Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Constitutional Cultists and the Mount Vernon Statement

Remember TQM?

Total Quality Management?

It’s a methodology for improving process control in manufacturing. It was cooked up by a professor named William Edwards Deming (yes, Edwards, not Edward – it’s his mother’s family name). Deming was primarily a statistician specializing in quality control. He is widely credited with improving US production methods during the Cold War, but it is his work in the Japanese auto industry for which he is renown. Throughout the 1950’s and 60’s, Deming taught Japanese auto manufacturing top management how to improve design, production, testing, sales – and especially the quality of their products – by improving the overall process of manufacturing.

The results were dramatic.

The first Japanese auto imports into the US and European markets were a poor joke. “Made in Japan” was synonymous with “crap” and their cars were cheap tiny junkers which many Americans regarded almost as the embodiment of those clownish, squinty-eyed, near-sighted, buck-toothed Jap caricatures of WWII.

Deming changed all of that.

Today, well, today Japanese auto manufacturers own the market worldwide, due in significant part to Deming and his process of Total Quality Management.

American industry took notice - eventually. There’s a fairly famous example of Ford executives trying to figure out why Americans kept requesting Ford vehicles that were made with Japanese transmissions and power-trains instead of American made ones – even though both were made to the exact same specifications (the Japanese ones were made to much tighter tolerances, i.e. if the spec called for plus or minus 1/8 of an inch, Japanese parts were consistently a quarter of that, making for noticeably better performance and smoother operating transmissions with significantly lower maintenance issues. The tolerances on American parts ran the gamut, from one extreme of the spec to the other, making for significantly lower quality and poor consistency in transmissions made in the US and dramatically increasing manufacturing and maintenance costs).

TQM worked. In Japan. It revolutionized manufacturing. In Japan. Deming is considered almost a Saint. In Japan.

American manufacturers saw what was happening in Japan, and suddenly they wanted some of that magic too. Deming, who in the 60’s couldn’t even get past the lobby receptionist, was suddenly getting phone calls from the CEO’s of Ford and GM. He became a lecturer and consultant. Unfortunately, TQM, and other systems such as John Boyd’s OODA loop, had somewhat limited success in American industry. While the new methodology did improve American manufacturing it was no where near as significant as in Japan. On the other hand, they did spawn an entirely new industry: the Process Efficiency Consultant – quite possibly the single most hated parasite in the American business sector. Nowadays, Deming is regarded with somewhat less enthusiasm among American business than he is in Japan.

And then there are those of us who were in the US Navy during the 80’s and 90’s. Mention Deming and TQL (Total Quality Leadership) to us and you’re likely to get punched in the nose.


It’s not Deming or TQM per se, whose ideas and methodologies are basically sound, it’s that they were filtered through layers and layers of facilitators who had less and less understanding of the basic principles and what had made the system such a success in Japan. Like a Xerox of a Xerox of a Xerox, each iteration of the process became just a little bit more fuzzy than the last – and by the time Deming’s ideas became the US Navy’s TQL program it was a blurry and incoherent mess. Anybody who served in the Navy during the hated TQL period can tell you horror stories about an endless stream of facilitators fresh from their “train the trainer” courses and as enthusiastic as a Mary Kay sales rep hopped up on cocaine and caffeine and one tube of blush away from the Pink Caddie. We saw endless presentations of fishbone diagrams and Gantt charts and process vs. product flowcharts. We were repeatedly victimized by an endless succession of “Process Action Teams” and XO’s Quality Tsars and more gods bedamned facilitators.

Take the Vision Statement for example.

The Navy’s version of TQM always started with a vision statement.

