>>>you seriously think that women in their thirties are by definition repulsive
Consider that 80% of Americans over the age of 30 are clinically overweight. My 15th reunion class was no different. Now maybe you are attracted to beerguts in girls, but I am not.
Also consider many of these women be grandmas at my 20th reunion.
"prefer old Women to young ones..... Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Man, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a thousand Services, small and great, and are the most tender and useful of Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an Old Woman who is not a good Woman. " - B. Franklin
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so..... Their power all the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820
In other words:
I consider the Wickard decision to be invalid. I reject its conclusion as contrary to the Letter of the Law (commerce among states), and the Original Intent of the Time when it was written (1786-89). The Congressional authority applies to goods passing over state lines..... it does not apply to goods that never cross those lines. They have zero authority to regulate businesses whose property lies completely-and-wholly within the authority of the Member State's Legislature (see amendment 10).
>>>Emancipation Proclamation is remembered as the dawning moment of the end of slavery.
No. The "dawning" moment was in 1776 when the British Colonies seceded, and because they were free of the King's control, and the Parliament's pro-slavery laws, about half of the colonies immediately declared slavery to be illegal within their borders. That was the beginning of the progress to recognize blacks as equal to whites. That was the dawning of the Abolition movement.
And I'm not wrong to say the president's proclamation had zero legal effect. Presidents don't create laws. It is Congress that creates laws. A president can not simply proclaim, "Let there be a 50% tax on all gasoline," and expect anything to happen. A president is a man, not a dictator or king.
I can not lay my hand on any part of the Constitution that forbids Member States from seceding from the Union. On the contrary, the tenth amendment reserves that right to the states. .
>>>If the South had been allowed to secede, there would still be legal human slavery on this continent today
Probably not. The South was undergoing industrialization same as the North was, just at a slower pace. Slavery would have ended by 1900 because it's cheaper to buy a machine to pick cotton or plow the fields, then to buy/feed/shelter a human being. It would have died-out just as it died-out in the north.
It's also been noted by historians that simply BUYING the slaves outright, and making them the property of the US Government, would have been 1/10th as expensive as fighting the war. The slaves could then have been emancipated. by their master (USG) and become Freemen.
And finally I know it's popular to call the Constitution a "racist" document but Frederick Douglas, the MLK of the early 1800s, disagreed. Quote: "The Constitution is an anti-slavery document. It encouraged southern states to emancipate 3/5 slaves to full liberated persons of equal status as whites, in order to increase the State's representation in Congress."
>>>There is no part of the so-called Confederate States of America that was not part of the United States of America.
By that logic, we are still British colonies.
When a group secedes from a larger entity, that group becomes independent. It does not matter if that independence is permanent (US 1776-present) or temporary (CS from 1861-65). During that moment of time, the Confederate States of America was a wholly and completely separate country from the United States.
Oh: And for those who claim secession is not legal: The fact the US exists is proof that secession can happen. The 13 British Colonies seceded from the United Kingdom in 1776. They then existed as 13 independent nation-states until 1781. In 1861 West Virginia seceded from Virginia. Even within the European Union the member states retain the right of secession.
If you live in the New England states, you'll see a lot of recycling there too - They've adopted the California emissions standards for cars, as well as other CA-generated green practices.
I'm not surprised to see Maryland at #1. I've traveled all over the place, and that's the nerdiest-geekiest state in the Union. You have a lot of electronics and computer-based companies clustered around the cities of Baltimore and Washington, plus the so-called "technocrats" that fill all the government bureaucracies in between these two cities. The state is like a geek zone.
>>>>Without a definition of what "good" means or what your needs are, I don't think that anyone can give you any sort of advice.
I define good as "free"
As in: My employer gave me a bunch of free o-scopes that I can use any time I visit the lab. No sense wasting your own money when it's the employer's job to supply all this stuff for you (including the PC on your desk).
>>>>>Seems like any accident could leave debris in the tracks. I can't imagine that would end well. It would also be very easy to sabotage. >> >>You've got the same problem with streetcars and trolleys. Never seems to slow them down much.
