the opposite of governing...

would be to put the federal budget on a path of automatic cuts of specific amounts- the so called  sequester (quickly, when Congress raised the debt ceiling to avoid US default on its obligations, they passed 1.2 Trillion in cuts unless the supercommittee came to an agreement).  Sequester cuts would be made without the careful judgment needed to obtain a reasonable result.  It treats for example dollars needed to feed children, or operate hospitals equally with dollars used to buy new office furniture. There are some lower cuts for certain low income and social security type programs, but those cuts tend to affect the most vulnerable of Americans. The Department of Defense for example would have managed cuts of 450 billion over ten years but feel that to double those cuts under the sequester would remove funds needed for military families, significantly reduce the effectiveness of the military. Whether true or not, it is apparent that substantial cuts to highways, schools, military and many more federal functions need careful consideration, the Congress acting in good faith  to do its best for the American people.

The Constitution requires only a few things, but one is that there be an annual consideration by the Congress of the national budget and a determination of how and for what we spend. The sequestration condition to the budget ceiling is Constitutionally flawed in that it restrict the powers of the next Congress to do what every Congress must do- use its best judgment to determine spending. As a policy it reflects a disregard for fundamental democracy.  Do the people have a right to decide--then to change that decision--the answer except for fundamental rights is  -YES; and the Budget Control Act says a very arbitrary, narrow and unthinking --NO. If it keeps the sides at the table to resolve the problem on a long term basis, then it would have served an important and useful purpose.

Catch a Flea-- Miss an Elephant

The revelations of sexual child abuse at Penn State University raises a bitter question about oversight of college athletics by the NCAA.   They take in huge amounts of money, an organization dominated by males, and conspicuous for their own exploitation of college athletes- who generally work for room, board, and tuition at most while this organization rakes in $billions.  They are also known for investigations of individual athletes and institutions, deep probes that focus on even slight violations of their ever growing sets of rules on recruiting and KEEPING MONEY AWAY FROM ATHLETES.  Many people have been swept up in subsequent criminal investigations for giving money or gifts to athletes.  Now, this august body of men, has apparently missed a situation characterized by an eyewitness to rape of a child--how could this be? How could a regulatory body that can sniff out an unpaid car rental miss on a decades long pattern of rape and sexual assault by a prominent coach at one of its most famous member institutions.  Why did the public in effect pay the NCAA to watch a practicing child abuser work on the sidelines?  These questions might seem harsh or unfair--but so too does the sight of so many highly paid men overseeing so many unpaid athletes, making sure they don't get paid- that there is a 'purity' in recruiting talented young people---when all along there was something like this going on- young boys assaulted by one of the leaders of a bell weather franchise.  Is child safety at least as important as, for example : making sure the poor inner-city athlete stays poor while you make billions in TV revenue from his/her skilled performances? Here, there was a public record more than ten years before the scandal hit the news of a rape by an institution's senior coaching staff member- and that phrase from the investigations of Cam Newton, Reggie Bush, and USC forfeiting a championship--" NCAA investigators have uncovered..."  Now, it is the NCAA and its $775 million annual revenues that are being- uncovered.

Large and small views of the world: The Danger of High Blood Pressure

Large and small views of the world: The Danger of High Blood Pressure