing authoritarian regimes
• The expansion of an urban middle class in developing countries
• A new emphaasis on "human rights" by the United States and the EU
• The snowball effect: When one country becomes democratic, it influences others to do so. An example is Poland's influence on other nationas of Eastern Europe during the 1980s. It is also George W. Bush's hope for his legacy.

If we plug in the factors, we and should ask ourselves, can the military man on the cover Newsweek possibly save Iraq by accomplishing all these goals?

Left brain vs. right brain, politically speaking

So there's science behind John Kerry's flip-flopping and George W. Bush single-mindedness.

In a simple experiment reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Read the study, and see if your: brain; image of yourself; and results on our political views survey coninside.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-politics10sep10,1,7735909.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Taking Aim at 2nd Amendment Incorportation

The debate over whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable against the states all of the protections of the Bill of Rights is one of the most important and longest-lasting debates involving interpretation of the U. S. Constitution.

Selective incorporation is the means by which the Supreme Court has, over time, applied most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to all citizens through an interpretation of the 14th Amendment's due process clause.

The Bill of Rights, when ratified in 1791, DID NOT apply to the states. Thus varying degrees of civil liberties were quite common from state to state. This was federalism in action. But what if certain inalienable rights, rights which when defended forged our union, were at best uninforced and worse disregarded in some states? Was our republic founded on false pretense? With the passing of the 14th Amendment, in 1868, a new era of civil liberty was born. Section 1 states: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens...nor deprive any person...without due process of law...nor deny...the equal protection of the laws.” Soon thereafter, the Supreme Court began exploring the reach of such words. In the Slaughterhouse cases (1873) it was argued that certain privileges and immunities “belong of right to the citizens of all free governments.” Yet it was not until 1925, in the case Gitlow v. N.Y., when a Court majority for the first time applied such thinking to a specific provision found in the Bill of Rights. Here, the Court for the first time used the language of the 14th Amendment to “incorporate” the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment. Thus, the Supreme Court, not local state governments, became the overseer of basic civil liberties.

A chart of amendments incorporated by decisions by the Supreme Court's judicial review is at the back of your current packet. The sides of the constitutional conflict of incorporation is linked here: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm

So what about the 2nd Amendment and the right to "love my guns?" Washington D.C.'s law banning the owning of handguns had been on the books since 1976, when a federal appeals court three-judge pannel swept aside the Capitol City's anti-gun law. Chicago has a similar law. If the Supreme Court gants D.C. a writ of certiori and hears the case, the 2nd Amendment might be on the way to be fully incorporated.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-guns_wed1sep05,1,2446780.story

And in light of deadly school shootings at Virginia Tech last year -- and a reported 8 percent reduction in Chicago homicide's since the ordinance that bans possession of handguns in the home -- (from the soap box) it will give me another reason the question the logic of our federal government.

Soft Power

Last week we talked about the theories of power. What we didn't talk about was the difference between Soft Power and Hard Power and how these are related.

Linked here is a BBC international poll that suggests because of America's role in Iraq is not only unpopular, but its soft power -- its ability to influence people in other countries by the force of example and by the perceived legitimacy of its policies - is weakening.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6288933.stm

Also linked here is a seven-part series from the Teaching Comprative Government & Politics blog spot of Ken Wedding, one of the chief readers at the AP exam. He has a number of posts that defines the term and analyzes what people see on in the world in our comparative countries.
http://compgovpol.blogspot.com/

Read the BBC article and comparative posts and then ask yourself, is America still a Superpower? And, is our Hard Power (military involvement) weakening our Soft Power?

Hi-Rent House party has limits

Oprah's California estate, site of Saturday night's $2,300 Obama fund-raiser.

You have heard the joke about money and politics? “There are two important things in politics. One is money and . . . I cannot remember the other one.”

Indeed, there appears to be a pernicious influence of big money in American politics. As the federal budget has ballooned by $1 trillion in the last six years, you would expect the fat cats to be interested.