You're right that generalized debris (leaves/branches) doesn't slow down railed vehicles, but major accidents like metal shrapnel thrown across the tracks WILL stop the railed vehicle. We had a train driver texting in DC, he wrecked, and then the whole northwestern quarter of Greater Washington Metro could no longer move. That left millions of workers unable to get home. Just a few weeks ago a truck in Maryland hopped off the interstate, blocked the MTA line, and once again nobody moved for several hours.
I'll stick with the flexibility of my car, thank you. At least I can drive around the accident - can't do that with streetcars/trolleys/metros that are tied to a fixed path. Oh and by the way my car is a hybrid that gets 80 people-miles per gallon (160 p-mpg if I carry a friend). The typical bus, trolley, streetcar, or metro averages only 25 p-mpg (or gallon-equivalent if its electric powered).
Overall this rail-based Chinese "bus" just seems like a bad idea. Like the flying cars they used to show at 1920s-era World Fairs.
Your comment reminds me of last week's "Plain Jane" on CW.
That girl was geekish too, but after she got the cleavage-revealing dress, lipstick, and dark hair color she looked stunning. It was quite a transition.
And also if we followed your interpretation, then everything is interstate commerce and subject to the US government's regulation, so we might as well burn the State Legislatures to the ground. They would no longer be needed. PLUS we'd have to change our name from United States because there'd be no more sovereign states, just administrative districts. AKA provinces or colonies.
>>>>>Mom&Pop ISP is Smalltown USA doe not engage in commerce among the states. >> >>If they're providing access to a worldwide network
Just because Farmer Jo is selling chickens in Smalltown USA, and her customer carries them into the next state, doesn't mean Farmer Jo is engaging in "commerce among the States". Her chicken business is still INTRAstate commerce. So said the US Supreme Court in the 1930s when they struck down one of FDR's New Deal laws. They ruled the farmer was not engaging in interstate commerce, just because his customers carried the chickens over state lines, and therefore he was not subject to US price-fixing regulations.
Likewise just because Mom&Pop ISP sells bits to a customer, and later passes those bits to the AT&T Megacorp which carries them over state lines, does not mean Mom & Pop engaged in interstate commerce. ATT is subject to Us Law, but Mom & Pop's business, customers, and wires are wholly-and-completely within the State..... in the same way that the EU operates. Member States regulate within their own borders without interference from the general government.
Mom&Pop ISP is Smalltown USA doe not engage in commerce among the states. Therefore it cannot be regulated by Congress, but instead falls under the jurisdiction of the State Legislature..... in the same way that France or Germany or Poland regulate within their own borders, and it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the EU Parliament.
This is a simple and easy to understand concept. Intrastate commerce is jurisdiction of the Member State, not the general government. Why do so many liberals not seem able to grasp the plain English of this law? (Probably because they don't want to.) .
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted [1787-89], recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823
Net neutrality is legal because the ISP was granted a monopoly by the Local or State government, and they can impose any regulation as part of the deal. It's just the same way they regulate Electric and Natural Gas companies.
If the ISP doesn't enforce net neutrality, the Member State government can revoke the monopoly, pay the ISP for property lost (as required by eminent domain), and hand the monopoly to a new company.
Actually the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to any part of the United States.
It only applied to the CSA, and once those states were reclaimed, it didn't apply there either. It was a nice legal fiction that looked great for Lincoln's PR but didn't have any legal effect. Somewhat similar to how Obama's XO to block health dollars from being spent on abortions was nullified (Congressional law trumps a president's statement). Presidents do this stuff alot - issuing orders or proclamations - that don't actually have any effect.
In order to free the slaves it required a Constitutional amendment.
>>>If you don't have anything to hide then what you usually have to gain is your time.
So naive. People have written books about citizens who had "nothing to hide" and yet still got charged with something. The best-remembered of these would be Professor Gates who was (rightly) angry but still cooperated to show he was the owner of the house, and yet the police arrested him anyway.
>>>Even television doesn't portray that kind of police stupidity.
AGAIN: Watch the Penn & Teller episode (that qualifies as television). They (or rather their experts) make the argument that's exactly what police/prosecutors do: Try to put somebody in jail, even if the person is innocent. They don't care, because the system is corrupt in that fashion and they are typically trying to get re-elected.
