I think that's a font called Gemini. The upper case I in the original Westminster font based in the MICR numerals has a taller base and the "finger" is offset to the side. Gemini is like a derivative of a derivative.
The font looks like that, with broad and narrow sections, so that simpler magnetic readers could read the routing and account numbers printed in magnetic tape at the bottom of checks.
I think it's interesting how the MICR style fonts became sci-fi-ish, used to present a modern or forward looking image, though now they have almost a retro-futurist feel.
The ability of humans to recognize letters despite big differences between font styles probably is based on some very basic neuro stuff, like edge detectors.
The "micr" font is called E13B. And the characters are designed such that the first derivative of the horizontal is unique for each one.
A read head (much like a cassette tape head) would glide across them and generate an analog signal much like an audio tape. Except that this "tape" is moving between 75-300 inches per second.
Typical analog micr readers would use delay lines with taps at various points to sample the signal. Then they'd use analog logic (i.e. op amps) to determine which one of the patterns matched best.
Digital micr started to take over in the '80s, and would quantize the incoming waveform and do all that stuff digitally. What used to be called AGC was now "normalization" and pattern matching was called "correlation" (essentially a dot product of what you got and what you were looking for).
[Thank you for indulging me on this trip down memory lane.]
If you'll excuse me, anachronisms are a pet peeve of mine.
The Victorian age was long over by the time W.O. Bentley made his first motor car, which was gasoline powered despite W.O.'s apprenticeship with a railroad. Bentley didn't make his first automobile until 1920, which was even after the Edwardian period.
I'll see your arsenic wallpaper and raise you radium watch dials, which were used well into the 1960s.
Probably a generations-long cumulative effect of lead, asbestos, Various Chemicals of Wonder, and more recently microplastics infesting our bloodstream.
I choose to believe the Founders themselves would be horrified, rather than honored, by the idea that their wisdom would be assumed to have been infallible for a quarter millennium. After all, some of their sharpest words were reserved for popes and kings.
The wisest men are usually the *most* cognizant of their own imperfections.
I believe the system of government they devised is among the best ever created, but nothing is perfect, and while I obviously don’t agree with every change that’s been made, overall I think trying to govern a 21st century republic with an unchanging 18th century document is worse on balance.
Jack’s last statement is true: if we let anyone in this day and age tinker with the Constitution, everything from DEI to every other perverse notion imaginable would be fair game, and it would probably be just fine for people with more traditional norms and values to literally be shot dead in the street at noon on Thursday without penalty!
"if we let anyone in this day and age tinker with the Constitution, everything from DEI to every other perverse notion imaginable would be fair game, and it would probably be just fine for people with more traditional norms and values to literally be shot dead in the street at noon on Thursday without penalty."
with all due respect, that simply isn't true. "tinkering with" or amending with the constitution requires the approval of said amendment by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate or a constitutional convention if called for by two-thirds of the states. any measure passing such action then requires ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures.
not one thing you mentioned would clear any one of those hurdles when we can't even agree on basic facts like who won the 2020 election.
I realize you were (probably) offering hyperbole, but the fact remains that tinkering with the constitution is, rightly, a difficult process.
It can change anytime. All you need is to follow the process in the Constitution for amendment exactly the same way the first ten and subsequent amendments were passed. This is vastly preferable to some tyrant in a robe simply deciding it's changed by his decree.
Exactly. This is what drives me nuts. “The Constitution is outdated and must evolve!” Okay, go ahead! There’s a method to do so. If that method isn’t working for you, maybe it’s because the need to change isn’t a need at all.
"Compare and contrast the US constitution with the laws of the Medes and the Persians" might make a good exam question for young Americans. Perhaps they are already asked it - I wouldn't know, not having the privilege of being American.
Let me tell you two words you can get through a full sixteen years of American education, including a stretch in the Ivies, without ever reading:
"Medes"
and
"Persians".
Now, they'll hit you with a "trans" in Grade 2, and an "intersex" in Grade 4, and a "cock-and-ball torture" in Grade 9, but you'll never waste any time wondering what happened in the Middle East before 1951.
Daniel 6:8 "Now, oh King, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according the the laws of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not." Essentially, The King is annointed by God; God is infallible, therefore the King, being anointed by God can also not be wrong. Therefore any law passed by the King cannot be wrong, and if it cannot be wrong it can't be changed. This caused them a few problems when "events, dear boy, events" intervened. The Founding Fathers knew this, which is why the Constitution may be amended. I am not sure they anticipated judicial overreach, but those were different times and people knew their place.
I have not had this discussion in this context, but I did have it in terms of the Catholic Church for the same reason, the Pope is appointed by God and therefore also infallible. I went to a Catholic university but as a pseudo-Lutheran/non Catholic Christian? Of course I had some opinions.
But he has a great voice. He can be leading or in the background of a song and his singing makes it better. I’m convinced cheese, bacon, and Michael McDonald enhanced everything.
Lol. It’s a song about a woman so by default it’s not like Yes. Or Rush after Neil joined.
A guy runs into a woman from his past that he was in love with but can’t see that he was nothing to her, and nobody can convince him otherwise. It’s “Just My Imagination (Running Away With Me) without the self-awareness.
"Got rich and went to my high school reunion. Ran into my crush. She never knew I existed...until this side of an ugly divorce, three kids and 60 extra pounds. Took every bit of class I had to NOT say, "Oh, so NOW I'm good enough for you.'"
There were some major mistakes in how things work, however. The electoral college was just one of them--although I understand where it came from.
And there should have been term limits for Supreme Court justices, and there should have been a process for getting rid of bad justices, people like the insurrectionist, Alito.
I could go on and on. Nonetheless, it is impressive how seriously most people in positions of power in our country took their jobs until the last eight years... Or maybe the last 24 years. Bush V. Gore was a travesty by the Supreme Court, and Alito and Clarence Thomas make a mockery of that institution.
the Senate Majority Leader also should be required to adhere to the process for nominating justices rather than picking and choosing the most opportune time for his preferred president to do so.
In retrospect, I'm ashamed of myself for supporting that at the time, doubly so after Cocaine Mitch rammed Coney Barrett through even closer to the 2020 election than Garland's Borked nomination.
The electoral college was appropriate when we started out--as a body like the European Unioin--but we evolved in such a way that it's now totally inappropriate.
With all respect, this is fear-mongering bullshit. “The tyranny of democracy” is the sort of repulsive, pull-the-ladder-up elitism that we would all detest were it not pounded into our heads as part of our civil religion since we were children.