Vision Statements were supposed to convey the Commander’s vision to us knuckle-draggers, empowering sailors on the deck plates by clearly explaining the reason why the organization existed in the first place. Every Navy command had to have a vision statement, every department within the command had to have one, every division within each department had to have yet another one. Like matter spiraling down into the event horizon of an enormous galaxy devouring black hole from which nothing could escape – not matter, not light, not intelligence – hundreds of thousands of man-hours disappeared into Process Action Teams during the never ending generation of Vision Statements. These PATs were curious structures, all the more so for a military operation, because they lacked a formal hierarchy. Navy TQL Implementers had interpreted Deming’s methodology to mean nobody could be in charge, and so the PATs placed senior officers, experienced NCO’s, and junior inexperienced and uneducated personnel all on an equal footing. Chaos was the usual result, that and random Brownian motion. And because actual work still had to get done, Commanders usually assigned the fuckoffs and suckups and those they could do without and those too unlucky or stupid to get out of it to the PATs. They say that a camel is a horse designed by committee, and the vision statements that emerged from the TQL PATS were often big smelly ten humped camels with crossed eyes, knock knees, and drool covered muzzles. I recall one such vision statement from a Washington DC Headquarters command that I was assigned to in the mid-90’s (we were often forced to memorize them in case the IG asked during inspections): “To maximize our potential synergy in order to achieve strategic and tactical superiority by leveraging advanced technologies in the electronic battlespace of the 21st Century” (I shit you not). That was a pretty average example of a Navy vision statement (I understand it took two weeks of discussion to determine whether or not to include the word “potential.” Apparently some folks felt that using the word potential indicated that we might not have actual synergy, and maybe we shouldn’t be advertising that. Others argued that synergy is always a potential and not a measurable rest state value. Others just blinked and nodded wisely every time the word synergy was mentioned. All agreed that synergy must be used in the statement, nobody had a clue as to what it meant but it sounded like something we’d want) (As an aside: I once suggested that our vision statement should be “Drive around the ocean, blow shit up.” My suggestion was rejected, but seriously, isn’t that what the Navy does?).

It’s a damned good thing that we didn’t have a major war during this period – because we’d all probably have gotten shot in the head while trying to figure out how to leverage our potential (or not) synergy.

Nobody had any idea of what that vision statement meant – and that too, was pretty typical of Navy vision statements. Far from clarifying things, the vision statements were just meaningless gibberish that gave the appearance of something constructive but only made things worse – because the manpower and assets used to create them could have been used to achieve actual results instead of being locked in a conference room for a month. I.e. you can talk about the mission, you can argue about the mission – or you can do the mission. (Eventually the Navy quietly dumped TQL and moved on to other management flavors of the week. Those of us who have been around for a while learned to ignore whatever process the brass were currently bloviating about. TQL, ISO9000, SEA21, Mentoring (with a capital M) whatever – if you gaffed it off long enough the current management fad would just go away anyway, and you had time to get the things done that actually needed to be done).

What happened, and what always happens in these cases, is simple (but not necessarily apparent while it’s happening, nor is it necessarily obvious amongst the carnage after the tidal wave has passed you by): There is a huge difference between a “professor” and a “facilitator.”

A Professor is a professional.

A Facilitator is an amateur.

Those who design systems, be they computer systems or management systems or systems of government, usually understand the systems in detail. They are, usually, experts. They study the causal effects, the problems, the people, the goals, the pitfalls, the scope and boundaries, the limitations, the primary and secondary and tertiary effects, the controls, the adaptations, where to apply the system and where not to apply the system, and more than anything the reason why the system was necessary in the first place.

Facilitators rarely understand any of that. I’m not saying that amateurs can’t use the system, can’t even teach aspects of it – at the familiarization level – but it is very, very important to understand the limitations of lay-people when it comes to teaching and managing complex systems. Especially systems that directly involve people.

Wright’s 1st Rule of Experts: If you learned it in a classroom and you’ve spent years developing experience and you can produce some form of mainstream credentials, you might be a professional. If you learned it in a seminar, you’re an amateur. Know the damned difference before you open your mouth.

It’s the difference between designing a computer system at the micro-circuit level and configuring a router. It’s the difference between a theoretical mathematician and using a calculator. It’s the difference between running the company and working on the assembly line. It’s the difference between a board certified immunologist and somebody who learned about vaccines on the internet. Anybody can ride on an airplane (unless you’re Kevin Smith), but damned few folks could design a modern aircraft from first principles. It’s the difference between an evolutionary biologist and a creationist.