It is the pernicious influence of campaign finance law ignorance, however, that is even more startling. Accusations of corruption are easy to make. Yet understanding campaign finance law is anything but easy.

With Oprah Winfrey hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama over the weekend, a quick review of campaign finance law is in order.

Here are the essential terms (we will study these in further detail later in the semester):

Hard Money: Money given directly to a candidate for campaign purposes. Can only be given in limited amounts. This amounts to $2,300 per candidate, per campaign. There are maximum limits on top of this.

Soft Money: Money given to a political party for the purposes of political activity. It cannot be laundered to the candidate but must be used for issue advocacy ads and/or voter mobilization efforts. No limit. Recently banned.

Independent Expenditures: This is money spent by private individuals toward the election of a favored candidate or desired political outcome. On the rise, this sort of electioneering bypasses the candidates and the parties. Private individuals and groups, somewhat undercover, do political damage.

Federal Election Campaign Act [FECA] (1971, amended in 1974): In response to President Nixon’s unprecedented campaign abuses, this legislation limited “hard money” to $1,000 to an individual campaign and $20,000 to a political party. The requirement of full disclosure is now law. Parties and candidates must now document and record for public access most campaign receipts.

FEC: The Federal Election Commission. Founded in 1974, this is the federal agency, oft called the “toothless watchdog,” that oversees federal campaigns.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976): In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that political donations are protected by the 1st Amendment. Certain limits, however, are deemed Constitutional. Individual candidates can give themselves unlimited amounts.

BiPartisan Campaign Reform Act [BCRA] (2002): Often referred to as McCain-Feingold, this measure raised the limits on individual contributions to $2,000 to an individual campaign and $25,000 to a political party. Most importantly, it banned ALL soft money. Certain “electioneering communication,” by interest groups, was also banned 60 days prior to an election.

527: A tax code loophole discovered as a means to bypass the soft money ban of McCain – Feingold. A 527 is a tax protected political activity. Such groups must register with the IRS but are not subject to full disclosure laws or donation limits. In essence, these are political groups dependent upon independent expenditures which lie outside of current campaign finance law.

McConnel v. FEC (2003): The U.S. Supreme Court essentially upheld as constitutional the provisions found in BCRA.

The upcoming 2008 presidential election will certainly tax our understanding of the new BCRA regulations as money collected has already achieved incredible status. Evidence suggests, despite the absence of large soft money donations, that both individual candidates and the major political parties are collecting money in record amounts.

The polarized political environment helps to explain this continuing surge. Small donors, those giving less than $200, comprise close to 50% of the total. When this election cycle is over hundreds of millions of dollars will have been collected by millions of voters. More political cents just might mean more political sense.

Then again, we might be tossing our coins into a wishing well and you know what typically results from that? Nothing.

And what of that party with Oprah? Well, it is reported that Leonard Nimoy has given Obama $2,300, the maximum donation under current law. Obama is in this campaign for the duration . . . as long as he hits the right Spock.

Even before the planed party at Oprah's his campaign was doing quite well in the fund-raising race. His campaign brougt in $25 million in the first three months of 2007.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/02/politics/main2636900.shtml

The question is, would you give money to a Presidential, or any political campaign?

The Saints are Coming?

This from Tim's blog. He is a New Orleans-based engineer who responded to my "Calm after the Storm," post. Check out his link for hands-on personal reporting on the Katrina Zone.

__________________


"From a FEMA Travel Trailer in New Orleans and in solidarity with my fellow bloggers!"

________________


Despite the great song, cool video by my guys and Green Day.....maybe the Saints Never Came. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seGhTWE98DU

Are they talking about us?

Conservative political columnist George Will, like me, is a life-long Cub fan. That's usually where our agreements end. We were both frustrated by a crushing Chicago loss Thursday. To get over my frustration, I read political news on the net to get over my frustration. I found that Will and I share another annoyance.

In a Washington Post column in 2006, Will wrote: " An aggressively annoying new phrase in America's political lexicon is "values voters." It is used proudly by social conservatives, and carelessly by the media to denote such conservatives."