The electoral college was a cynical compromise even in its time. Nothing more. Republicans still defend it because it’s the only way they can win the presidency now. It’s the same thing with all the 17th Amendment talk, it’s a disingenuous ploy to claw back Senate seats via gerrymandered state legislature majorities. If the election outcomes were flipped, these “constitutional scholars” on the right would be singing a different tune.
Take a step back and think about what a horrible argument “protecting ourselves from people we don’t like” is, because that’s what a lot of this boils down to.
'If the election outcomes were flipped, these “constitutional scholars” on the right would be singing a different tune.'
That's the nature of partisan politics. My concern is simply this: California has more votes than the 21 least populous states, combined. The top nine states in the Union have more people than the next 41.
Ask yourself: What's the cost of getting a single vote in Vermont vs. the cost of getting one in California? Where would you buy a billboard? Where would you travel? If the interests of Vermont conflict with those of California -- hell, if the interests of 19 low-population states conflict with those of California -- where would your influence most profitably fall?
The minute we go national popular vote for the president and the senate, you will erase 20 states and 40 million people from the conversation, entirely. Expect those people to change their opinion about the value of being Americans.
Another argument I saw about the electoral college the other day was, and I am restating here, that shouldn't people who grow our food have just as much say as the people who live in cities?
Do the bottom 41 states contribute as equally to the GDP? No, and that is okay, the electoral college isn't supposed to represent equality. California does grow a lot of food.
If you're thinking I'm a leftist, you're somewhat mistaken. I think we need to tighten the borders, deport illegal immigrants, and reduce legal immigration down to no more than equal to the numbers of people who emigrate annually (around 200,000 I think). Driving--my favorite non-social activity--has gotten steadily more difficult and unpleasant over the past 30 years all over the country, due to the ongoing population explosion, which is driven mostly by mass immigration, and the Census Bureau projects another 75 million over the next 40 years, equivalent to three and 3/4 New York states, 90% of that due to mass immigration.
I am against DEI, and all the nonsense that goes along with that.
I AM in favor of reproductive freedom, unions, and I oppose tax cuts for the wealthy, which hurt the economy, and those of us who are not wealthy, and I oppose charging prison inmates for telephone calls and other things that interfere with their keeping up with their loved ones and close friends, as I believe rehabilitation works better than punishment, and enabling the maintenance of close ties to family and friends is helpful for the former. .
“ and I oppose tax cuts for the wealthy, which hurt the economy, and those of us who are not wealthy”
Well given that the wealthy pay almost all of (Federal) taxes outside of FICA*, who else can even get a tax cut? You can’t cut from nothing, and as Romney pointed out to his detriment, ~47% pay nothing or less (numbers need to be updated).
*FICA not really being a tax as much as you’re paying into a specific program which shouldn’t be used for anything else, but, you know.
I just wish we could all agree on a realistic tax rate. Personally, I think the government taking over 50% of someone's earned money is complete and utter bullshit. 35% doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me if a little bit high. I get to pay 35% when warren buffet gets to pay 23.98% because his is investment income somewhat baffles. Why don't we just split the difference and make it all 32%? The answer is graft and job security (for me)
We had a 90% highest tax rate in the 1950s, and our country was prospering in a way that we haven't prospered in the last 40-plus years, when tax rates were knocked way down on the wealthiest. In fact, general American prosperity has always fallen when the wealthiest get big tax breaks.
Highest tax rates have been above 50% in Finland, and around there in other Scandinavian countries, and once again, Scandinavian countries were in the top four (Finland at #1) in happiness, in the latest world happiness survey. The US fell from #15 to #23, although people over 60 in our country scored higher than others--I'm guessing because of Medicare and Social Security.
Your belief that a Victorian age is coming, is much more hopeful than my mindset. The odds of any of it improving anytime soon are slim to none in my eyes. Thankfully I highly doubt I'll be around to see the end when it happens.
I think there are cycles to humanity. Technology is enabling faster cycles. I like to think an opposing Victorian / Renaissance response is coming. But who's to say how bad it will before that?
Or maybe I've watched too many Sci-Fi movies; this all reminds me of a Love, Death & Robots short called: Ice Age. (On NETFLIX!!! Consuummm....)
Well… just a postulation, but if all the men are leaning right, and all the women are leaning left, we just have to wait till all of their clocks start ticking and then they’ll all wife themselves out and become de facto right wingers, and once they start raising those kids they’ll all start going to church, and then we’ll be a nation of Victorians.
I've always thought of "originalism" not to mean the Constitution of 1787 is perfect but that the Constitution should be interpreted narrowly and then procedures should be followed to pass laws or make amendments as the country changes. The framers themselves provided processes for making laws and amendments so they obviously didn't think future changes wouldn't occur.
Passing a law or ratifying an amendment (theoretically) takes a large political buy-in from the country. Which I think is good because laws are a big deal. A judge declaring "actually Article 1 Section 8 means FedEx is illegal" is a lot different.
Principles of limited government and individual liberty are timeless. To understand the Framers is to understand what they wrote and the times in which they wrote. I expect changing the constitution moving forward will make it worse, not better.
Orban isn't far right however. Regulating borders is a sovereign right of all nations. Defunding the alphabet mafia in the universities is also well within any governments purview as well as encouraging young women to have more children.. cos you know, without the latter, there is no future for any of us and it's all moot.
He has also won 4 elections in a row and not (or certainly not entirely) in the manner of Putin. Something that gripes the bien pensant EU bureaucracy. "Compare and contrast the US constitution with that of the EU" would make a good question for the young people of the EU. Clue - it's 15 times longer and nobody reads it.
The EU Constitution, as I understand it, is simply a long legal document that justifies the consolidation of power among unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
And they want to bring Europe here, along with advancing every perversion here and yet to be, along with DEI, and the right to execute any and all traditional-thinking people at noon on Thursday without penalty!
Many European countries were much less enthusiastic about COVID Vaxxing (like not recommending it all for years) than the US and Canada, and Sweden has a lot different views about immigration and gender transitions than it did a few years ago.
And the Tavistock Report is censored in the US but informing policy in the UK (no longer in the EU, but still Europe's Toorie).
Bill Maher (who apparently now is some sort of a "far-Right White Supremacist neo-Nazi") had a piece about this about a month ago:
I took two of the Janssen vaxes, just to make sure I had something. Those were “normal.”
I don’t trust the mRNA vaccines any further than I can throw them! So when they pulled the Janssen pokes from the USA, I’m done! I’ve had the ‘Rona three times, and each time has been less taxing than the previous. Just a nasty flu, minus the gastrointestinal fuckery. (After a day, if I was well enough to drive, I’d go to McDonald’s to sate an ungodly Big Mac attack! No issues! 👍😋)
Agreed; this aligns with my preferred characterization of originalism, from Stephen Sachs: that the reason originalism requires knowing what the law originally meant is because we follow the principle that the law stays the same until it is lawfully changed.
