To clarify..

The big thing now is to have everything congress does checked against its "constitutionality" (which is just another way to reject things you don't like.. how is some fuckoff senator from Texas more qualified than a legal scholar in deciding what is and is not constitutional? ) THIS IS WHY WE HAVE A JUDICIAL BRANCH! (though some argue against even that) JFC, Take a civics class!@#$%^&! This is from the new "contract [on] America" coming from the GOP. It's interesting, let me just parse this out a bit.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;.."

It's interesting how "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" is interpreted.. here's a quote from the idiots at usconstitution.net:

"

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

"

The second part is an editorial. It seems to be in direct conflict with the definition they've pulled from a "period dictionary". This fight has been raging for a long time, but it seems pretty fucking clear cut to me: the constitution directly charges congress with the task of "[providing] for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". Unless, of course, providing for health, happiness, prosperity really just means giving those with enough plenty more. I am fairly certain that was not what was in mind. I suppose a really good way to positively determine that the quoted portion of the US Constitution is to read the objections to it brought up in the federalist papers.. Some didn't want that in there because it DIRECTLY OBLIGED CONGRESS TO DO JUST WHAT THEY SAY IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO! ...They didn't want the government to create a safety net, and to that end objected to that being in the constitution. We can therefore conclude, with very little question, that the quoted piece means exactly what we think it means. It's interesting how the right claims to have a monopoly on the constitution, when in reality the thing was a compromise between the same two opposing sides we see today.

Fucking assholes. You'd have to interpret the damn thing to make that paragraph be anything OTHER than providing a social safety net, roads, schools, etc, etc etc.

Sorry about the caps. This is obviously a point of anger for me.

~Nic

Have you driven a Ford crazy?

This find warranted a post of its own:

“Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it.”
—Henry Ford




You're welcome.

~Nic

Pop goes the weasel

Pop culture, entertainment news and the like are not on my list of things I pay any attention to. But today, I found "Lady Gaga"'s name under the politics heading on CNN.com (here). The last line was this comment regarding don't ask don't tell:

"We are not asking you to agree with or approve the moral implications of homosexuality, we are asking you to do your job, to protect the constitution."

That about knocked me out of my fucking chair. Well put. Especially well put, considering the source. For most anyone else, I'd ask them what specifically in the constitution they were referring to (perhaps the declaration of independence?), but I'll let it go here. Kudos.

~Nic

The Mediocre

I don't really enjoy the fair, for the most part. Sure there's plenty to look at, and sure there's fun stuff to see.. but I've seen most of it all before. Sometimes though, something catches my eye. This caught my eye. The image was taken with my cell phone, so it's not the best one would hope for, but you get the idea. This can be read a few different ways... I will leave that up to you. I will point out that it is a scarecrow (duh), and there are "crows" on it. The eyes are thread-in type fuses. I think it's genius, and was my favorite thing at the fair this year.

~Nic

Sifting through nonsense

While going through countless (well, over 5,000) text files of things I have written, found interesting, quoted, etc (I go through a chunk of the older stuff every once in a while) I came across this. It seems relevant to my post from yesterday. I am not sure if I wrote this, or if I found it somewhere, it had quotes around it. I googled it and found nothing, so I will take 1/2 credit, and if you find it elsewhere, let me know and I will concede all credit. The date was 8/24/2005 and the time was 12:32 AM on the file. (my personal archive goes back to 1993)

"In animal life, animals that travel in herds do so to save themselves with numbers. The animals that stray are easy targets for predators. With humanity, the consequences of straying from the crowd are worse, as instead of being killed and eaten by predators of a different species, they are cannibalized"

Later

~Nic

Freedom: Not just a feel-good refrain

It's supposed to be the thing that brings us together, as Americans.. the undying desire to find yourself free to say whatever you want, and the sometimes more poignant calling to stand up for things that you might happen to not like, not agree with or even hate. In my life, I've strived to support (whether in action, or just in thought) and stand behind the right for people to do, say and think things things I may not agree with.

It's been a terrible struggle from time to time.. one of my harder personal struggles was to come to terms with the implications of this; when I first learned of F. Phelps and his church. I abhor everything that is stood for by him, however in a fierce internal debate (Should I agree with those who want to ban him from his protests?), I decided that I fully support his right to protest the funerals of homosexuals. Not because it's the right thing to do, not because I think if we just leave him quietly alone he will go away, but because.. this is America, and freedom doesn't just mean freedom for things you agree with.

This fundamental, and admittedly difficult endeavor -- to support, above all, freedom of speech/religion/press -- should be embraced by everyone. There will be times in your life where you may be marginalized, but this freedom protects you. It protects you from the mob of fools who want to kill you because of, maybe even just an idea. Freedom isn't just about protecting the 99%, it's also about protecting the 1% from the 99%. You may note that this isn't really a democracy, it's a representative republic. And thank GOD.

