Decision 2006

[Harold R]

Additionally, even though he was of age, he chose to spend the Revolutionary war at Yale, instead of with the Militia.....

Note: In 1777 Webster's education was also briefly interrupted when he entered the Hartford militia as a private. His father, Noah Sr., was a captain. (Noah Jr. did this despite the fact he was exempt from service as a student.

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

Tom:

I am kind of befuddled by these comments. I really am....



Please clarify..

1. What do you mean by that? Is it the way that the words such as Labour, Honour, Valour, Colour and other examples have been changed to remove the letter "u". Was Noah responsible for that, or was it the later editors of the compendiums that created this new revised spelling

2. I am not sure I understand the rationale here either. Are you refering to the quote above? If so, then I am really confused because I find no difficulty whatsoever in understanding what he wrote. So I would be leary of the words "none of us now completely understand"

However, to me, it would make sense that there might be some difficulty in understanding the exact meaning of his writings, if the majority of his writings today are quoted in Olde English, but then again, seeing as it was written almost 300 years ago, by a man schooled in Olde English.. is would make sense that it would be written in a form and manner that was understood by men and women of His Day.. , and not in a form common to what has become normal usage today.

Noah Webster's greatest contribution to American Education was his "little blue back spellers"....which were used in almost every schoolhouse in the US.

He felt that it was not appropriate that Americans should speak the same sort of English that England did. He intentionally changed the spellings of thousands of words for that purpose alone. Your examples of colour, honour, etc, are merely the tip of the iceberg......

Our Declaration of Independence, as well as our constitution was written in "The King's English" of the day...I know that some spellings have evolved on their own, from their Olde English roots, to something more modern, however, sabotaging the language in one fell swoop was inexcusable.

One of the reasons this vexes me so, is that I was taught to read and write (and hence spell) by my Grandmother, who was educated at the turn of the 20th century, in a one-room schoolhouse, that taught lessons in both German and English. Their English reader was none other than the King James Bible, the non-websterized edition (yes, he even went through the entire Bible, and changed the spellings of thousands of words......), hence, Gram taught me to spell things in a non-websterian fashion......So, in school, I was constantly corrected for spelling words "incorrectly"..... words like centre, theatre, and so forth, in addition to the common examples you listed previously....

Incorrect, according to one man, who took it upon himself to corrupt the language..... and the reason we find so many words with "alternate" spellings to this very day.

If you look at out Declaration of Independence, as in a copy of the original, in its original long-hand, one will see that it uses words which are difficult to understand at a glance, because our spellings have been so perverted from their originals, that one must think about what word Jefferson was trying to use in the first place......

It is important to remember that even though Noah Webster began his work in the 1780's, it did not have much of an effect for a generation or so.

[Jack fowler]

One of my worst subjects, political elections and taxes. How come a person runs for an office that pays $165,000 a year and gets $30,000,000 from special interest groups for their efforts? When that person gets elected “in the long run” who pays for those contributions the special interest groups donate to the elected official. Lets see now….maybe the taxpayer.

I was reading a story about President Johnson campaigning for governor in his home state. He was using a helicopter for transportation and after doing a speech he had the helicopter hover over the people as he was waving out the door way. The turbulence from the prop blew his cowboy hat off and he told the pilot to land the aircraft to get his hat. The pilot said; “just for a hat” Johnson said; “I paid for that hat, not the taxpayer or my supporters, land the helicopter now”.

Has anything change?

[Little Indy]

Guys!

Some states will give a canidate matching funds if he/she can get a certain number of $5 contributions. Support such laws in your states.

When such a politician runs give them a second look. Then the lobbiests will have less influence.


But also remember a honest politician is a politician who when bought stays bought.

Richard

[jim turner]

Does anyone know what it cost to fly Air Force 1 and bring the Limo and the President and all his aides to say Mo. well they flew it into Springfield and then to Joplin Mo to stump for Jim Talent (and he lost), and who pays for that trip? Taxpayers?

[George Willer]

Does anyone know what it cost to fly Air Force 1 and bring the Limo and the President and all his aides to say Mo. well they flew it into Springfield and then to Joplin Mo to stump for Jim Talent (and he lost), and who pays for that trip? Taxpayers?

Of course the taxpayers pay for it... just as they did when Slick did the same thing. I'll bet they also pay for the next prexy's trips as well. I just hope they aren't saddled with Slick's travel expenses as well. We've already wasted too much on him.

[Merlin]

Does anyone know what it cost to fly Air Force 1 and bring the Limo and the President and all his aides to say Mo. well they flew it into Springfield and then to Joplin Mo to stump for Jim Talent (and he lost), and who pays for that trip? Taxpayers?