"Originalism as adherence to the Founders' law is complicated and simple at the same time. It’s extremely complicated, because we have to know the content of the Founders' law in its full glory -- interpretive rules, context, rules of change, and so on. But it's also very simple, because it makes the basis for originalism very easy to understand: our law stays the same until it's lawfully changed. That ought to be the originalist's slogan, because originalism is a theory of legal change."
The fundamental issue with the constitution and its interpretation is neither the document or any perceived limitations of the founders but rather our abandonment of the amendment process. Once the warren court started finding emanations and penumbras hiding everywhere there was no longer any need to amend the constitution. This also meant that our Republic effectively became, at least partially, dedicated to the nomination of 9 solons who would dictate every matter of our lives.
MotoAmerica's Superbike class continues to entertain with Cameron Beaubier, Cameron Petersen, Jake Gagne, Sean Dylan Kelly, Josh Herrin, and Bobby Fong at the sharp end of things this at Barber this weekend. The Warhorse Ducatis fell off after race 1 which is strange as I would have expected better given how strong Herrin was last year.
Race 1 with colder and overcast conditions started with Cameron B making serious time on the rest of the pack only to have the rear end step out and, thankfully, low side as he tried to break the group. Nice to see him crash without a concussion. Cameron Petersen led the race to the end and picked up big points in what must be a big morale boost after all the surgeries and missing much of last season. Jake Gagne would finish second, and Herrin eked out third ahead of Sean Kelly.
Races 2 and 3 in better conditions had Cameron B dominate the field and win by 3+ seconds in both races. Cameron P finished third in race 2 behind Sean Kelly. In race 3 Cameron P was well back in the field after losing a footpeg after a lowside. Jake Gagne reportedly suffered arm pump and he started well in races 2 and 3 only to fall off after a few laps and run mid-pack. Bobby Fong finished 5th in race 2 and second in race 3 so his team must be working set up magic and learning fast. Sean Kelly finished third behind Fong.
In other news - I confirmed today my suspicion that the ST1100 has (minimum one) leaking fork seals and will attempt to remediate with the cheap option (scrape dirt out of the seal) before pulling forks off a motorcycle for the first time ever. The seal sets were reportedly replaced in 2014 according to an invoice so maybe they're just old and due.
I think many miss the point. It’s not that the Founding Fathers put together a document that would have any answer to any possible question in a future they couldn’t imagine. Rather, What they created was a very robust framework to protect the people from the idiots who would try to control their lives. They knew that there would always be a group who would try to take control, and limit others pursuit of happiness. So the built a country that, more then any other, would limit the power of the potential despots they knew would be coming. And as such, they succeeded more than they could have imagined.
This. It’s not about conservative vs progress. You can have all the progress you want but there are first principles for freedom that the founders articulated well. If you don’t like the constitution as written, there are mechanisms in place to change it. Have at it. Good luck getting it done in a country of 400 million. There are always opposing forces in any endeavor. The goal is to keep one side from dominating. It does generate friction though. We see that daily.
Following is a partial list of the fundamental differences between Americanism and the alien philosophies that oppose it. Feel free to add to this list:
Americanism holds that government and law should be negative -- that is, that their purpose is to thwart evil and prevent the violation of individual rights; thus, law and government have a decidedly limited scope. Alien alternatives view the purpose of government and law as doing good things for people, thereby conferring upon government and law a virtually unlimited scope.
Americanism believes that government should act as an impartial umpire tasked with upholding impartial rules and letting the most talented and industrious reap the economic rewards of their efforts. The alien counterfeit believes in an intrusive, activist government that becomes the dominant economic player and picks winners and losers.
Americanism believes that individual rights are primary and government power secondary (see 9th and 10th Amendments). Alien philosophy believes that government power must supersede individual rights in the name of a "great" or "just" society.
Americanism holds that all men are created equal in the eyes of God -- that everyone is entitled to receive equal legal and governmental protection of their rights. Alien philosophy holds that nature or God -- depending on who its proponent believes is the creator of mankind -- blew it by making us different, and therefore it is up to "enlightened" (read: elitist) government leaders to remedy the defective natural order by making everyone economically equal.
Thus, in Americanism "justice" means equal treatment by the law, not unequal treatment designed to produce greater equality of result. The alien counterfeit version of justice is a corrupt nullity under which "justice" means violating the property rights of some Americans in order to bestow benefits on others.
In other words, Americanism is predicated on the rule of law -- the blind and impartial administration of justice that cares not whether a person is rich or poor, black or white, strong or weak. By contrast, the alien philosophy calls for a system of privileges -- that is, discriminatory laws that rob Peter to pay Paul.
Americanism holds that the legitimate way for individuals to prosper is to earn a living by providing something of value for others, thereby producing the wealth that one consumes. The alien antipode asserts that it is legitimate for individuals to enrich themselves via the political process whereby one may lay claim to wealth that others have produced. The American believes in making wealth, the alien, in taking it.
Americanism respects profits that result from creating wealth for others. The alien inversion rewards political "rent-seeking" behavior, whereby special interests exploit the political process to redistribute wealth and enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Americanism honors private property and upholds voluntary economic exchange as a fundamental human right. The alien attitude is to disparage and abrogate property rights while asserting the moral superiority of the involuntary exchanges effected by government transfer programs (of which there are now 2,235 at the federal level) thereby exalting the value system of criminals and institutionalizing theft as the modus operandi of government.
Americanism's fundamental tenet is that citizens of the Republic are the masters and government the servant. The alien philosophy throughout its long and tragic history exalts government elites as the masters directing the affairs of the people subservient to it.
Americanism includes gratitude for the many blessings we have enjoyed as Americans and, proceeding from a continuing basis of individual rights, a desire to use our liberty to attain a more perfect realization of our ideals. Aliens judge America harshly for having been imperfect and prefer a fundamental transformation into a "brave new world" in which individual rights and the "chains of the constitution" are the great obstacles to their power-hungry, utopian plans for us.
As I said above, it's the difference of where the rights come from. Do they come from "God" and are protected by the government, or are they "granted" by the government?
This is part of the problem. The bill of rights was put into place to protect the citizenry from the government.
I was listening to a lawyer on a podcast, and he made one of the most salient points I have ever heard:
Our constitution was written with the idea that rights come from God (creator, naturally born..etc), and that the bill of rights in part protects those rights from the government. In European countries, rights generally come from the government, and are protected and granted by the government.
