On Colbert Roasting Cardinal Dolan

Al Smith (D-NY)  was a New York politian from the early 20th Century who was the four time Governor of the Empire State as well as the first Roman Catholic nominee for President of the United States in 1928 .  The Al Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner is an annual charity white tie fundraiser which dates back to 1945 and has raised millions of dollars for healthcare causes in New York, including $3 million in 2013.

2012 Al Smith Dinner

The Al Smith Dinner is always held on the third Thursday in October.  As Stephen Colbert quipped about its calendary cycle, it is like Catholic thanksgiving.  In 1960, Theodore White remarked that the Al Smith dinner was "a ritual of American politics. as candidates from both parties would share the dais and show a humorous or even self-effacing side.   For example, last year both President Obama and  former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) both attended the fete hosted by New York Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan.

The keynote speaker for the 2013 Al Smith Dinner was the Comedy Central host Stephen Colbert.  While Colbert took some shots at New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and failed Democrat mayoral candidate and NYC Council President Christine Quinn  and even Pope Francis, much of Colberts quips seemed reserved for Cardinal Dolan.  So much so, it seemed like a Cardinal Roast.

Cardinal Dolan and Stephen Colbert may have an chummy chemistry that was shown at a faith forum  last year at Fordham University entitled "The Cardinal and Colbert: On Humor, Joy and the Spiritual Life". But one should not discount how both the comedian and the Cardinal share  a passion for the Catholic faith as well as a  jovial jocularity. 

Some may frown upon Cardinal Dolan's ebullient embrace of "Laughter and the Lord".  Others voice disapproval of the New York Archbishop sharing the stage with politicians at their conventions and then "yucking it up" at the Al Smith Dinner.  

I have to agree with designated chaplain of the Colbert Report, Fr. James Martin, S.J. and his chiding of the "frozen chosen" approach to theology as being both antithetical to theology and evicerating evangelization opportunities.  It is commendable that Cardinal Dolan was able to speak truth to power by offering pointed benedictions at the Republican and Democrat conventions yet inviting faithfulness and fellowship at the Al Smith Dinner. 

Cardinal Dolan echoes this convivial approach to faith.  Dolan has observed: "Being Catholic is not a heavy burden, snuffing the joy out of life; rather our faith in Jesus and His Church gives meaning, purpose and joy to life. I love being a Catholic...".

Besides, the Holy Spirit expresses itself in different ways, especially through pastors.   Pope Francis has impressed many both inside and outside the Catholic community with his earnest aestheticism.  But Dolan touches people with his joyful sensibility combined with his fervent faith.

For Colbert's part, his humor was gentle and charitable.  I will forever think of the title  "Your Eminence" with a subtle smile yet appreciating the implication of the honorific.  While Timothy Cardinal Dolan remains in New York after the Sweet Sistine 2013 Conclave Championship, at least Dolan's beloved baseball St. Louis Cardinals have reached with World Series this year without the existential threat of competing  against the New York Yankees.

Why Don’t People Answer the Call to Cellular Phone Savings?

One of the costly monthly expenses for most households in America is their cellular phone bill.  The CTIA Wireless Association estimates that average cell phone bill was $47 in 2012 but many individuals pay double that amount.  The CTIA figures do not factor in the costs of handsets or choices for “reasonable” plans

Smart phone consumers comprise 46% of the market (including 66% of youths aged 21-30).    The CTIA figures do not factor in the costs of handsets or choices for “reasonable” plans.  So there may be a low cost plan, but if one is required to carry a data package, monthly costs precipitously increase.

Another reality is that the most of the major American cellular carriers push subsidized phones with strict two year agreements.  Few cellular consumers consider the overall costs incurred with such a subsidized cell phone contract.  Such customers are  are more concerned about getting what they perceive is the latest and greatest handset for a couple of hundred dollars down (usually 1/3rd of the actual cost) while paying a significantly higher amount in the monthly cellular bill then they might pay otherwise.  

Tero Kuittinen, an independent market analyst from Alekstra, notes: "That psychology has worked for hundreds of years, and it’s still working.”   Another factor to consider is the attachment that many people feel toward their cellular purchases.  AT and T retained gripping customers for years because it retained a monopoly on i-Phones, which had a less generous plan and cost more than other smartphones, but those in the Apple cult craved it.  It seems akin to the mentality which drives new car purchases that customers will overspend to get that “new car smell” for a durable that loses 20% immediately after purchase. 

T-Mobile took the lead among cell providers in weaning prospective customers from the subsidized cell phone model with their Simple Choice plan.  But an  alternate model which T-Mobile innovated but had more success in competitors emulating is the “Next, Edge, Jump” and “OneUp”.  These programs which are essentially cell phone installment payment plans.  Consumers lease a phone by paying a bit extra ($10-20 a month plus up to $10 for the privilege) for 20 to 24 months  but with the ability  to upgrade in six months to a year.  But if consumers do not “jump”, then they will pay significantly more as there is no subsidy underwriting the purchase. This sort of gimmick may have some appeal to digerati would constantly want to upgrade without being locked in a contract, even though they are effectively locked in a contract.

Alas, cell phone services are not fungible.  Aside from the handset cost, choice of carriers are impacted by coverage.  An inexpensive plan is worthless if one does not get range in one’s preferred calling area.  Verizon Wireless has the best coverage but people pay a premium for the extensive coverage.  But most customers may not need such extensive range.

Cost conscious consumers should know that they can cut their cellular costs in half (or more), by using Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs), pre-paid cell plans and fremium cell providers like FreedomPop. But the reality is that according to Ovum, only 23% of cellular customer have opted for such frugal mobile phone service. 