It would be hard to calculate the total cost, but last week the cost of fuel per hour was $6,000.00 plus per hour. Then there are countless salaries to add in.

[Jack fowler]

Richard wrote:

Some states will give a canidate matching funds if he/she can get a certain number of $5 contributions. Support such laws in your states.

I’m not sure if what you wrote about “matching funds” was to be humorous or not? If not, those matching funds are my tax dollars and I don’t agree. I just don’t personally believe giving money to anyone unless they earn it.

Richard wrote:

When such a politician runs give them a second look. Then the lobbiests will have less influence.

If I give a politician a second look, they better be running fast. Than the lobbyists will have nothing to influence.
- Jack Fowler -

Richard wrote:

But also remember a honest politician is a politician who when bought stays bought.
- Simon Cameron-

But also remember; If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.
- Jay Leno-

[Jack fowler]

George wrote:

just as they did when Slick did the same thing. I'll bet they also pay for the next prexy's trips as well. I just hope they aren't saddled with Slick's travel expenses as well. We've already wasted too much on him.

George have you heard Mrs. Slick is on the list maybe, for the nomination for 08. Just think charisma back in the White House again, dead political advisors mysteries, airplanes crashing in the side of mountains for unknown reasons, famous Hollywood personalities sleeping in the Lincoln bed room and aids who like cigars.

Oh Geoge, did I mention you’re going to be paying for all of this.

[jim turner]

yes I know "Slick" logged the most miles of any prexy has ever known, but I don't think it is right very few Company's will allow the vehicle to be used for personal trips, so my next question how can we stop it? Voting don't seem to change anything and gripeing only makes me feel better. I have wrote several letters complaining about different things and they either don't answer or they simply say we don't share your views.

[Rudi]

Jim:

That is where the concept of Recall comes into play. If more politicians were recalled and made acountable to their constituents, then they would be more willing to actually do their jobs. Also, I would like to see a politician actually sponsor a bill to REDUCE their annual stipends.. to a more equitable amount such as the average Working Man/Woman's salary. That would be a real surprise...

[Little Indy]

Richard wrote:

Some states will give a canidate matching funds if he/she can get a certain number of $5 contributions. Support such laws in your states.

I’m not sure if what you wrote about “matching funds” was to be humorous or not? If not, those matching funds are my tax dollars and I don’t agree. I just don’t personally believe giving money to anyone unless they earn it.

Several years ago it was possible to run and win and spend very little money. My dad ran for public office in early 70's and spent less than a thousand (he loss by 14 votes on the recount). Others including some famous senators spent only for the filing fee. But these days voters (yes we are partly to blame for this mess) look only at the slick ads and photo ops and sound bites. Slickness has replaced thought. Each party plays only to its bases and to hell with the republic. We also demonize our opponents. Hamilton and Jefferson were not politically friendly but when it hit the fan and Aaron Burr had a chance of becoming president Hamilton used his influence to see to it that Jefferson won and became president. Would that happen today? I ask you. We have got to do something about the lobbiests. Maybe all money given to a political campaign should be done anonymously. Our rights are not absolute. Try yelling Fire in a crowded theater and then pleading the constitutional right to free speech.

Another thought I have had. If you run for public office and spend a dollar you should be required to spend another to reduce the national debt or to fund the medicare trust fund or reduce health insurance primiums (you get the idea). At the present rate of spending on public office the Repuplic will be debt free in no time.

Richard

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

Richard....

Lobbyist(s)......


Lobbyists emerged during the 20th century as a means to "remind" members of both houses of congress precisely what their constituency was concerned about.....

In the days preceding the Civil War, we must remember that most people actually had met their representatives, and, in the case of the house of representatives, most of them "knew" them, personally.

There were, by virtue of lower population, fewer "degrees of separation" between any citizen, and his representative in congress.

These days, the only time you get to meet your senator, is if you go to a place where he's campaigning, while he's running for re-election. It certainly isn't the place to have an intellectual intercourse on issues that are of concern to you....

The lobbyists, however, have evolved into such well-organized entities, that they now can contribute large sums of money to a candidate's fund. They also can monopolize a congressman's time, to the extent that sometimes, a congressman of good heart can actually be misled into thinking that his constituency is actually somehow aligned with this particular lobbying group. Since a large number of people over the age of
60 now vote....AARP, which claims to be the largest, most powerful lobbying group in the US, seems to be guilty of this most frequently.....

The biggest problem with most lobbying groups, like AARP, is that they want certain goals to become realities....like the fixing of Social Security and Medicare....which are both things that concern me greatly as well.....the only problem is, they don't really care how these things get fixed, or offer any real solutions to the problems.