I never understood this years ago, but this is why many people across political ideologies want the government to grant rights or restrict rights because they feel that is the government's responsibility, when our framers never intended this.
Because many european countries believe that rights come from government, they far to often believe in positive rights, where as our constitution is centered far more around negative rights. Our citizenry, in general, has no idea the difference between the two, and in most cases, simply don't care. The concepts of positive and negative rights are an important understanding when looking at our constitutional framing compared to other countries and where the ideas of positive rights originated.
That is it. Not only to protect the people from the government, but ensure that both sides understood that the people were above the government. They allowed the government to govern. Elected representatives were the servants of the people. Not a view that seems popular in Washington today.
The Bill of Rights was only intended to protect the citizens from the federal government, which had little power over the citizenry then. It did not apply to the states, which very much did!
That’s what separation of church and state is supposed to mean. If people don’t understand it, I think it’s fair to blame schools. I was incorrectly taught for years that it meant religion was to have no influence on politics and that the government just shouldn’t stop people from wacky religious stuff if they did that on their own time.
There is no 'separation of church and state' in the constitution. That whole concept was fabricated from whole cloth in the 60's. The 1st amendment only says that there can be NO 'state religion'. That's all it says.
Now there was a court case a decade or so earlier wherein the Supreme Court decided to give a written letter the same force of law as the Constitution. Why those Court members weren't impeached and thrown out of office is beyond me, as they completely violated their oaths and this country.
IMHO, the writers of the Constitution had no need to know what technology in the future would be. Because it's not in anyway relevant. The Constitution is about -people- and about how the government would -rule- those people. I find that most of the people who question the Constitution don't even know what it SAYS.
The First amendment is misquoted by everyone.
The Second is misinterpreted constantly - for all that it's incredibly clear.
And then we have high priests (why else does the supreme court wear robes?) who examine 'penumbras' and make constitutional decisions based on letters that aren't even a part of the Constitution.
The Constitution was written to be simple to understand. If you have an 8th grade education, you can understand it. It takes a Ivy College education to bend it into a pretzel that makes no sense at all, and the same education to think those contortions are legal.
Last of all, we haven't been following it for decades. All of those regulations made with the power of law? Specifically BANNED by the constitution. FISA Courts? Banned.
There is just so much that's been done, and no one knows enough to care, or if they do, they either still don't care, or understand just what might happen to them if they do.
The obvious problem is that there are people in various branches of government who are making decisions about how the "law" applies to technologies that they don't even understand.
Any thoughts on how to roll back the infinite stretching of the commerce clause? By currently accepted legal precedent, it covers ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.
Maybe stop voting for left wing communists? So we can hopefully get some Constitutionalists in the Supreme Court who will go back and throw all of those stupid rulings out?
If leftists interpreted the Second Amendment the way the do the First, there would be legal scholars insisting the ownership of machine guns was mandatory.
It's the separation of church and state in the first the leftists lie about. It's not in the 1st amendment anywhere. But no one reads the actual amendment anymore, so they've changed what it says every time they talk about it.
Thanks! I didn’t have the pace of the other EP cars last weekend, but the Sunday race was one of attrition. Two of the cars from the beginning of the weekend didn’t take the start, and about halfway through the race the car that was running second had a spin. Though his car looked unscathed, I don’t think he continued the race.
I had a great battle with a CRX in another class, went from 25th to 13th overall, and cut about 2.5 seconds off my previous best lap time. Much better result than my Saturday electrical short DNF, and all in all a great weekend.
Nope. I change my mind on a lot of things. Im far less right than i used to be and 10x more anti corporation than i was as a teen. Theres a few things i absolutely refuse to change my opinion on but clown world modern politics mostly isnt it. Gave up libertarianism with ten minutes in the real world and the effects of legalization of pot make me go back to making it hard to get.
re: legalization - Isn't that sad? I thought legalization would simply make it easier for responsible people to enjoy pot in moderation. Nope... it means I have to dodge "pot zombies" doing 27 in a 45 on my way to work. 8:30 in the morning, they're already stoned to the gills.
If you're high all the time, it is no longer an escape from reality. It IS your reality. How is that any fun at all?
Second hand smoke kills children! What about all the marijuana smoke everywhere? Perfectly healthy. I'd rather smell cigarette smoke on everything than pot. It's awful and it's everywhere.
My theory is that the Left wants to ban smoking because it harms the lungs & causes cancer, and because they regard your body as state property, they see it as equivalent to vandalizing a police car or a courthouse.
But marijuana destroys your mind, which lines up nicely with their desire for the easily-controlled drones their ant-colony utopia is populated by.
Guyssmoke/vape in the bathrooms and stairways of our shared office building. I'm not going to pretend I've never had a drink at lunch occasionally but I don't get drunk at lunch. These people are high constantly from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep. And they're dumb as bricks for it. Weed makes you stupid.
We have a set of “conversation starter” cards on the (informal) dining room table, and they’ve actually been great for talking to our kids (7 and almost 12). Tonight’s card was “what hurts your feelings and why.” My kids said some things, and then I said very little hurts my feelings, because in order for someone to affect my feelings I first have to care about what they think. And then I said the majority of people about whom I care what they think are sitting right here around this table.
I wish! Sorry I am not one of the cool kids. 1973 V-4. Runs and drives and my son and I are slowly working on mechanical reliability. Fun project together.
Bob the Saab. Named for the prior owner.
One day I will join the cool kids and be the scourge of the HOA leaving plumes of smoke.
Sorry I sent a message earlier and it looks like it god posted to a different thread
i think a better cadre of leadership might emerge or rather resurface if the most competent people were actually allowed to take the reigns instead of shunned into obscurity and placated by easy vices and dead end jobs
i dont like the notion that the good men are all gone and we will have to be saved by others
there are men right now that given the chance can right a substantial amount of wrongs that exist now and do so with lightning speed
as a canadian im utterly furious at just how bad you guys are being strangled by people who hate you
“ as a canadian im utterly furious at just how bad you guys are being strangled by people who hate you”
That’s interesting because my perspective from down here in the US is that you guys have it much much worse. Or, more scarily, you guys are 5-10 years ahead of us. I know you don’t necessarily have an equivalent to our 1A and 2A, but those are fundamental rights that Trudeau seems to want to destroy. Maybe my perspective is warped though, I dunno.
We codified our freedoms in black-letter law and STILL we've had to play whack-a-mole with the socialists trying tirelessly to snuff them out for the past quarter-millennium.
I can’t help but agree with your conclusion, while also agreeing with all four of your arguments.