 As MNVOs and the ilk do not have the deep pockets for advertising, they have a dubious reputation.  In fact, when breaking up with Sprint to switch to one of its MVNOs Virgin Mobile to save half on cell costs, the customer service representative thought that it was a compelling argument to sneer “Well, that’s a pre-paid phone”.   As a customer who had been off his contract for over a year and did not need another handset, that was a less than convincing ploy. 

Usually, second tier cellular carriers offer less current handsets.  Even though these cell phones may only have been on the market for six months, finicky consumers turn their noses at these out of data handsets.  Sometimes, upgrades are prudent, such as switching from a 3G phone to one that also gets faster 4G or LTE coverage.  But when a new release is buggy, or simply has minor cosmetic changes, a savvy consumer should question whether the latest is really the greatest. Of course, with Apple i-phones, a consumer can not replace the rechargable battery himself, so it may only be good for around 18 months before starts to need replacement.

Personally, I have always considered the cellular phone plan to be more important than the particular handset.  In addition, I tend to baby my cell phone, so it has less wear and tear on the unit. But my experience switching cellular carriers from a Sprint HTC Evo with a 4.3" capacitive screen to a Virgini Mobile Samsung Victory (Galaxy II) with a 4.0" but with 4G LTE has demonstrated that the slight difference in display size impacts inputting on a virtual QWERTY.  

What may drive my decision to switch cellular companies again is whether FreedomPop allows for Bring Your Own Devices with their Freemium model roll out.  I would not buy one of FreedomPop’s outdated and refurbished HTC Evo Designs for $99 (or later $149), but I would happily switch to FreedomPop to get 200 voice minutes, 500 texts and 500 MB of data for free.  FreedomPop is relying on consumers to add on to their free base.  I might get unlimited calls and texts with a half Gig of data for $10.99.  But since FreedomPop will allow for tethering (hotspots) and they charge $10 per Gig of data, my old HTC Evo might be a supplemental hotspot for months that I need it. 

In another phase of its Un-carrier campaign, T-Mobile tried to  wreck the international roaming racket. T-Mobile stopped charging more for international text for Simple Choice customers when sending to 100+ countries.  Calls to Simple Global countries aside from the US are at $0.20 a minute.  Most importantly, there is no outrageous international data roaming charges at standard speeds.   However  there are some caveats to this International Roaming largesse.

Alas, T-Mobile considers 2G (or 128 kbs) to be an ideal speed for e-mail, social media, web pages and navigation but it such speeds would be painfully slow for graphic intensive applications.  So T-Mobile also offers three speed boost plans for international travelers.  One day of higher data speed (100 MB) for $15, one week (200 MB) for $25 and two weeks (500 MB) for $50.  This would be good for international travelers keeping in touch at home but operating on a guarded basis .  Since T-Mobile allows BYOD for GSM phones, it might pay for a traveler not taking a quick jaunt overseas to pick up an old unlocked GSM phone and sticking with T-Mobile.  Or they could just use that unlocked GSM phone with local SIM cards.  

As America enters harder economic times, more consumers may try to beat the high cost of living by answering the call to cheaper cellular services.

h/t: The Joy of Tech

Book Review: 10 Answers for Atheists by Alex McFarland

Alex McFarland, an Evangelical Protestant professor of Christian Apologetics at North Greenville University (South Carolina), has authored 10 Answers for Atheists (Regal, 2012) as an outreach tool to spread the Good News to atheists and agnostics. McFarland is said to have pioneered apologetic conference formats for Christians to defend their faith.  McFarland seems to draw upon this experience in composing a book on apologetics that is easy to read and draws upon contemporary influences to reach an unbelieving audience.

Alex McFarland

The tone of McFarland’s prose was conversational with some sprinklings of erudition which reflects the author’s academic auspices.  For example, when McFarland described the scientific atheist, he alluded to “directed panspermia” as an out of this world explanation of our origins.  Moreover,  Jim Morrison of The Doors was alleged to be an “Antinomian Atheist”.  

These pop references do not always work.  To illustrate a “Biblical Scholar Atheist”, McFarland posits Penn Jillette as he rejects scripture as “B.S.”.  This Bible Scholar Atheist label on Jillette seems like a bad trick for one who does not ascribe to Judeo-Christian scripture.  It would be a more apt description of   Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou, the Hebrew Atheist scholar host of the BBC’s Buried Bible Secrets series.  

McFarland categorized atheists into ten subgroups.  There seemed to be overlap between some of the groups, like the Angry Atheist and the Injured Atheist.  The University of Tennessee study which was Assessing Atheist Archtypes with six categories seemed more on the mark.  However, McFarland may have included other categories to finesse the apologetic approach. 

McFarland offered a clear yet concise historical survey of disbelief which provides an underlying basis for agnosticism and atheism from Antiquity and the Enlightenment to present day.  While the author acknowledged a few popular contemporary atheists, but two  page and a half refutations of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris seemed woefully insufficient to all but those already convicted.

The author includes a chapter “Alternatives to a Biblical God” which seemingly served as a comparative theology section.  McFarland dared to take on Islam, a monotheistic faith which does not embrace the Trinity, denies the the Divinity of Jesus and rejects substitutionary atonement.   McFarland explained away Judaism as ceasing to be a sufficient theology after the earthly appearance of Jesus.  McFarland opines that a natural progression of Judaism would be Christianity instead of recognizing the Lord’s faithfulness to His chosen people. 