And that’s what happened with Deming’s TQM in the United States. It’s what eventually seems to happen to all management fads here in the United States (and to be fair, it happens outside the States too, but the degree of facilitator fuzziness is far more pronounced here where we increasingly pride ourselves on the common sense of Joe the Plummer instead of actual education, professionalism, and empirical evidence). The designer’s vision is lost, the underlying reasons for the system’s creation are lost, or corrupted, or co-opted by the facilitators. These things often end up costing inordinate amounts of money and vital assets and priceless time and rarely produce any change in the corporate structure where it really matters, at the top. Witness the American auto industry, despite decades of chasing the latest management and efficiency fads – the Big Three are no different, fundamentally, structurally, organizationally, than they were in the 50’s.

The end results of this are all too apparent in the auto industry and elsewhere.

Why do I bring this up?

Because it’s a pretty good example of what happens when you let amateurs run things, when you let the lowest common denominator teach the next generation, and when you don’t really understand why things exist and why they were designed that way in the first place. It’s what happens when you don’t understand first principles.

Let me give you another example: It’s like those Cargo Cults that grew up in the New Guinea jungles following the end of WWII. Soldiers flooded into the South Pacific during the war, they brought with them all kinds of wonderful things that the primitive islanders had never seen. More than that, the islanders had no context to even begin to understand the construction and manufacture of that advanced technology. To the islanders, these things were magic. This did not mean that they could not be taught to use advanced technology however, and dozens were given cursory training in firearms and some were even taught to drive jeeps and operate equipment. After the war ended, the soldiers, sailors, and airmen simply left – and all of that wonderful technology went with them. The islanders believed that they could summon back the “cargo” if they performed the rituals they had learned from watching the soldiers.  So they built “runways” complete with ersatz lights and hangers and taxiways to call down the C-47’s. They repeated the magic words, call signs and radio procedures, they had heard from the vanished servicemen. They built whole bases, complete with jeeps and gun emplacements made from bamboo in order to fool the airplanes into landing with their precious cargo. They sang and they danced and an entire religion grew up around the quest for the vanished cargo – but, of course, no cargo came. The cargo cultists performed the rituals in an attempt to facilitate the return of the cargo, but they had no real understanding of the true situation, and so they were forever doomed to failure.

Again, why do I bring this up?

Well, because today near George Washington’s ancestral home another group of facilitators, of cultists, have gathered to light the landing lights and chant and pray and wait for the cargo.

A gathering of conservative “grassroots” leaders (or those who pretend to be “grassroots” leaders but are really part of the mainstream GOP, such as Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)) assembled today in what was once the library at Mount Vernon, where they signed something called “The Mount Vernon Statement.”

Let’s call them Constitutional Cultists, shall we?

These people don’t believe in the Constitution as it exists today, they believe in some mythological constitution – sort of like Sarah Palin’s version of George Washington.

Let me give you an example:

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

That’s a direct quote taken from the Mount Vernon Statement. It’s is not taken out of context, it is a standalone paragraph. According to the leaders of the conservative party, America must not, cannot change. Change is bad, where it may lead nobody knows. Change is dangerous. Change is a lie.

This paragraph shows, more than any other, why these people, and their Tea Party brethren, are cultists, facilitators, amateurs. This paragraph more than any other in the Mount Vernon Statement shows how little these people understand the principles and ideas that the Constitution was based upon.

America must not change?

Then why did the founders build the instruments of change into the very fabric of the Constitution itself? Why did they include a very specific process for changing the Constitution? Why did they themselves change it, adding the Bill of Rights and other amendments? The Constitution as it exists today, is not the Constitution penned by our founding fathers – that document has been changed many times.

I was going to detail those changes specifically, to rub these retards’ collective noses in their own ignorance, but there’s no need.  My friend and fellow UCFer, Eric, has done a far better job than I can over on Giant Midgets. If you haven’t read his piece, you really should. Eric demonstrates rather succinctly the difference between a professional, like himself, and amateurs.