I think the wrench is the works (or maybe the foot on the accelerator pedal) is the force of judicial review. The founders KNEW we’d want and need to change the Constitution, so they established a mechanism to do so. But we don’t even try to use it anymore, we cry to mommy (the court) to reinterpret it for us.
I'll be echoing some other commenters here, I'm sure.
The Constitution, as all forms of government, is alive in the sense of interacting with a given culture and people (or context if we want to be broad). Liberia didn't work and it wasn't because they had a radically different Constitution from the United States'. What they worked out was fairly robust - and - due to the way it was formed it contained the seeds (or at least lacked guardrails) for its own destruction. As we drift toward direct democracy the power of voting blocs/buying votes with gibs becomes increasingly apparent. Without limits on who gets to vote being enshrined there is real danger toward ochlocracy which rolls into something like oligarchy where who can buy the most votes is the real power center. As always, lots of factors play into this but it's right there in the stories over time from cities to states to the federal government.
Moreover, the Constitution does not guarantee the context and it cannot address every possible context. Humanity may not change in terms of what motivates people, but the acculturation of a people, shifting expectations, the relentless beat of some technologies (not limited to the smartphone) and techniques, mean that it seems not entirely well suited to what we have today. If they saw what was going on today I expect there would have been much more explicit limits put in place and a lot less "lol figure it out u have the power." The flexibility is a blessing and a curse because it depends on who is implementing it.
This was way more dragging on the Constitution then I thought, I think it's fine but considering it apart from everything else is a fool's errand.
Theory Three (which is likely to get me metaphorically stoned):
The Framers were aristocrats of British (and Dutch) lineage who had scores of slaves (Thomas Jefferson, for example, owned over 600 slaves over his lifetime) that were directed to a number of wide ranging tasks that have been erased from history books. Being as they were ultimately British, they were in the business of legend building to justify the ill gotten wealth that was bequeathed to them. So, they put a large score of those slaves through a strict classical education and then set them to writing the tomes and drawing up the plans for the architecture that have been used to create the idea that their masters were great minds beyond our own understanding, when in reality they were scoundrels in fancy clothes.
If the founders could teach sub saharran africans to be aristocrats, we should do everything in our power to invent time travel and have them run our modern education system.
"According to the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute (MPI), Nigerians in the United States are the most educated immigrant group, with 61 percent holding at least a bachelor's degree, compared with 31 percent of the total foreign-born population and 32 percent of the US-born population."
They weren't the aristocrats, just like most of the intelligentsia today is not a part of the 1%. They were the minds to put to task by the aristocrats.
So you think they were bringing over people (sorry, I'm not sure if you agree with that classification) they considered bottom of the barrel? Why would they do that? And I'm sure being put into slavery for a couple hundred years wouldn't put the next few generations a bit behind the rest of society, it's all genetics!
well yes being a slave means you were likely captured and made a slave by better africans
to put a finer point on it i believe there is a definite cognitive difference between the slaves they had at that point time and a nigerian that has the mental firepower to make enough money to emmigrate to the states and pursue a proper education
I worked with immigrants from Nigeria when I lived in Chicago. I have great respect for them, certainly lots more than for the average black person native to Chicago.
The Nigerians I worked with were law-abiding, honest cabbies and retail clerks who must've worked at least two jobs and were devout Catholics who spoke proper English.
Well then I guess we're both getting stoned, because I'm inclined to agree.
The idea that the Founders were such uniquely brilliant men that foresaw the future challenges of the nation is bullshit American mythology. The reality is that these men were as flawed as anyone. Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the hallowed line "all men are created equal," was fucking his slaves. And let's not forget the Three-Fifths Compromise that was used to get the slave states to sign on to the Constitution - note that Native Americans were explicitly excluded as being worth even 3/5 of a human being. I think it's unfair to altogether damn the dead by modern standards, but it can't be glossed over and explained away, either.
I don't think it's unfair from any perspective to damn anyone who would enslave another human being, but I guess I may be in the minority in that regard. That's why I'll get a little more controversial and say that I believe the whole history of Rome was a fiction created to justify the belief in a stratification of people based on some indescribable inherent greatness, rather than circumstance, and ultimately justify slavery. It's why the stewards of Roman history who have taught it to the world as being a shining example of mankind emanate from Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard. Also, having your family lineage interrupted by a period of enslavement seems like a surefire way to throw the following generations out of whack, which can then be used to point to your inferiority.
I believe we need to stop being governed. Allow families to reform. Families not in the nuclear sense but in the full intergenerational, multigenerational sense that has been purposely broken up so that we are dependent on this system that wants us all as slaves or dead.
wasnt the 3/5 thing to do with not allowing the votes of slaves to be counted as one but rather less than one to prevent an outcome of sorts and having nothing to do with inherent worth as a person
3/5 was to prevent the Southern states from being dominated in the House by the Northern voter numbers. That was the only way they'd ratify the Constitution.
Probably. It was the North that wanted to dominate the House by excluding the slaves in the population count.
That would never happen these days would it? Ir's not like criminal aliens are being counted for Representation purposes in order to dominate the House.
Politics is kind of like making sausage, you might like the outcome, but you really don't want to look to closely at the process. The 3/5's was a compromise that doesn't look good to people in this day and age but was necessary to get the Southern States to sign on.
Exactly. Our best educated guess is that the species homo sapiens has been around for ~270,000 years, and it was only about 500 years ago that it began to dawn on a few of us that owning one another might be universally Wrong, and it took another 350 years for that idea to become mainstream.
"Jefferson and Madison were BAD because they enslaved people...I am GOOD because I would never have done that." Right.
And yet it is perceived as some form of original sin of solely Christian Europeans and used as a cudgel to extort concessions and impose punishment, to include the invasion of their homelands.
I've read an hypothesis that one of the origins of slavery was humanitarian, an alternative to killing off a defeated tribe. Can't remember the source.
free people can regulate themselves wondrously. attacking them because of slavery--long gone--tries to camouflage the magnificent accomplishments of america after slavery was abolished
Gandhi was a piece of garbage as well, and I don't think most Indians have a high opinion of him. His dad was a tax collector for the British Crown and Gandhi himself went to law school in London. Seems more like a controllable face put on top of actual civil unrest. Anyway, I'll shut up now.
Here’s a question about slavery that even I, noted outspoken uncensored asshole, am afraid to bring up in any company:
Given the propensity of rape (or at least affairs) between masters and slaves, isn’t a large number of people who are descended from slaves also likely descended from slave owners? Wouldn’t the average slave descendent who thinks they are entitled to reparations owe those reparations to themselves given that they are also descended from slave owners?
It’s funny, Shapiro and his ilk cry about how Universities spend their money yet they aren’t shy about demanding tens of thousands to speak on your campus.