In the Christian realm, Unitarianism is undercut as being an incomplete creed. Jehovah’s Witnesses are chastised for rejecting the Trinity, denying the divinity of Jesus, contrary conceits of hell (annihiliationism), having no holidays and being a works based denomination. Mormonism is minimized as being “Many Gods and Me too”.  The LDS are damned with faint praise as having a surface appeal of being wholesome and displaying devout behavior but having a creed which finds the New Testament corrupt, adds to scripture and is a works based faith.

It was surprising that “Roman” Catholics and the Orthodox were not condemned along with modern Mystical spiritualism, as those original Christian creeds used their mysticism to draw closer to union with God. The crux of the Protestant Reformation was religiosity based on biblical roots (often understood as sola scriptura) as well as the primacy of a salvation by grace.  But McFarland does not divide with Catholics or Orthodox Christians on this score in the spiritual warfare against atheism. 

McFarland gets to the crux of 10 Answers for Atheists 121 pages into a book with 165 pages of text.  The recap of the ten types of atheists in five pages seemed to repeat cautions given earlier in evangelizing to them.  Answering to agnostics is done through two sample dialogues.   

McFarland poses the ten questions by atheists:
• Are faith and reason really compatable?
• Isn’t belief in God delusional?
• The dysteleological surd – If God is so good, why is there evil in the world?
• Why join a flawed faith like Christianity which has harmed the world?
• Isn’t Christianity just mythological?
• Why believe in Zombies (a messiah resurrected from the dead)?
• Can’t science explain everything?
• Why believe hypocritical Christians?
• Couldn’t Jesus just be a space alien?

His answers plant the seeds for useful apologetics as well as the thirty common objections included in the index.

As a Catholic, I am mindful that the practice of my faith differs with a more evangelical expression of faith by  bible based Protestants.  However, the 10 Answers for Atheists has some material which would provide some thoughtful responses when dialoguing with questioning agnostics and atheists.   Some of the book seemed extraneous to inter-(non) faith dialogue, such as the comparative religion section.  McFarland seemed compelled to justify bible based Christianity before delving into agnostic apologetics. 

Aside from the Angry Atheist and the Resident Contrarian Atheist, McFarland’s 10 Answers for Atheists could serve as a useful field manual for believers beginning dialogue with non-believers.  It does not seem geared at convincing atheists through a casual perusal.  The casual Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris dismissals would be insufficient for true non-believers.  Moreover, an agnostic or atheist reader would need to drudge through comparative religion and justifying bible based Christianity sections before getting to the crux of the answers for atheists.

Book Review: Catholicism for Protestants by Shane Schaetzel

Shane Schaetzel 

Shane Schaetzel is a Catholic convert from Evangelical Protestantism through Anglicanism.  Schaetzel writes the thoughtful CatholicintheOzarks.com blog as part of his lay ministry to spread the Good News through the written word.  Catholicism for Protestants (2013. Lulu)  draws upon his faith history, his love of language and history along with his religious education to answer some challenging spiritual queries that he has heard living in the buckle of the Bible Belt.  Schaetzel also sees Catholicism for Protestants to be a good primer for all Catholics on the fundamentals of the faith.


Schaetzel starts the book with his compelling personal faith history which underlies the material. But in an effort to show that there are many different kinds of Catholics, like there are many different kinds of Protestants, Schaetzel wrote: “There are: Roman Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Franciscans, Benedictines, Carmelites, and even Anglican Use Catholics”.  This conflates Churches (Roman, Maronite and “Byzantine” branch), with religious orders (Franciscan, Benedictines).

Later, Schaeztel teaches that there are 23 rites in the Catholic Church.  It may be minor distinction but that is incorrect.  There are 23 Churches  which comprise Catholicism.  A Church may have several different rites.  For example, the Roman Church currently has the Roman rite, the Ambrosian (around Milan, Italy) and the Mozarabic (at several parishes in Toledo Spain).   Some might argue that Anglican Use is a rite, but for now it is part of a Personal Ordinariate established by Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI to reach out to High Church Anglican and reincorporate the richness of traditional English Patrimony in the Roman Church.

For those unfamiliar with these concepts, proclaiming yourself as a Roman Catholic layman of the Anglican Use could be kind of confusing as opposed to boldly proclaiming the author’s  point of view.

Most of Catholicism for Protestants is structured in a question and answer format which is eminently readable.  This cradle Catholic was able to finish the short 100 page book in one sitting.  Schaetzel does try to answer many common questions Evangelical Protestants have about the Catholic faith.  This sort of apologetic can be challenging as Evangelicals come from a non-sacramental, non-liturgical and non-ritualistic practice of faith so Catholicism’s practices and even its vocabulary can be confusing.  While Schaetzel’s scholarship is evident in the presentation and the supplemental footnotes (pointing to scripture, Church Fathers, the Catechism and some fine contemporary Catholic scripture scholars), his prose does not get bogged down by too much high church jargon.

Alas at times Schaetzel’s playful but plain spoken prose muddies matters.  For example, when asked if priests can marry, he writes “Shh. Don’t tell anyone, but they actually be married”.  The comeuppance is that they leave their priestly position.   Later, Schaetzel notes that sacerdotal celibacy is the practice of just Roman Catholic, the largest of the  23 Churches (which he called rites)  that comprise the  Catholic Church.  It might have made more sense to first explain the logic behind Roman Catholic priestly celibacy with its scriptural citations and alluding to Holy Tradition rather than leading with laicized clergy.

But by the same token, such punchy prose can also break down barriers, as Schaetzel was able to do by comparing papal infallability to simple math equations that are also “totally correct and being without error”.