These people, these Constitutional Conservatives, are cultists. The constitution that these fools rally to defend so fervently, so passionately, so dogmatically, does not exist, and in fact has never existed. Their version of the Constitution is a myth. This America they wish to reclaim for themselves, this promised land of their founders, is no more real than the coconut radios and bamboo jeeps made by pacific islanders to bring back the Cargo.

The Mount Vernon Statement is mumbo jumbo, a bunch of words that sound good, but like those Navy TQM Mission Statements mean absolutely nothing.

When examined in detail, it’s gibberish, it’s a camel designed by committee.

Right from the opening paragraph, it’s meaningless nonsense:

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

We recommit ourselves? Meaning what? Conservatives have fallen off the conservative wagon? Last time they took this oath, it was by the light of flickering candles in William F. Buckley’s basement, when on September 11th (Whoa, there’s an evil omen), 1960, they all swore blood allegiance to the Sharon Statement (one can just see them in their newspaper pirate hats made from folded Wall Street Journals, with little wooden swords and a sign declaring “No Stinky Girls Allowed!”). And what ideas of the founding fathers are we talking about here? Do Constitutional Cultists commit themselves to the ideas of George Washington? Do they? Really?  See, Washington hated the idea of political parties, which he felt pitted citizen against citizen. And in point of fact Washington specifically railed against the formation of political parties in his farewell address in 1796:

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Why, it’s as if Washington was able to see 200 years into the future and witness the events in his own library, is it not?

What about Alexander Hamilton, who was what today we would refer to as a radical leftist. Thomas Jefferson would certainly be labeled a progressive today and James Madison was certainly left of center. So were many other founders, so when the Constitutional Cultists “recommit” themselves to “the ideas of the American Founding” I have to ask if that includes these radical liberals as well? If not, then which ideas and which founders, specifically, are they committing themselves to? Do they commit themselves to compromise with liberals? Because that’s what the founders did, they compromised. Federalists, anti-Federalists, left and right, they sat down and hammered it out, they got the damned job done, they compromised. Do these Constitutional Cultists commit themselves to that ideal, the ideal of compromise? How about that “based on the rule of law” bit? Aren’t these the very same people who say the President is above the law (well, if he’s a conservative, of course)? Who say he can order torture and detainment and rendition, including that of American citizens, at will? “They sought to secure national independence?” How’s that again? America had been independent for nearly a decade by the time the Constitution was written and ratified.

The opening paragraph of the Mount Vernon Statement is gibberish. It only makes sense, after a fashion, if you don’t know what any of the words mean.

This is the difference between professionals and amateurs. The difference between the real Founders and a myth. This is the difference between men of intellect and those who sneer at intellect and label it elitism. This is the difference between the real living and changing Constitution and the fantasy constitution alluded to in the Mount Vernon Statement. This is the difference between those who create true democracy, and those who only facilitate it.

This is the difference between true patriots and those who would only pretend to the same status.

In the end, it's just gibberish.

Frankly I’m surprised they didn’t toss in “synergy.”


  1. When you started off, I totally expected this to be about Toyotas.

  2. And I was soooo ready for a rant about TQM and how it fails when implemented by peeps who don't think like the Japanese culture.

    Oh wait - it was:)

    decera - the number of times I have to try the word verification

  3. ::ka-POW!::

    Yeah, that would be me punching you in the nose. TQL - gag.

    You're right, of course. While I understand the desire to resist change (the hallmark of the "conservative," after all), can we please hear from those conservatives who actually, you know, HAVE SOME EXPERTISE?

    I believe the presence of the loyal opposition is vital to a functioning democracy. The voices of the right are just as important in the national discussion as my own tax-and-spend liberal POV. But I am heartily sick of the fact that the voices we hear (from both sides of the aisle) are retarded.

    I would love to have intelligence return to our discourse.

    Yeah. I'm not holding my breath.

  4. Eric has an excellent rebuttal to the Mount Vernon statement as well.

  5. Great entry!

    I too thought it was going to be about Toyota - it appears they have fallen a long way from those ideals, most likely in search of the quick profit while sacrificing the long term.

    I think there is a dangerous movement to assume anyone intelligent is elitist and to be dismissed. I remember (vaguely) in the 1980's the "V" miniseries where the aliens easily turned the population against scientists and intelligent people. I remember thinking how preposterous the idea was, but now I don't think so.