I cannot speak for every University, but for ours (a trade school masquerading as a University) more than half of Shapiro’s fee was funded via our activity fund. The remainder (around $5k) was kicked in by local businesses. This was all spearheaded by the “Conservative” student org.
The cynic in me believes that these Conservative campus movements are mostly astroturfing as a way to funnel money to these grifters by way of the speaking fees. If a school does not approve the funding, they get to cry about being canceled.
A few years after the Shapiro visit, the school booked Rachel Dolezal for a speaking engagement. After a bit of public outrage (on both sides, I might add), her speech was canceled.
If that were 100 percent true, then why would he and his company invest in creating other content?
Is he or podcasters like him NOT allowed to make money? I'm not sure I see the point. I see alot of hate against him for hate's sake. Don't like his politics? Fine, I don't either.
One, he doesn’t independently run that company. Two, they only tolerate people voicing opinions within certain bounds. Just like any traditional media organization.
It's within the realm of possibility that you used the lower-case initial capital letter to ladle on a little more disrespect; but, as a dear friend and colleague, I do beg that you give serious consideration to using a Capital "Q" for Quisling.
Not that he is currently in a position to care, or to complain.
I have read a huge amount of 20th-c. history. Let's call it an obsession. One of the episodes I recall is taking a volume down off the shelves, consulting its index, and then happening upon something I was not looking for.
The memoir of a young Catholic priest who had been kidnapped by the French Resistance, so that he could give the Last Rites to a family they were about to murder, for collaborating.
The charge was that the parents profited from their daughter's sleeping with Wehrmacht officers. The priest was brought forward, and the prisoners were given the opportunity to make a Confession and to receive Extreme Unction. The parents went for it, while the daughter sneered at them. They then all were shot.
The young priest later memorialized, "That was a real shame, because she was very beautiful."
OK, I get it. You get Ordained, but you never really stop being a French guy.
I've hated Shapiro since he rage-quit Breitbart because he wanted to white knight over that reporter that claimed Corey Lewandowski (Trump's then-campaign manger) assaulted her.
I've since done a 180 on my opinion of Breitbart and Trump, but everything Shapiro has done in the ensuing years has reaffirmed my belief that he's an abominable, two-faced whore.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. It's also not the universities who pay for it directly, it's some group or organization who already has that money set aside.
There is alot I like about what Ben Shapiro says, theres also a whole lot I don't like. He's a snake, but why?
Here's the thing I do applaud the DailyWire for even though I don't give them a penny. Far too long conservatives whined and moaned about not having TV shows or anything cultural. At least they are putting their money where there mouth is, like or hate their politics. I know I'm tired of the complaining. It's the singular reason I never liked Rush or Bill O'Reilly.
id be tempted to call most of the dailywire cast neocons or rinos and i dont think im alone in that and watching their reactions when jews or isreal is brought up is
I cannot speak to how every University operates, but for the ones I do have direct knowledge of it works like this:
1) Each student pays into a “Student Activity Fund” or similar
2) Part of that fund is earmarked for various student orgs
3) Student orgs are issued an annual budget
4) Certain “premier” organizations have larger budget and more stringent requirements (these are the ones booking bigger names)
5) Other orgs can submit formal approval for budget increases to book speakers if they meet certain criteria. This increase usually has a hard cap involved.
So yes, they have the money “set aside” so to speak. They can also solicit outside sponsors. But at the end of the day, the students are paying the bulk of it one way or another. Every formal student org runs this way, from the Campus Brony Club to the Formula SAE team.
One thing that isn’t taught anymore, because people actually understanding it would make the powers that be violently shake in their boots. It is the exact opposite of how they are trying to have people see the world, and the role of government. It’s likely the most radical document ever written for the founding of a country:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”
The existential problem is that the Declaration of Independence does not have the power of law, it is just pretty words.
A lovely Packard, so to speak, on jack stands in an apple orchard, but with no wheels or tires. No way to get traction.
ciao,
john (I did earn a law degree at Vanderbilt in 1979. And I wrote Poetry at Brown under (not physically under, mind you) the Poet in Residence. That's where the above image comes from.)
The Declaration is an inspiration and an exhortation, but it has no legal effect at present. One could get very picky and say that the Treaty of Paris retroactively conferred upon the Declaration that it at one time had the legal effect of separating the Colonies from Britain, but I think that that is wishful thinking.
Bottom line, today, there is no section of the Declaration that you can take into a Federal court and assert as a basis for some sort of legal remedy.
"nobody involved with this has any idea why the font would look like that, really"
What? The "I" looking like a middle finger? Pretty sure they did.
I think that's a font called Gemini. The upper case I in the original Westminster font based in the MICR numerals has a taller base and the "finger" is offset to the side. Gemini is like a derivative of a derivative.
The font looks like that, with broad and narrow sections, so that simpler magnetic readers could read the routing and account numbers printed in magnetic tape at the bottom of checks.
Thank you!
Leave it to Ronnie to drop some knowledge on an entirely flippant comment! Thanks!
Thank you for the kind words. Because of embroidery I've been working with fonts for about 30 years. Also, I'm probably on the spectrum.
I'd say you're in good company. This place should be called Autistic Car Fanatics.
A font of knowledge!
I will always associate that font with Mattel Electronics - as seen on the "Auto Race" and "Football" handheld games I had in 1977.
I think it's interesting how the MICR style fonts became sci-fi-ish, used to present a modern or forward looking image, though now they have almost a retro-futurist feel.
The ability of humans to recognize letters despite big differences between font styles probably is based on some very basic neuro stuff, like edge detectors.
Did you know that you can buy a boxed set of the Voyager recordings? https://www.ebay.com/itm/154099503946
Ackshually...
The "micr" font is called E13B. And the characters are designed such that the first derivative of the horizontal is unique for each one.
A read head (much like a cassette tape head) would glide across them and generate an analog signal much like an audio tape. Except that this "tape" is moving between 75-300 inches per second.
Typical analog micr readers would use delay lines with taps at various points to sample the signal. Then they'd use analog logic (i.e. op amps) to determine which one of the patterns matched best.
Digital micr started to take over in the '80s, and would quantize the incoming waveform and do all that stuff digitally. What used to be called AGC was now "normalization" and pattern matching was called "correlation" (essentially a dot product of what you got and what you were looking for).
[Thank you for indulging me on this trip down memory lane.]
https://www.digitalcheck.com/battle-micr-fonts-better-e13b-cmc7/
BTW: cmc7 was a lot easier to implement. You had 9 expected peaks, and all you had to do was determine which two were missing.