When Schaetzel tried to tackle the Sola Scriptura question, which tends to be a big beef of “Bible Believing” Protestants, he did a good job with contexualizing the contention and explaining the history.  Unfortunately, Schaetzel did not follow up strongly on what are the bases of Catholic Faith. The three legged stool of 1) The Holy Bible (scripture) 2) Holy Tradition 3) the Magisterium (the authoritative teachings of the Church) was not clear in the author’s explanation.  Both the Bible and Tradition were highlighted while teaching authority was mentioned but not emphasized. The authority protected by the Holy Spirit from error is what makes Catholicism distinctive from its Protestant Christian brethren

Schaetzel gives great historical analyses which debunks some of the more poignant charges against the Catholic church, such as the celebration of Christmas on December 25th coming from pagan origins.  But to me, Schaetzel short shrifts the Catholic practice of inculturation.  For instance, the Germanic Yule Log and the German Tannenbaum as taking popular pagan practices and giving the underlying symbols Christian significance in celebrating the Feast of the Nativity (a.k.a. Christmas).

Another flash point for many Protestants is on the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Schaetzel does an excellent job at explaining her important role.  As a logophile, Schaetzel showed that Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic (nor did Hebrew) have a word for “cousins” so the charge which challenges the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God may be nuance lost in translation.  To further dispel the notion of Jesus’ brothers and sisters, Schaetzel deftly points to the foot of the Cross when Jesus appointed John as caretaker for His mother which would defy Jewish precepts if Mary had other children.

Most people associate Mary with the “Hail Mary” which is a major component in praying “The Rosary”.  Schaetzel made a good linguistic argument to counter charges that it is “babbling prayer”  The author rightly refers to the Rosary as a popular private devotion stemming from medieval modeling of the Divine Office using common devotional prayers instead of all 150 Psalms.  The author did not explain to the Protestant readers that there are four sets of mysteries (Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious and Luminous) which each have ten mysteries which reflect points of Jesus’s earthly ministry that the faithful should contemplate as they say their prayers.  Perhaps that point might not have been as compelling to Protestants inculcated  in eschewing “vain repetitions”.

Shane Schaetzel has done a good job at authoring an engaging and enlightening apologetic aimed at answering Protestant’s common questions about the Catholic faith.  Moreover, the author is practicing his understanding of the faith by his publishing and dissemination method by employing distributism, which favor small mom and pop religious bookstores.  

Being in an inter-faith marriage, I often am prompted to explain parts of my faith to my curious in-laws.  They seem to admire my pursuit of being a good Catholic but sometimes wonder why I am spiritually compelled to do what I do.  Shane Schaetzel’s Catholicism for Protestants will not only offer a clear Catechism but will also give the chapter and verse citations which sola scriptura Christians tend to seek.

FreedomPop's First Foray in Cheap Cellular Service

FreedomPop is an internet service provider started by Skype co- founder Niklas Zennstrom with a motto "The Internet is a right and not a privilege".  FreedomPop seeks to expand its reach in providing "Free access for all" with its first foray in cheap cellular phone service.

FreedomPop is operating as a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) based off of Sprint's network, primarily using the CDMA and WiMax capabilities and eventually using LTE.  FreedomPop is structuring its consumer cellular offering on a freemium model.   A basic consumer receives 200 voice minutes, 500 texts and 500 MB of 4G data along with free calls to other FreedomPop customers for the amazing low price of free!  And there is no contract to boot.

FreedomPop's CEO Stephen Stokols proudly proclaimed that a customer paying $1,500 for cellular service could cut their bill by 2/3rds with FreedomPop.  Stokols said: "That is real value, real savings and a real meteor to the current market dynamics."

How can FreedomPop give consumers gratis basic cellular service?  The Freemium model is designed to entice subscribers to pay a little for more.   Based on its experience offering Freemium service for hotspots, FreedomPop expects 45% of its customers to pay a little more for their low cost monthly plans.   A customer paying $7.99 a month gets 500 anytime voice minutes, unlimited texting and the 500 MB of data.  A customer "splurging" by paying $10.99 a month gets unlimited voice, unlimited texting and 500 MB of data.

Another aspect of the Freemium model is engaging customers in social media.  The FreedomPop hotspots gave consumers opportunities to get more service by speading the word to their friends and participating in sponsors offers.  This is useful for customers who do not mind peer-to-peer marketing or spending their time to save money. 

Much like the shifting spectrums in the cellular communication industry, where FreedomPop will rack up fees is on data.  The basic 500 MB is sufficient only for checking e-mails or viewing static, text based websites. A FreedomPop phone consumer who opts for the Premium data plan gets 1 GB for $10 a month (first month free).  After a consumer uses their alloted monthly data, it is $0.01 a MB, or around $10 a GB. 

As an MVNO, FreedomPop is maximizing Sprint's over-capacity.  Sprint has migrated from the slower 4G WiMax  service to 4G LTE data, which allows MVNOs to utilize the inchoate WiMax mobile data until Sprint stops servicing WiMax data.  Sprint had planned to keep WiMax going through 2015, but Sprint's total acquisition of ClearWire (which provided the WiMax backbone) might change those plans.

Another means which FreedomPop offers value for consumers while providing a profit center is with the handsets.   FreedomPop is selling refurbished Sprint smartphones.  During their beta phase of phone roll-out, FreedomPop is selling refurbished HTC Evo Design phones for $99.99 (but will eventually cost $149.99)  but without contract. 