>>>Back in the 80's AOL did not have Internet... your recollection is a decade off.
No it isn't. I never said my AOL/Quantum Link subscription provided internet. You assumed it. What they provided was the 80s equivalent - national forums, gaming, encyclopedias, and also a Usenet posting area. .
>>>I am sure you can donate your $4K to some charity if you really think you shouldnt have received any assistance.
Sure. Right after I stop getting taxed between $20,000 and 25,000 a year. As long as I'm being outrageously overtaxed for the purpose of redistributing wealth, then I will take back whatever I can when it's offered. Just the same as I will take SS when it's offered. (For the record I support 0% for the first $100,000; at least for income tax. Other taxes can remain the same.)
>>>government employees typically have salaries a good bit below that in the private sector
My engineering job with the FAA was the highest-paying job I've ever had ($55/hour). My second highest commercial/government contractor job was $7 an hour lower.
I also made note that most of the government employees didn't actually do much work (surfing the net instead). It struck me that this FAA building's sole purpose was probably to help the Congressman/Senator get reelected every few years..... i.e. white collar welfare. In the private sector the building would have been closed and/or 75% of the staff laid off to more accurately match the human resources to the workload.
Come here sonny. I want to give a brief talk. I recently went to my 15th reunion, and you know those "hot" girls in my class? Well they ain't hot no more! In fact they were downright repulsive (sorry, but it was true). So might as well go for the brainy, geeky girl because that will last. The beauty won't.
If you want "hotness" that will last, go Playboy. The 1995 centerfold will always be hot, even if the model no longer is.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>you seriously think that women in their thirties are by definition repulsive
Consider that 80% of Americans over the age of 30 are clinically overweight. My 15th reunion class was no different. Now maybe you are attracted to beerguts in girls, but I am not.
Also consider many of these women be grandmas at my 20th reunion.
"prefer old Women to young ones..... Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Man, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a thousand Services, small and great, and are the most tender and useful of Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an Old Woman who is not a good Woman. " - B. Franklin
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so..... Their power all the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820
In other words:
I consider the Wickard decision to be invalid. I reject its conclusion as contrary to the Letter of the Law (commerce among states), and the Original Intent of the Time when it was written (1786-89). The Congressional authority applies to goods passing over state lines..... it does not apply to goods that never cross those lines. They have zero authority to regulate businesses whose property lies completely-and-wholly within the authority of the Member State's Legislature (see amendment 10).
>>>Emancipation Proclamation is remembered as the dawning moment of the end of slavery.
No. The "dawning" moment was in 1776 when the British Colonies seceded, and because they were free of the King's control, and the Parliament's pro-slavery laws, about half of the colonies immediately declared slavery to be illegal within their borders. That was the beginning of the progress to recognize blacks as equal to whites. That was the dawning of the Abolition movement.
And I'm not wrong to say the president's proclamation had zero legal effect. Presidents don't create laws. It is Congress that creates laws. A president can not simply proclaim, "Let there be a 50% tax on all gasoline," and expect anything to happen. A president is a man, not a dictator or king.
I can not lay my hand on any part of the Constitution that forbids Member States from seceding from the Union. On the contrary, the tenth amendment reserves that right to the states.
.
>>>If the South had been allowed to secede, there would still be legal human slavery on this continent today
Probably not. The South was undergoing industrialization same as the North was, just at a slower pace. Slavery would have ended by 1900 because it's cheaper to buy a machine to pick cotton or plow the fields, then to buy/feed/shelter a human being. It would have died-out just as it died-out in the north.
It's also been noted by historians that simply BUYING the slaves outright, and making them the property of the US Government, would have been 1/10th as expensive as fighting the war. The slaves could then have been emancipated. by their master (USG) and become Freemen.
And finally I know it's popular to call the Constitution a "racist" document but Frederick Douglas, the MLK of the early 1800s, disagreed. Quote: "The Constitution is an anti-slavery document. It encouraged southern states to emancipate 3/5 slaves to full liberated persons of equal status as whites, in order to increase the State's representation in Congress."