  6. We recommit ourselves? Meaning what? I think it means-
    Let's re-enslave those dark-skinned people. While we're at it, put those damn women (always excepting Saint Sarah) back in the kitchen where they belong!

    malab- the curse I'd like to put on these cultists.

  7. I get a bad case of reflax when the word synergy is mention. *cough*.. i just did that to myself.

  8. Great post and great points, Jim.

    I think I have something else to say about what the Mt. Vernon crowd gets wrong that I'm trying to forumlate over lunch, but one thing I did want to mention here that Slate quotes Vernonite Norquist as effectively boasting of the Vernon Statement's meaninglessness: "'A lefty can't sign on, knowing what the words mean,' says Norquist. 'But 70 percent of Americans go, Yeah.'" (emph. in orig.) Which in turn inevitably resurrects the question, "To what degree do some of these guys believe their own horseshit?"


    Y'know, you're right, that is pretty f'ing insane, now that you draw attention to it. What would a conservative Declaration have actually sounded like? We hold these truths to be self-evident: that God hath ordained one above all Others to embody Nation and state, and it is the Sacred duty of all men to consent to be subject to governance by their King who hath been placed in superiority over him by right of Law and the just Hand of Divine Providence....

  10. Eric:

    "God, the King, and the Protestant Succession...no matter what lousy German monarch we get stuck with as a result."

    word verification

    bigra = original name for Viagra

  11. What I find most aggravating about these modern "conservatives" is that they are phenomenally ignorant of history and have no idea what they are actually trying to conserve. Most liberals are no better, in my experience as a professional historian, but neither are liberals building political programs based on wishful thinking and willful ignorance. At least liberal ignorance isn't also hypocritical.

    The thinking that went into the Constitution died out long before the Civil War. It is a "republican" document - a term that has nothing to do with the modern republican party and everything to do with 17th-century English political thinking. Republicanism stressed balanced government and the conflict between liberty and power, and it effectively vanished as an influential doctrine in this country in the 1820s/30s, leaving only a predilection for paranoid conspiracy theories and a Constitution nobody today gets.

    Excuse me while I find some wilderness to scream into.

    dectrous: having the ability to display proper manners with either hand.

  12. BRILLIANT Sir, but i have to make one correction, the Navy mission statement should be "drive around the water blow shit up, unload Marines, drink coffee.

  13. It always comes back to the coffee.

    Although some of my younger Marine friends like the fruit juices and power drinks instead.

    And they didn't include the word synergy, the document was a product of their synergy (and all the snarkiness of that statement is intended).

    I wonder if there was a fat kid in the corner saying, "People like that reform. Maybe we auta get us some, Daddy?"

    linglo - business euphemisms that burn their idiocy into your mind until you emit a soft, blue light.

  14. Jim,

    You're spot on that the key attribute of these "conservatives" is fear of change. Every aspect of their "vision statement" -- including both foreign as well as domestic policy, is rooted in the absolute maintenance of the status quo--as that status quo was defined prior to 1964.

    The only thing you missed in your rant was to work in "Who Moved My Cheese?" which I think would have nicely tied in the TQM b.s. to the fear of change.

    Speaking as a former Quality Circle Leader, I say "good job, sir".

    prucipsy = disease that degrades one's ability to worship Priapus, usually ending with loss of the affected organ.

  15. I don't think I agree with you about the failure of TQM (and other management fads in the US) being the result of 'facilitators' ineptly teaching the system. I'll admit not knowing for sure, but I'd be surprised if anyone other than the seminar trained facilitators you deride were teaching the factory workers or their first line supervisors in Japan.

    Rather, I'd suggest that the breakup of the zaibatsus by the post-war administration created a power vacuum, as many senior executives were forceably retired and new firms created. The old way of doing business was over, and supressed with the backing of the army of occupation! Any basically sound management philosophy could have succeeded in this environment, but TQM happened to be the first on the scene. As neither the US military nor US industry are noted for conducting purges, this couldn't happen here, (and I certainly don't advocate the creation of such a vacuum). Executives, military or otherwise, generally are not selected for not already having a good idea of what to do, and are resistant to method changes with the best of intentions. When required to do something they think is worthless, of course they'll assign a minimum of their best people to the task and concentrate on getting things done the way they already know works.