From a price standpoint, $100 for a no contract smartphone sounds like a good deal.  But the HTC Evo Design is a smartphone with 4.0" inch screen, a single core processer running Android 4.0 OS (Ice Cream Sandwich) with 3G/4G WiMax.  When the HTC Evo Design premiered in October 2011, it was a considered mid range smartphone.   FreedomPop will be selling a two year old refurbished cell phone for $100/$150 when it sells for much less on Ebay.

As a cellular phone consumer, I am not  someone who needs to have the latest and greatest handsets.  I have bought and been happy using some refurbished cellphones.  However, I am chary about paying more than street value for a two year old cell phone without new technology guarantees.  The HTC Evo Design has 4G WiMax which is fine (where available), but a cost conscious consumer should be mindful that his handset may only have a usable shelf life of just over a year, presuming that Sprint does not turn off WiMax prematurely.

FreedomPop hopes to have more handsets for sale later in 2013, some with 4G LTE data capability.  FreedomPop always intends to have a $100 handset available.   FreedomPop may allow for Bring Your Own Devices (BYOD) from Sprint.   There is some speculation that FreedomPop could follow the incremental purchase plans for expensive smartphones, like T-Mobile, AT and T, Verizon Wireless and now Sprint have done, charging perhaps $30 a month to effectively rent a handset.

Another way that FreedomPop's Phone service can offer their inexpensive cellular service is to have Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) voice calls.  Some may fear that VOIP sound quality may be inferior.  However, Verizon Wireless is gearing to start switching  their voice service to Voice Over LTE (VO-LTE) in late 2014.  FreedomPop Phone minimizes data strain to their MVNO system by prompting handsets to use WiFi whenever available.

For cell phone users who are heeding the cellular call for change, if someone plans to switch to FreedomPop Phone, be aware that WiMax phones may have to be replaced in a year. If a cellular phone customer uses mobile internet for more than occasional  quick peeks on the world wide web, it would behoove them to get more data from FreedomPop, either through the Freemium offers or purchasing an additional data plan.

Personally, I would be quite interested with FreedomPop cellular phone service if they allow BYOD, as I have a perfectly good Sprint HTC Evo to use.  If I can be assured that I have hotspot capability, I would certainly pay for premium data services. 

For cost conscious cellular consumers who use little to no data, FreedomPop cellular service would be an excellent choice rather than Pay-Lo or Assurance Wireless.   FreedomPop's Premium plan would be around 1/3 of the cost of Ting's Medium Plan (500 voice minutes , 1000 texts and 500 MB data), but Ting offers excellent weekday phone support and allows for hotspots. 

Sometimes free is not always the right choice.  Determine whether one is willing to buy a refurbished smartphone for virtually no monthly cost of commitment.  Then discern what sort of mobile data usage one will be comfortable with on your cell phone.  

Common Core Constitutional Cut Up

Sixth Grade students in Bryant, Arkansas were given a curious assignment as part of theCommon Core curriculum.   The History class at Bryant Middle School had an assignment aimed at inspiring persuasive and engaging presentations.  All the groups of eleven year olds had to do was prioritize and revise the Bill of Rights.

 The History class work is premised on the idea that the government of the United States has determined that the Bill of Rights is outdated.  The assignment asked students to assume the persona of an excerpt on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights named to the "National Revised Bill of Rights (NRBR) Task Force, which is charged with ensuring that the "pursuit of happiness remains guarded in the 21st Century".   The substantial objective of this exercise was to excise two Amendments and add two Amendments.

This exercise was fundamentally flawed on its substance.  This faux NRBR task force was supposed to protect the "pursuit of happiness".  But that phrase is in the Declaration of Independence (1776) not the Bill of Rights.

These middle school students had not been schooled on the reasons why the Bill of Rights was introduced by James Madison in 1789 and ratified in 1791.  They have no idea that the Constitution would not have been ratified by several of the States without the prospect of a Bill of Rights.   Obviously, the arguments by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists would be far beyond their ken in civics. 

Then there is the inconvenient truth that the Federal Government does not dictate which Amendments are outdated and need to be pruned.  The United States Supreme Court does not inherently decide if laws are outdated, they are tasked with declaring what is constitutional.   Justices do not turn to task forces for their opinions. 

There are mechanisms to revise the Constitution, either through a cumbersome Amendment process ( 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate and 3/4ths ratification by States), a Constitutional Convention or an Article V  Amendments stemming from the States as has been elucidated by Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments (2013) as well as the Madison Coalition.  A federal NRBR task force does not fit into this real life civic scenario, much less deciding what is outdated.

In addition, Amendments are not "pruned",  but they may be superceded by later Amendments. Consider the Eighteenth Amendment (1919) establishing Prohibition of Alcohol and the Twenty-First Amendment (1933) which repealed it.  As Glenn Beck opined: "[T]his document (the Constitution) is great for one reason: they left in the scars."  That way we can remember our mistakes as well as our growth.

But the Bill of Rights Bill of Rights are understood to be to inalienable rights, which are not granted by government but flow from Divine Providence to "We the People".    They ought not be deemed outdated.

Years ago I remember a civics exercise which was part of my secondary school education that somewhat related to this assignment.  Groups of students were told that they were abandoned on a remote island and needed to draw up rules for living together.  The educational objectives may have involved analyzing a situation, group interaction and forensic presentation.   For me, the exercise underlined the genius of the American Constitutional system for ensuring freedom of individuals while living in a larger society, and whet a lifelong interest in public policy.  But it did not presuppose that we were Constitutional experts or ignoring our established norms of our polity.

The Bryant School District is proud to embrace the Common Core standards to improve students literacy and math skills.   Common Core seeks to augment these skill sets through interdisciplinary learning.  Thus this History assignment was supposed to test reading, writing and language skills on informational texts.