>>>There is no part of the so-called Confederate States of America that was not part of the United States of America.
By that logic, we are still British colonies.
When a group secedes from a larger entity, that group becomes independent. It does not matter if that independence is permanent (US 1776-present) or temporary (CS from 1861-65). During that moment of time, the Confederate States of America was a wholly and completely separate country from the United States.
Oh: And for those who claim secession is not legal: The fact the US exists is proof that secession can happen. The 13 British Colonies seceded from the United Kingdom in 1776. They then existed as 13 independent nation-states until 1781. In 1861 West Virginia seceded from Virginia. Even within the European Union the member states retain the right of secession.
If you live in the New England states, you'll see a lot of recycling there too - They've adopted the California emissions standards for cars, as well as other CA-generated green practices.
I'm not surprised to see Maryland at #1. I've traveled all over the place, and that's the nerdiest-geekiest state in the Union. You have a lot of electronics and computer-based companies clustered around the cities of Baltimore and Washington, plus the so-called "technocrats" that fill all the government bureaucracies in between these two cities. The state is like a geek zone.
>>>>Without a definition of what "good" means or what your needs are, I don't think that anyone can give you any sort of advice.
I define good as "free"
As in: My employer gave me a bunch of free o-scopes that I can use any time I visit the lab. No sense wasting your own money when it's the employer's job to supply all this stuff for you (including the PC on your desk).
>>>>>Seems like any accident could leave debris in the tracks. I can't imagine that would end well. It would also be very easy to sabotage.
>>
>>You've got the same problem with streetcars and trolleys. Never seems to slow them down much.
You're right that generalized debris (leaves/branches) doesn't slow down railed vehicles, but major accidents like metal shrapnel thrown across the tracks WILL stop the railed vehicle. We had a train driver texting in DC, he wrecked, and then the whole northwestern quarter of Greater Washington Metro could no longer move. That left millions of workers unable to get home. Just a few weeks ago a truck in Maryland hopped off the interstate, blocked the MTA line, and once again nobody moved for several hours.
I'll stick with the flexibility of my car, thank you. At least I can drive around the accident - can't do that with streetcars/trolleys/metros that are tied to a fixed path. Oh and by the way my car is a hybrid that gets 80 people-miles per gallon (160 p-mpg if I carry a friend). The typical bus, trolley, streetcar, or metro averages only 25 p-mpg (or gallon-equivalent if its electric powered).
Overall this rail-based Chinese "bus" just seems like a bad idea.
Like the flying cars they used to show at 1920s-era World Fairs.
Your comment reminds me of last week's "Plain Jane" on CW.
That girl was geekish too, but after she got the cleavage-revealing dress, lipstick, and dark hair color she looked stunning. It was quite a transition.
P.S.
And also if we followed your interpretation, then everything is interstate commerce and subject to the US government's regulation, so we might as well burn the State Legislatures to the ground. They would no longer be needed. PLUS we'd have to change our name from United States because there'd be no more sovereign states, just administrative districts. AKA provinces or colonies.
It's not partisan.
I hated Bush just as much.
>>>>>Mom&Pop ISP is Smalltown USA doe not engage in commerce among the states.
>>
>>If they're providing access to a worldwide network
Just because Farmer Jo is selling chickens in Smalltown USA, and her customer carries them into the next state, doesn't mean Farmer Jo is engaging in "commerce among the States". Her chicken business is still INTRAstate commerce. So said the US Supreme Court in the 1930s when they struck down one of FDR's New Deal laws. They ruled the farmer was not engaging in interstate commerce, just because his customers carried the chickens over state lines, and therefore he was not subject to US price-fixing regulations.
Likewise just because Mom&Pop ISP sells bits to a customer, and later passes those bits to the AT&T Megacorp which carries them over state lines, does not mean Mom & Pop engaged in interstate commerce. ATT is subject to Us Law, but Mom & Pop's business, customers, and wires are wholly-and-completely within the State..... in the same way that the EU operates. Member States regulate within their own borders without interference from the general government.