Oil Lobbying has its own issues, of course, and frequently finds itself at odds with environment Lobbying groups....for obvious reasons.....they really wouldn't have to staff their offices in D.C. so heavily....everyone knows what their positions are.....They could simply send out polite, little "reminder" cards from time to time and have the same effect.

Some Lobbying groups actually act in an emmisarial role, like those representing Native Americans, and the Tobacco Industry....they are able to approve or disapprove of legislation before it ever hits the floors of the capital.....This, actually, is expediency at its finest, saving everyone a lot of trouble with later lawsuits and supreme court litigation. Sometimes these groups help to write the legislation in the first place, making sure that any potentially damaging (to them) loopholes are sewn shut.

What I am sometimes concerned with, however, is that our lawmakers seem compelled to make new laws.....I suppose they feel that is what we are paying them for, so they'd better do it. I think, by and large, that we have more than our share......That, generally speaking, our personal freedoms have been infringed upon quite enough, thank you..... Nothing else needs be made illegal. In truth...nothing makes me happier than when the supreme court strikes down a law.....(one thing less to worry about)....

If they turned all of that energy into dealing with the budget, fixing medicare and social security, and maybe approaching an intelligent, equitable solution to health care, instead of just throwing out the occaisional bone, and trying to save our planet from the emminent disasters which are heading our way in the next century -- instead of trying to consider things that are "inconsiderable" like gun control, and stupid things like precisely where the lines of power need to be drawn, between the president and congress, and so forth........oh, yes...and "congressional ethics hearings"....an oxymoron if ever I heard one........

Oh, and the never-ending debate over the separation of church and state......... well, that particular ammendment was written vaguely intentionally..... It's kind of one of those "whatever makes the people happy" things..... if no one is suffering, then leave it be. If someone is suffering, well, then, it needs to be dealt with. Striking down religion wherever one sees it is not, strictly speaking, what the ammendment was ever meant to permit.

So, all in all, I don't think that the Lobbying system is really at the root of the problem, Richard.....I think it is still the 2-party system.........it pidgeon-holes people, even complete monsters, into one of two groups, traditionally divided into Conservatives and Liberals, even though that may not be the case....... The worst part of it all, is that the evidence suggests that the bulk of the nation is actually of "moderate" mind..... A nation of moderates, being forced to choose between two extremes is likely, precisely why people do not vote..........

[PKS]

The two party system needs to be abolished or implode altogether. The latter is more likely though not probable. The democtratic victory in Congress at least will "check" the administration in Washington which (as long as the divide between red states and blue states continues on its current path) is not a bad thing. This will at least limit progressive legislation from one "platform" or the other and generate some compromise between the two ideologies. Unfortunately, recent history has shown that when there is a power shift from one party to the other, the majority spends more wasted time and money projecting their self righteous inquiries on past performances of the now minority party. The current "system" creates and recreates this cycle with little change. The 21st century has exacerbated this problem mainly through the media and its many "channels". In addition, most people have little time or ambition to read and dig through the convolution that is our government. Instead, people that do vote grab onto an issue and ride the sensationalism straight to the voting booth. The rest as Tom indicated don't bother. The problems are many and in my opinion the only absolute solution is to eliminate money, power and influence at all levels of politics. I am still working on how to get that done. What I do know is that the idea of a "career" politician will be put on ICE.

Paul

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

Well said, Paul...

It is inevitable that the pendulum of popular sentiment swings between conservative ideals to liberal ones, and then back again, in a predictable cycle, dependent upon who has been in power for the longest time.....

Whoever comes into power anew, always begins the same way, with promises of "ethics"....and ends the same way, with flurries of "scandal", which, in reality usually don't mean all that much......I am very concerned with scandals when people suffer as a result of them.....however, when these scandals are merely victimless "expediencies" where proper procedure is not followed, and "deals" are made without the proper people approving them, merely to provide the means to an end, I do not feel they deserve the attention of the nation.....or at least, certainly not mine.

The sexual exploits of any politician, providing minors are not involved, are nothing I'm concerned about in the least, either......consenting adults always do as they please anyway.......

But, again, in keeping with the ideals of "the free press"..... cramming the sordid details of life down the throats of the public is the sacred duty of every reporter, regardless of who or what gets destroyed in the process....somehow this gets justified as the public's "right to know"......

And we feel that our politicians lack ethics??? Our press, our doctors, our lawyers, and even our schools provide pretty poor examples for them.

It is not merely our government, but our entire society which is badly broken......and we've got economic and environmental disasters breathing down our necks all at the same time. One might consider that this is perhaps the most dire and significant crossroads we've ever come upon as a nation. The question is, I suppose, do we fix ourselves, and lead the world into the 22nd century, or do we merely go the way of that other great republic, Rome, and simply enjoy our decline until we are no more...........