A recent rhetorical rumble at the CATO Institute had Chester Finn, Jr. from the Fordham Institute defending Common Core Standards     One of the supposed virtues of Common Core is teaching skill sets not particular knowledge, allowing communities and educators to have subject matter which they deem important.  As this Bryant Middle School 6th grade History exercise shows, it was nominally about the Constitution but had little reference to understanding it while perpetuating the progressive conceit of the Constitution being a Living Document.

Unfortunately, this History exercise was premised on the Patriot Act debate, which is asking a lot of middle school students, particularly without the background knowledge of history or civics.  Moreover, the instructions of the exercise circumvents the Constitution Amendment process in trying to prune and update it.  The subject matter is so cutting edge, it is hard not to believe that the teacher will not color the debate and the student presentations.  Such shaping of opinion in the guise of education shows why some conservatives are so chary about Common Core. 

Outrageous Obama Incivility

President Obama with Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer

As the new fiscal year looms without a budget passed, and the debt ceiling debate on the horizon, the Obama Administration ought to be building ad hoc coaltions to prevent the United States going off the fiscal cliff.  Yet when President Obama's Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer went on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper", the White House pressed a bombastic bric-a-brac against Republicans.

Having an Obama  senior spokesman call Republican opponents "suicide bombers" is beyond the pale of civil political discourse coming  from the White House.  These verbal bomb throwing  through the auspices of the Oval Office neither builds Congressional coalitions vital for governing (as opposed to campaigning) and this infelicitous  and incindiary analogy shows a shocking lack of civility.  In the same day, Obama White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dredged up birther barbs to mock Republicans for wanting to defund Obamacare.

After the near assassination of former Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ 8th) in January, 2011, President Obama made a grandiose speech at the Together We Thrive rally  in Tucson which memorialized the fallen in  the atrocity where President Obama proclaimed:

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.  

President Obama then rightfully noted that a "more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation."  So how do Dan Pfeiffer's inflamatory remarks against ideological opponents fit into this call for civility?

Perhaps President Obama gave himself a waiver on civility.  After all, President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign persisted on an unsubstantiated insuniation that Republican Presidential Nominee Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) was a felon for alleged misrepresentations when he was at Bain Capital.  Political campaigns ain't beanbag, so rough and tumble rhetoric is not out of the ordinary, particularly for a politician who can not win without smearing his opponent.  But governing is different than campaigning.

While Pfeiffer's smear of his opponents as suicide bombers is outrageous and unwise, it is not the only example of inflamatory accusations that have the imprimatur of Obama's Oval Office. Democrat Congressional leaders such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 8th) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have been wont to refer to uncooperative Conservative Republican legislators as "Arsonists".  Senior Obama White House Advisor Dan Pfeiffer echoed this arsonist accusation and kidnappers comparison against Republicans.  Or progressive radio host Thom Hartman who compared Senator Ted Cruz's  (R-TX) filibuster to "Taliban-styled suicide bombings".   Kind of sounds like the Obama White House talking points were passed out.

These slanderous characterizations from the Obama White House give Democrats surrogates in the Lamestream Media license to copy scurrilous phrases.  This was quickly spread by  MSNBC's Chris Matthews did when the former Democrat staffer turned broadcaster asked  Representative Scott Perry (R-PA 4th) why the Republicans want to hold the country "hostage".

The Obama Administration seems intent to demonize and try to delegitimize their opponents, ala Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. But Pfeiffer, Pelosi and Reid are not alone in voicing vitrolic language against idelogical opponents.  Senator John McCain referred to Senator Cruz and Senator Rand Paul as "wacko birds", while Congressman Peter King  critiqued Senator Cruze as a crazy, fraudster and suicidal.  While these invectives abrogate Reagan's Eleventh Amendment, they are not as vial as a voice of the President of the United States in a time of real Islamist jihadi terrorism comparing Republicans to suicide bombers. 

It sounds like the White House communication staff need to take a crash course at the National Institute for Civil Discourse.   After all, the NICD launched a website "YourWordsCount.org" which reminds readers of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's word of wisdom: "Civility costs nothing and buys everything."   But that would also mean that they would be reminded of dear leader Obama's quote:

You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time – not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals. Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

So much for shaping the future in an uplifting way.

In the aftermath of the Tucson shooting, the elite Liberal media were quick to lambast Tea Party Conservatives, particularly former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, for  dangerous symbolism on  pamplets which "targeted" politcally vulnerable  Democrat districts like Giffords' with crosshairs.  Ironically, the Democrat Congressional Camapign Committee used bullseyes for their targeted districts.    But as Chris Plante would put it: "If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all."

From a partisan political perspective, the Obama Administration's beyond the pale references to Republicans clearly demonstrates that the Obama White House does not want to deal and is pushing to peg Republicans with any blame for a government shutdown.  They may be calculating their strategy premised on the 1995-1996 government shutdowns which allegedly hurt Republicans (even though that was not demonstrated at the ballot box).   But according to the latest Pew Poll, both Democrats and Republicans would be blamed for a government shutdown.

In the scheme of things, political blame is inconsequential compared to the quantum corsening of civil discourse that has been displayed by White House operatives Dan Pfeiffer and Press Spokesman Jay Carney. Such uncivil exchanges are unworthy of authority in this Constitutional Republic.

Reporting Limitations on the Freedom of Speech

Last spring, eporters in Chicagoland have been informed by police that “You (sic) first amendment rights can be terminated if you create a scene…Your first amendment rights have limitations.”