I for one welcome the return of the Victorian age; steam powered Bentleys, trifle for dessert and green wallpaper made with arsenic. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/victorian-wallpaper-got-its-gaudy-colors-poison-180962709/
Haw-haw toff I say to that! I used to be the curator of a Victorian house museum. That style needs to make a comeback.
not to mention absinthe
Still popular in the French Quarter!
2 outta 3 ain't bad!
As advised by the leading philosopher de nos jours, Mr Meat Loaf. Hats off to your erudition, sire!
If you'll excuse me, anachronisms are a pet peeve of mine.
The Victorian age was long over by the time W.O. Bentley made his first motor car, which was gasoline powered despite W.O.'s apprenticeship with a railroad. Bentley didn't make his first automobile until 1920, which was even after the Edwardian period.
I'll see your arsenic wallpaper and raise you radium watch dials, which were used well into the 1960s.
In any case, I'm not up for wearing a waistcoat.
That's why people went crazy THEN... if only we understood why it happens NOW!
Social media's a good place to start.
Probably a generations-long cumulative effect of lead, asbestos, Various Chemicals of Wonder, and more recently microplastics infesting our bloodstream.
media
GMOs
pesticides
endocrine disruptors
mRNA
acetaminophen / paracetamol use in pregnancy
vaccines combined with acetaminophen / paracetamol
I choose to believe the Founders themselves would be horrified, rather than honored, by the idea that their wisdom would be assumed to have been infallible for a quarter millennium. After all, some of their sharpest words were reserved for popes and kings.
The wisest men are usually the *most* cognizant of their own imperfections.
I believe the system of government they devised is among the best ever created, but nothing is perfect, and while I obviously don’t agree with every change that’s been made, overall I think trying to govern a 21st century republic with an unchanging 18th century document is worse on balance.
Jack’s last statement is true: if we let anyone in this day and age tinker with the Constitution, everything from DEI to every other perverse notion imaginable would be fair game, and it would probably be just fine for people with more traditional norms and values to literally be shot dead in the street at noon on Thursday without penalty!
"if we let anyone in this day and age tinker with the Constitution, everything from DEI to every other perverse notion imaginable would be fair game, and it would probably be just fine for people with more traditional norms and values to literally be shot dead in the street at noon on Thursday without penalty."
with all due respect, that simply isn't true. "tinkering with" or amending with the constitution requires the approval of said amendment by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate or a constitutional convention if called for by two-thirds of the states. any measure passing such action then requires ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures.
not one thing you mentioned would clear any one of those hurdles when we can't even agree on basic facts like who won the 2020 election.
I realize you were (probably) offering hyperbole, but the fact remains that tinkering with the constitution is, rightly, a difficult process.
unless you're a Supreme Court justice, of course.
It can change anytime. All you need is to follow the process in the Constitution for amendment exactly the same way the first ten and subsequent amendments were passed. This is vastly preferable to some tyrant in a robe simply deciding it's changed by his decree.
Exactly. This is what drives me nuts. “The Constitution is outdated and must evolve!” Okay, go ahead! There’s a method to do so. If that method isn’t working for you, maybe it’s because the need to change isn’t a need at all.
Almost like the people who wrote it put a tremendous deal of thought into it.
"Compare and contrast the US constitution with the laws of the Medes and the Persians" might make a good exam question for young Americans. Perhaps they are already asked it - I wouldn't know, not having the privilege of being American.
Let me tell you two words you can get through a full sixteen years of American education, including a stretch in the Ivies, without ever reading:
"Medes"
and
"Persians".
Now, they'll hit you with a "trans" in Grade 2, and an "intersex" in Grade 4, and a "cock-and-ball torture" in Grade 9, but you'll never waste any time wondering what happened in the Middle East before 1951.
I don't think I ever read about the laws of the Medes and Persians. I'm ready for a learning moment; what makes that comparison a good exam question?
Daniel 6:8 "Now, oh King, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according the the laws of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not." Essentially, The King is annointed by God; God is infallible, therefore the King, being anointed by God can also not be wrong. Therefore any law passed by the King cannot be wrong, and if it cannot be wrong it can't be changed. This caused them a few problems when "events, dear boy, events" intervened. The Founding Fathers knew this, which is why the Constitution may be amended. I am not sure they anticipated judicial overreach, but those were different times and people knew their place.
Ah. I have read that but failed to retrieve it. So, divine right of kings?
I have not had this discussion in this context, but I did have it in terms of the Catholic Church for the same reason, the Pope is appointed by God and therefore also infallible. I went to a Catholic university but as a pseudo-Lutheran/non Catholic Christian? Of course I had some opinions.
The truly wise man believes he's a fool who knows nothing.
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason to away."
- Some Guy that Looks like Jack
What, the Bee Gees?
I hate disco.
Ouch. Michael McDonald is not a Gibb brother.
But just as incomprehensible.
But he has a great voice. He can be leading or in the background of a song and his singing makes it better. I’m convinced cheese, bacon, and Michael McDonald enhanced everything.
Sir, between your willful misunderstanding of the Doobie Brothers' later lineup and your open hostility to the Brothers Gibb, you are on THIN ICE.
Thin ice, huh?
Please don't throw me into that briar patch!
Never thought that line made any sense. It’s like Yes lyrics. Whatchya talkin’ ‘bout bro???
Lol. It’s a song about a woman so by default it’s not like Yes. Or Rush after Neil joined.
A guy runs into a woman from his past that he was in love with but can’t see that he was nothing to her, and nobody can convince him otherwise. It’s “Just My Imagination (Running Away With Me) without the self-awareness.
Ha that’s true! Yeah I know what it means it’s just a bit, uh… circumlocutory.
"Got rich and went to my high school reunion. Ran into my crush. She never knew I existed...until this side of an ugly divorce, three kids and 60 extra pounds. Took every bit of class I had to NOT say, "Oh, so NOW I'm good enough for you.'"
The Beatles are #1 on the all-time RIAA charts. The guy at #2 had a song called "Unanswered Prayers" that covered similar themes.
Well said.
There were some major mistakes in how things work, however. The electoral college was just one of them--although I understand where it came from.
And there should have been term limits for Supreme Court justices, and there should have been a process for getting rid of bad justices, people like the insurrectionist, Alito.
I could go on and on. Nonetheless, it is impressive how seriously most people in positions of power in our country took their jobs until the last eight years... Or maybe the last 24 years. Bush V. Gore was a travesty by the Supreme Court, and Alito and Clarence Thomas make a mockery of that institution.
the Senate Majority Leader also should be required to adhere to the process for nominating justices rather than picking and choosing the most opportune time for his preferred president to do so.