>>>"among the several States"
Mom&Pop ISP is Smalltown USA doe not engage in commerce among the states. Therefore it cannot be regulated by Congress, but instead falls under the jurisdiction of the State Legislature..... in the same way that France or Germany or Poland regulate within their own borders, and it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the EU Parliament.
This is a simple and easy to understand concept. Intrastate commerce is jurisdiction of the Member State, not the general government. Why do so many liberals not seem able to grasp the plain English of this law? (Probably because they don't want to.)
.
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted [1787-89], recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823
Net neutrality is legal because the ISP was granted a monopoly by the Local or State government, and they can impose any regulation as part of the deal. It's just the same way they regulate Electric and Natural Gas companies.
If the ISP doesn't enforce net neutrality, the Member State government can revoke the monopoly, pay the ISP for property lost (as required by eminent domain), and hand the monopoly to a new company.
Actually the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to any part of the United States.
It only applied to the CSA, and once those states were reclaimed, it didn't apply there either. It was a nice legal fiction that looked great for Lincoln's PR but didn't have any legal effect. Somewhat similar to how Obama's XO to block health dollars from being spent on abortions was nullified (Congressional law trumps a president's statement). Presidents do this stuff alot - issuing orders or proclamations - that don't actually have any effect.
In order to free the slaves it required a Constitutional amendment.
>>>If you don't have anything to hide then what you usually have to gain is your time.
So naive. People have written books about citizens who had "nothing to hide" and yet still got charged with something. The best-remembered of these would be Professor Gates who was (rightly) angry but still cooperated to show he was the owner of the house, and yet the police arrested him anyway.
>>>Even television doesn't portray that kind of police stupidity.
AGAIN: Watch the Penn & Teller episode (that qualifies as television). They (or rather their experts) make the argument that's exactly what police/prosecutors do: Try to put somebody in jail, even if the person is innocent. They don't care, because the system is corrupt in that fashion and they are typically trying to get re-elected.
>>>they decided to protect the people behind the 9/11 attacks against America.
As if their right. It's their country. Trying to capture the 5 or 10 men responsible for 9/11 wasn't worth the cost (~10,000 innocent Afghanis dead).
>>>Back in the 80's AOL did not have Internet... your recollection is a decade off.
No it isn't. I never said my AOL/Quantum Link subscription provided internet. You assumed it. What they provided was the 80s equivalent - national forums, gaming, encyclopedias, and also a Usenet posting area.
.
>>>I am sure you can donate your $4K to some charity if you really think you shouldnt have received any assistance.
Sure. Right after I stop getting taxed between $20,000 and 25,000 a year. As long as I'm being outrageously overtaxed for the purpose of redistributing wealth, then I will take back whatever I can when it's offered. Just the same as I will take SS when it's offered. (For the record I support 0% for the first $100,000; at least for income tax. Other taxes can remain the same.)
>>>>>A better solution would be to eliminate subsidies completely.
>>
>>When you can't stop the oil subsidies
I wish people would learn to read. YES I would end all subsidies, including the oil company's subsidies. They would get $0.00 from the US government.
>>>government employees typically have salaries a good bit below that in the private sector
My engineering job with the FAA was the highest-paying job I've ever had ($55/hour). My second highest commercial/government contractor job was $7 an hour lower.
I also made note that most of the government employees didn't actually do much work (surfing the net instead). It struck me that this FAA building's sole purpose was probably to help the Congressman/Senator get reelected every few years..... i.e. white collar welfare. In the private sector the building would have been closed and/or 75% of the staff laid off to more accurately match the human resources to the workload.
Government is more efficient? Hardly.
"Hello. I'm Linux"
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LAXg_UmzTY
>>>but 'hot' she's not
Come here sonny. I want to give a brief talk. I recently went to my 15th reunion, and you know those "hot" girls in my class? Well they ain't hot no more! In fact they were downright repulsive (sorry, but it was true). So might as well go for the brainy, geeky girl because that will last. The beauty won't.
If you want "hotness" that will last, go Playboy.
The 1995 centerfold will always be hot,
even if the model no longer is.
Airway.
Breathing.
Circulation.
Dick? (checks) Nope. Houston we're ready for liftoff.