The rest of Will's column, written before the Foley-Vitter-Craig scandals, is linked here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051701874.html

He takes issue with social conservatives, the media, candidates and interest groups for using the label -- values voters -- either proudly or carelessly.

In all the pride that comes wih hosting a major political event in the 2008 Presidential campaign, The Values Voter Presidential Debate and Straw Poll will be held on Sept. 17 in Florida (interesting...). The V2 claims to be "the largest voting block in America." http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/

To paraphrase Will, "Duh!" Aren't all of us who vote, Values Voters? We all value something, somethings more than others, as you should have got out of class on Thursday. Freedom and happiness are values to all. But they can be very different values. For example, it might make me very happy if we banned the freedoms of people to own assualt weapons. Many conservative followers of Will, would probably disagree with me.

Still the labeled "Values Voters" will be watched closely -- especially in light of Republican scandals. Will they stay home next November, or even go Blue as suggested in this article covering Democrats' religious push. http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A32589 .

Democratic candidates apparently didn't pandor, deciding not to accept invitations to come to the "Value Voters" planned party. But Greg Hambrick reports that Barack Obama has a national faith outreach coordinator. Hilary Clinton has also talked about faith on the campaig trail. She has a steering committee that distributes a weekly wrap-up called, "Faith, Family and Values."

So could the "Value Voters" be converted to the Democratic side of the aisle? Or would that be too weird?

Like an anti-gay legislation Senator playing footsie in the men's room.

A Paine-ful, but important lesson to learn

Thomas Paine http://www.thomaspaine.org/Thomas%20Paine.htm wrote that in our beginning we had the chance to "start the world over."

The beginning of America's theoretical framework was not determined by a public opinion poll. Rather, our ramparts are rooted in a philosophical discourse which history has conducted over many thousands of years.
Our foremost enemy is an oppressive abuse of power. Our most frequented foe is tyranny.

The great thinkers agreed that in order to preserve liberty, the duties of government had to be divided. The power of the purse (legislative branch) and the power of the sword (executive branch) could not be in the same hands.

In this separation of powers, we find our most cherished principle. Unless we buy in, the architects of our civilization were builders of temporary housing.

A primary catalyst for creating a government based upon the separation of powers was best stated by James Madison in Federalist 47:"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

What are the ADVANTAGES of a government organized around the concept of the separation of powers?

What are the DISADVANTAGES of a government organized around the concept of the separation of powers?

Posted at CBS2chicago.com/school....the new home for the "2 Regular Guys" the new multi-media home for CitizenU.org. One of the 2 Regular guys, Andy Conneen is a good friend, great AP teacher at Stevenson H.S. and a former colleague of mine here at WVHS. Linked here is the video of the "2 Regular Guys" explaining Separation of Powers.

http://cbs2chicago.com/video/?id=35136@wbbm.dayport.com

Oprah-Obama a Winning Ticket?

This is a big week for the Barack Obama campaign. Political Warriors at Waubonsie Valley are planning on starting a Students for Obama Club. And in Hollywood, Oprah will hold a fund-raising blowout for the Illinois senator.

Just Oprah, Obama and 1,500 of their closest friends (Will Smith, Jamie Foxx and Halle Berry) are on the guest list of the sold out event at $2300 a piece (the legal maximum amount for primary campaign giving). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20546344/site/newsweek/.

The question is: Will it matter. Oprah has what they call social capital....can it translate into political capital? The Obama campaign is already giving Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton all she can handle in the fund-raising race. But Hillary holds her consistent comfortable lead in national polls. While Hillary will also have more Hollywood fund-raisers, too, to collect more campaign cash, do the everyday people care who celebrity's support? Does it turn them off? Or is Oprah different?

The linked Newsweek article leads with the line "Oprah Winfrey has said she's not interested in running for president -- but can she help elect one?"

Maybe. But is it more important how energized a WVHS Students for Obama Club gets?