The Media covering the fatal  shooting of a six year old at Mount Sinai Hospital on the west side of Chicago.  WGN-TV reporter Dan Ponce and photographer Donte Williams were taken in handcuffs when they refused to move further away from the hospital for their coverage. 

The reporters were standing on the median sidewalk  halfway across the street from  Mount Sinai Hospital as they were doing their reporting.  The officer yelled at them to move further away and the journalistics refused to comply as they did their jobs.  It should be noted that the area was not a crime scene.  The officer exclaimed:  “F*** news affairs, I don’t care about news affairs. Forget news affairs.”.

According to the police, the reporters tried to enter the hospital and were removed at the request of hospital security, but their guards declined to press charges and the individuals were released.  However, the police maintain that the reporters very presence around grieving family members created a scene.   The official police statement proclaimed: Our members were attempting to protect and respect both the grieving family members of the child, and the memory of the child herself during a very stressful time for all parties involved.

While it might be the case that the aforementioned journalists pressed the edge within the hospital in pursuit of the story (which they deny),  the offending officer's ejaculations paired with the official police statement reveal a rationale that the authorities think it is OK to limit the First Amendment when they want.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Recently, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) proposed an amendment to the Reporter Shield bill in the Senate Judiciary committee which limits coverage to journalists whom she describes as:  “real reporters.” Feinstein was worried that protections might apply to: “people who aren’t really reporters at all, who have no professional qualifications.” Feinstein's definition of a real reporter is “a salaried agent” of a media company such as a newspaper, broadcast news station, news website or another type of news service. Of course, powers authorizing "real reporter" licensure can sway coverage.

Curious that Congress thinks that it can regulate Free Speech, especially considering that the First Amendment starts with the phrase: "Congress shall make no law…"  But considering the age when Supreme Court majority opinions on Obamacare contort arguments to make it a tax to be constitutional, maybe a clarifyng amendment could be added to impose a tax for "real reporter" licenses presumably passing SCOTUS muster.

The First Amendment is the fundamental freedom which prohibits the federal governement from encroaching on natural right to the freedom of speech.  The Freedom of Speech clause prohibits thegovernment from  banning speech because it does not agree with its message.  In Federalist Paper no. 10, James Madison pointed to the Freedom of Speech as being a vital element of a healthy Republic. 

Considering the sentiment to censor in Chicagoland and the Feinstein's "real reporter" amendment, one may question if the United States is civically healthy, much less a Republic. 

Giving a Flying Flip About Filibusters

Senator Ted Cruz (R-FL) took to the Senate floor at 2:41 PM yesterday to speak against voting for the cloture motion on the House Continuing Resolution legislation (House Res. 59) and did not finish his remarks until 12:00 noon the next day.  But detractors like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) are quick to insist that it was not a filibuster.  It is said that the Freshman Senator from Florida could not have a filibuster as his effort was not intended to delay or prevent legislative action.    

A broader understanding of filibuster is an effort to prevent action by making a long speech.  The 21 hours and 19 minutes of floor time certainly qualifies as a long speech.  Consider the aim of Senator Cruz’s effort.  He was speaking against a cloture motion.  Cloture is the procedure that a 60 vote majority in the Senate cuts off debate.  

Those who deny that Senator Cruz’s control of the Senate Floor for nearly a full day was not a filibuster are less interested in abiding by proper political parlance.  They know that the public generally considers a filibuster a noble effort of a Senator to abide his conscience and speak what he understands as the truth until he can stand no more.   Filibusters evoke memory’s of the Frank Capra film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (1939).

[L] Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)  [R] Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) during filibuster 

But if Cruz just was giving a very long speech, then he can be framed as just wasting the Senate’s time, even though Majority Leader Reid was appraised and approved of the talkathon. 

All of this between-the-beltways trivialities about filibusters illustrates one of Senator Cruz’s concerns.  Early on in his filibuster, Senator Cruz alleged that most people don’t give a flying flip about a bunch of politicians in Washington, DC with cheap suits and haircuts. A filibuster may empty the Senate chamber, but it can generate considerable attention and audience via CSPAN as well as alternate media and the internet. 










But couching the Senate floor action as a non-filibuster against the cloture vote on the Continuing Resolution (House Res. 59) which it’s technically correct, it is smoke and mirrors to confuse the public of the real work. 

The Continuing Resolution is a budget matter.  The Senate had not passed a budget in four years, and so Continuing Resolutions which used prior spending levels as a metric for stop gap funding have been used.  For Fiscal Year 2014, the Senate had not passed any specific appropriation bills and the October 1st  fiscal new year loomed.  

So the House of Representatives passed a Continuing Resolution for two months of funding of all federal programs, save the yet to be implemented Obamacare.  The White House and Senate Democrats under the direction of Senate Majority Leader Reid want to strip the defund Obamacare provision, which many ayes in the House were premised.

The cloture motion was meant to cut off debate.  If passed, Senate rules for budget bills then only allow for 30 hours of debate.  Senator Cruz and other tea party sympathetic conservatives were concerned that Senator Reid would present a clean bill, which stripped the defund Obamacare provision and not allow for any amendments.  

Cruz’s filibuster sought to educate the public of the Senatorial shenanigans.  Cruz alleged that some Republicans wanted to vote for cloture and then vote against final passage.  This DC two step allows what detractors call RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) to say that they voted against the bill, but their vote was a purely symbolic measure and the Democrat majority gets its way to continue to impose an overarching takeover of the health care system (aside from Congress and Federal workers, who were extra juridically exempted by President Obama over specific legislative provisions). 