    Above not to suggest that I think TQL, etc as implemented in the Navy was a good thing... just that it fails for a different systemic reason than you suggest. I'm not a professional business management historian by any means, and will happily accept correction.

    On the cargo cults--

    If I pretend I were a New Guinea tribesman in the late 40's, with no knowledge of the outside world at all. The allies come, build an airstrip and leave with all their magic items. What they do leave behind (flashlights, cigarette lighters, etc... things of immediate use to a person with zero technology) gradually stops working. The local headman one day says we can have all these things again if we clear the now overgrown airstrip, build a new control tower and some fake planes to trick the C-47s into coming back... it's not stupidity or -willful- ignorance which makes me agree to the plan, nor malice on the part of the headman. It's only after that doesn't work that I'm likely to try something else. (And chances are that's not going to work either!)

    I think in the US, we fail to teach both our history and how our political system works. As a result someone not already interested in politics can't be assumed to know how legislation is proposed, any more than a NG tribesman is likely to know Bernoulii's principle.

    In the past decade, the US has received a number of shocks after what had been a fairly comfortable half century. It takes time for people to switch from disinterested to interested. It takes time after that for the interested to educate themselves and find palatable solutions to their perceived problems. Over the next several years we're going to see all kinds of strange movements and statements as people try out anything that sounds like it makes sense. That's a good thing, really... even if it can be frustrating to watch.


  16. Transformation.

    When Rumsfeld (may he rot) was SecDef, every damn briefing about any damn system or organization had to have a reference to "transformation/al" in it.

    Not so with Gates, thank all the gods.

  17. Amen.

    And I agree, too, with tferanado's argument that we do not teach our history well or accurately, nor how our system of government works. The masses are too ignorant and therefore are easily manipulated into not protecting it. Our entire system is sick now, from the Federal government to local criminal justice agencies, because Americans do not understand how they are supposed to work and where the limits are supposed to be. Instead, we just continue handing our country and our futures over to a smaller segment with their own vested interests.

  18. Jim, your arguments take a long and circuitous path, but they do end up giving me a laugh (a laugh tainted with "please please please don't let idiots like these have power over anyone but their own idiotic selves!" but a laugh nonetheless).

    Thanks also to Eric, for the awesome quote about people not joining if they know what the words mean. That was hi-larious.

    flante = to be flamboyant, but in a particularly Latin way.

  19. TF, you are of course entitled to your opinion - and there are certainly other factors involved in the failure of TQM here in the states, and its success in Japan - size of the respective industries, culture, entrenched American management and unions and the power vacuum that you pointed out. All of those things played a part. However, Deming's techniques were often taught directly by Deming in Japan, here in the US they were facilitated by amateurs in many cases. I lived through it. Command and Control Systems are one aspect of my specialty - specifically the information flow within the system (because my job was to disrupt or alter that flow in the adversary's system) and it didn't take a hell of a lot of analysis to determine that the implementation of Deming's philosophy was being taught by folks who really had no detailed knowledge or understanding of the system. They taught charts and diagrams, they emphasized process over product, and they held endless process improvement meetings - and all they did was rob resources from the organization that could have been used elsewhere.

    Attempting to implement TQL in the military was doomed to failure from the beginning - we don't build cars, we don't make a profit, and the efficiency of our process is of secondary importance to achieving the objective. We don't have to be the best, just better than our adversary.

    I concur with your assessment of the cargo cults, it's not stupid - but it didn't work.

    These Constitutional Cultists wrap themselves in the trappings of patriotism, of the Constitution, of a mythical understanding of the founders - but they lack any real understanding. Case in point, CPAC's roaring approval of Glenn Beck - the man is an entertainer, with a demonstratively shallow grade school understanding of both the founders and the Constitution.


    Anne, half the fun of getting there is the journey.


Be sure to read the commenting rules before you start typing. Really.