That said, I entirely support the "ground zero" mosque. There are other reasons besides the above; most importantly, just as Christians are not, in general, murderers, nor are Muslims, in general, terrorists (or even responsible for 9/11). Should we bar Catholics from building a church within some arbitrary number of blocks near the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building?

As a bit of a side note, I find it interesting that a whole bunch of people on faux news don't "agree with Obama" supporting the right of the outfit to build thier mosque at "Ground Zero". Thier reason? "No, this is about sensitivity, not religion 82% (181,955 votes) "
-- About sensitivity? Are they coming around then? Does that mean they now understand why a good chunk of the country (and specifically African Americans) is offended by the Confederate Flag? You don't have to be politically correct, but it's a good idea to generally not be a fucking asshole to people you don't know, eh?

Cheers.

~Nic

Can a rock make a GOD that cannot lift it?

There's been an awful lot of weird shit going on since I last checked in here.. The economy hasn't fallen completely to shit again (This is a good thing in general, but was against what I had predicted, and therefore sucks), the oil leak has been... capped? ..somewhat, with some leaks still going? Huh?, the tea party looks to be having a schism (which is neither good or bad news for anyone really, it's just what I would consider typical of a non-homogeneous group of bat-shit crazy angry psuedo-libertarians... They remind me of hippies, but hippies that turned into hippie zombies) and I still don't know if I own another duplex.

Note to self; TAB in the blogger editor doesn't mean over 5 spaces.. Maybe you noticed this post get posted with just that first paragraph. Sorry...

So the economy; The whole damn thing is stale. Job numbers up, job numbers down. The banking/wall street reform bill passed. From what I've read, it's a good thing. I've tried to sit down and read the actual bill, but my attention span is short in the summer. At least I can say that the arguments coming from talking heads against it are ridiculous: "If we regulate the banks, they'll just leave the US". I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard something like this... if we [do something sensible] then [whiny bitch asshole profiteer] will leave the country. We know that arguments like this are generally wrong, but every once in a while (determined by common sense) are accurate. In this case, it's fucking flat out bunk. What half-baked, dipshit bank would leave the only country in the entire world who has based its entire value, both future and present, on credit? Basic common sense says to me that: "I'd rather make less money and run my business, than stop running my business and make no money at all".

BUT What if they're right? What if all the banks, and bankers pack their shit up and leave? Heh, I hate to tell a preacher about religion, but... SOMEONE ELSE WILL FILL THE VOID! This is the same logic that allows some shit head business leaders to pay no mind to their employees well being: "If they don't like it, they can go fuck themselves. Plenty of people are available to work for me". But apparently this philosophy (Which is true as it pertains to employees, however highly unethical and flat out assholery) only applies to what these shitclowns want it to (*puke*). The "Job market", and market will fill the gap. (The quotes are there for a reason, but it's a long discussion. Google: Monopsony labor market).

So - The banks won't leave, lending will continue to exist. Profits will still be made; and at the same time, we've made some positive change to the playing field. I do think it's bogus that FDIC money is going to be basically the only thing to pay for this. Investment bankers, as I understand it, pay nothing to the FDIC, so basically deposit banks will be footing the bill. I guess TCF should have hired better lobbyists. (DISCLAIMER: This FDIC money comment is coming from a crude and preliminary understanding of the legislation, and is subject to change. )

For a good laugh check this out:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/18/tea.party.imbroglio/index.html?hpt=Sbin

I understand the blog post was "satire". What I don't understand is the satire.. This seems to be on both sides of the same opposite. Did that make sense? Well, if that statement made no sense to you, you're probably going to have a helluva time dealing with that bizarre Tea Party "satire". It's about as coherent as any drunken writing I've ever seen. I am sure this will not end the TP (heh), or quiet it down, or anything like that. Hell, I like having the TP around... it reminds me that I have a clearer understanding of the original event than a good chunk of the college educated baby boomer generation. (Re: Tea Party demographics).

My own corrosive half-hearted anger aside, the political climate is quite caustic at this moment in time. We've all been pitted against each other for no damn good reason. Speaking of reason, it seems to be largely absent as of late. I mean really .. fucking really, do these people really think that the sole purpose for Obama to run for president was so he could destroy the country and turn it into the USSR or something? Maybe life would be a lot easier for me if I started to ignore the gray, and see the world as completely black and white. Good and evil, Christian saved and Muslim terrorist, Taxes and Freedom. Conservative and Liberal. Bah; I still cringe when I remember how the Democrats/Liberals thought that George Bush was absolutely intent on destroying the country. His mission was to destroy freedom, and take the whole fucking world down with it. Get a grip people, get a grip. Polarization sells. Anger sells. I suppose I am a bit of a hypocrite since I'm clearly upset about a lot of shit, but for the record I'm upset about ridiculous claims, not differing views.

~Nic