Progressive political hacks wrung their hands at Senator Cruz’s speechifying, noting that he was wasting valuable time.  Well, then they should be upset at the Majority Leader who blessed the stunt.  Perhaps these advocates of efficiency should focus like a laser beam on Senator Reid’s leadership, which has proven incapable of producing on time budgets for the last five years. 

Tx. State Sen. Wendy Davis during her filibuster June 2013

The same liberal voices who condemn Senator Cruz's "legislative logorrhea" are the same sources who praised Texas State Senator Wendy Davis (D- 10th Fort Worth) who engaged in a quixotic 11 hour filibuster to block the popular Texas SB 5 which restricted abortions after 20 weeks in Texas.   This filibuster ultimately was inconsequential, as the legislation eventually passed in another legislative session.  But Davis stood for what she believed in, educated the public and burnished her political credentials.  The elite liberal media showed Ms. Davis with praise and powder puff interviews.  Yet Senator Cruz will be scourged by the same media as being obstructionist and self interested.  

To echo Hillary Clinton, these Cruz critics decry the “faux" filibuster by effectively saying “What difference, at this point, does it make.”  Obamacare is the law of the land, there were not 40 votes to stop the measure and Cruz did not have control of support of the entirety of his own caucus.  Those sound like compelling talking points for politicos without principle who care more about being on the winning side than doing the right thing for the American people. 

In between renditions of Dr. Seuss’ Green Eggs and Ham for the Cruz childrens’ storytime, there was probably more substantive debate about Obamacare’s adverse effect on the health care delivery system and retarding economic growth during Cruz’ s filibuster than what occurred when the so called Affordable Care Act was passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve, 2009. 




The filibuster drew more ordinary people outside of the District of Calamity (sic) to pay attention to detailed arguments against than the sweet lies put forth by the  White House and the lapdog Lamestream Media.

While procedurally Senator Cruz's efforts might not amount to much, this is not the only battle to be found in defunding Obamacare.  Even if Senator Reid is successful in passing a Continuing Resolution which strips the defund Obamacare provisions through the Senate, the House must act.  Either the Republican majority in House must acquiesce to Senator Reid's jam down  with a "clean" C.R., the Chambers must  conference or the House can pass another legislative vehicle which the Senate may not approve prior to October 1st.  There are suggestions that revised House legislation might include a one year delay in Obamacare, revoking the Congressional Obamacare exemption,  or approving  XL pipeline, which would be a tough pill for Senate Democrats to swallow. 

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington illustrated how people in the heartland became engaged in a filibuster by dumping an alluvia of telegrams on the Senate floor.  Senator Cruz is hoping that in the internet age, public opinion can be galvanized by social media.  C-SPAN allowed for internet 2.0 peer to peer engagement with Cruz reading Twitter messages on the Senate Floor.  Cruz is counting on alternate media and social media to work around the Lamestream Media and produce a groundswell of support which changes the static between the beltway certainty that an unpopular, flawed law like Obamare can be ramrodded into implementation. 

Senator Cruz's filibuster drew back the curtain on the complacency of the Cocktail Party in both parties between the beltways. The vitriolic reaction that senior Senator John McCain (R-AZ) unleashed against Cruz after stopped speaking reveals his true self. Freshman Senator John Boozman (R-AR) reportedly dressed Cruz down for all the out of state phone calls about Obamacare.   And Senate Minority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refused to support the renegade rhetoric.  This internecine sniping prompted former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) to note:  "We already have three parties: the Liberal Democrats, the RINO Republicans and 'the good guys.' ". 

Cruz's marathon speech in the Senate also showed some unity amongst the Young Turks.  Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) was instrumental in dissecting the deficiencies and questionable jurisprudential propriety of Obamacare implementation. But what was really impressive was to see how prospective rivals for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination, namely Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), worked together to get the message out about Obamacare and do something, rather than sit back and cast empty symbolic votes.

The nearly day long debate also had a couple of remarkable colloquies with "friends" on the other side of the aisle. A late night discourse between Senator Cruz and Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) showed collegiality and some measure of cooperation on solving Obamacare problems in the future. 

Majority Whip Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) tried two tactics.  In the evening, Durbin's disparaging dialog that a man educated at that nation's best school should know how to count to sixty (referring to the cloture mark) seemed aimed straight for MSNBC video "drop ins".   In the morning, Durbin returned to argue the same sob story using an airplane analogy. Even though Cruz had been on his feet for 18 hours, Cruz used the airplane analogy as a means to show that Congress gets first class medical care with their exemption while little people get less under Obamacare. 

As the Noon hour approached, Senator Cruz offered Majority Leader Reid several unanimous consent proposals to speed up the deliberation process. Majority Leader Reid tried to take Cruz's remaining time away from him by procedure.  Later Reid wanted to ask a question which was more of lambasting argument, which Cruz withdrew his time.  





Finally, Democrat Majority Leader urged Cruz to give up 15 minutes of time to Senator John McCain.  It's a good thing that Cruz did not accede to the latter demand to someone who called him a wacko-bird, as McCain inveighed on his "friend" Cruz. 

In trying to generate groundswell support in the grassroots, Senator Cruz's filibuster popularized the mantra "Make DC Listen".  This slogan may energize the Tea Party Caucus, possibly be the touchstone of a third party or a Presidential campaign.  Nevertheless, "Make DC Listen" taps into public discontent and shows social media savvy. 

So even though Senator Cruz was not successful in his immediate tactic to prevent cloture on the C.R., we ought to give a flying flip about his filibuster as it may be a harbinger for real change in the District of Calamity (sic).