I think we should repeal the 17th.
In retrospect, I'm ashamed of myself for supporting that at the time, doubly so after Cocaine Mitch rammed Coney Barrett through even closer to the 2020 election than Garland's Borked nomination.
the electoral college is the savior of the federal nation
The electoral college was appropriate when we started out--as a body like the European Unioin--but we evolved in such a way that it's now totally inappropriate.
Only because it gets in the way of your progressive agenda.
It's more appropriate now than ever. We are NOT a democracy. Want it changed? Get the amendment rolling.
At the moment, the electoral college is all that is keeping the United States from becoming a super-sized version of Baltimore in "The Wire".
With all respect, this is fear-mongering bullshit. “The tyranny of democracy” is the sort of repulsive, pull-the-ladder-up elitism that we would all detest were it not pounded into our heads as part of our civil religion since we were children.
The electoral college was a cynical compromise even in its time. Nothing more. Republicans still defend it because it’s the only way they can win the presidency now. It’s the same thing with all the 17th Amendment talk, it’s a disingenuous ploy to claw back Senate seats via gerrymandered state legislature majorities. If the election outcomes were flipped, these “constitutional scholars” on the right would be singing a different tune.
Take a step back and think about what a horrible argument “protecting ourselves from people we don’t like” is, because that’s what a lot of this boils down to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af-Id_fuXFA
'If the election outcomes were flipped, these “constitutional scholars” on the right would be singing a different tune.'
That's the nature of partisan politics. My concern is simply this: California has more votes than the 21 least populous states, combined. The top nine states in the Union have more people than the next 41.
Ask yourself: What's the cost of getting a single vote in Vermont vs. the cost of getting one in California? Where would you buy a billboard? Where would you travel? If the interests of Vermont conflict with those of California -- hell, if the interests of 19 low-population states conflict with those of California -- where would your influence most profitably fall?
The minute we go national popular vote for the president and the senate, you will erase 20 states and 40 million people from the conversation, entirely. Expect those people to change their opinion about the value of being Americans.
"We should change this process we've had in place for the last few hundred years so you can lose more elections"
Not exactly a great argument. It's not a ploy or a loophole, it was set up that way on purpose.
Another argument I saw about the electoral college the other day was, and I am restating here, that shouldn't people who grow our food have just as much say as the people who live in cities?
Do the bottom 41 states contribute as equally to the GDP? No, and that is okay, the electoral college isn't supposed to represent equality. California does grow a lot of food.
Keep repeating the holy cant.
The real insurrectionists are the ones who want to tear up any facet of government as soon as it stands in the way of the leftist agenda.
If you're thinking I'm a leftist, you're somewhat mistaken. I think we need to tighten the borders, deport illegal immigrants, and reduce legal immigration down to no more than equal to the numbers of people who emigrate annually (around 200,000 I think). Driving--my favorite non-social activity--has gotten steadily more difficult and unpleasant over the past 30 years all over the country, due to the ongoing population explosion, which is driven mostly by mass immigration, and the Census Bureau projects another 75 million over the next 40 years, equivalent to three and 3/4 New York states, 90% of that due to mass immigration.
I am against DEI, and all the nonsense that goes along with that.
I AM in favor of reproductive freedom, unions, and I oppose tax cuts for the wealthy, which hurt the economy, and those of us who are not wealthy, and I oppose charging prison inmates for telephone calls and other things that interfere with their keeping up with their loved ones and close friends, as I believe rehabilitation works better than punishment, and enabling the maintenance of close ties to family and friends is helpful for the former. .
“ and I oppose tax cuts for the wealthy, which hurt the economy, and those of us who are not wealthy”
Well given that the wealthy pay almost all of (Federal) taxes outside of FICA*, who else can even get a tax cut? You can’t cut from nothing, and as Romney pointed out to his detriment, ~47% pay nothing or less (numbers need to be updated).
*FICA not really being a tax as much as you’re paying into a specific program which shouldn’t be used for anything else, but, you know.
I just wish we could all agree on a realistic tax rate. Personally, I think the government taking over 50% of someone's earned money is complete and utter bullshit. 35% doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me if a little bit high. I get to pay 35% when warren buffet gets to pay 23.98% because his is investment income somewhat baffles. Why don't we just split the difference and make it all 32%? The answer is graft and job security (for me)
We had a 90% highest tax rate in the 1950s, and our country was prospering in a way that we haven't prospered in the last 40-plus years, when tax rates were knocked way down on the wealthiest. In fact, general American prosperity has always fallen when the wealthiest get big tax breaks.
Highest tax rates have been above 50% in Finland, and around there in other Scandinavian countries, and once again, Scandinavian countries were in the top four (Finland at #1) in happiness, in the latest world happiness survey. The US fell from #15 to #23, although people over 60 in our country scored higher than others--I'm guessing because of Medicare and Social Security.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/20/1239537074/u-s-drops-in-new-global-happiness-ranking-one-age-group-bucks-the-trend
Finally, I highly recommend this article, which should give you good information about a lot of what's wrong with the US.
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2015/04/the-science-of-scarcity
Disagree. The electoral college is perfect in how it works, within the system of government is was framed upon.
again: tiny federal gov't
Your belief that a Victorian age is coming, is much more hopeful than my mindset. The odds of any of it improving anytime soon are slim to none in my eyes. Thankfully I highly doubt I'll be around to see the end when it happens.
I think there are cycles to humanity. Technology is enabling faster cycles. I like to think an opposing Victorian / Renaissance response is coming. But who's to say how bad it will before that?
Or maybe I've watched too many Sci-Fi movies; this all reminds me of a Love, Death & Robots short called: Ice Age. (On NETFLIX!!! Consuummm....)
Well… just a postulation, but if all the men are leaning right, and all the women are leaning left, we just have to wait till all of their clocks start ticking and then they’ll all wife themselves out and become de facto right wingers, and once they start raising those kids they’ll all start going to church, and then we’ll be a nation of Victorians.
oh yeah
its all coming together now
Take a look at the CDC's birth statistics for 2023 to see how this is going.
Old maid cat ladies are not known to vote conservative.
I've always thought of "originalism" not to mean the Constitution of 1787 is perfect but that the Constitution should be interpreted narrowly and then procedures should be followed to pass laws or make amendments as the country changes. The framers themselves provided processes for making laws and amendments so they obviously didn't think future changes wouldn't occur.
Passing a law or ratifying an amendment (theoretically) takes a large political buy-in from the country. Which I think is good because laws are a big deal. A judge declaring "actually Article 1 Section 8 means FedEx is illegal" is a lot different.
This
Principles of limited government and individual liberty are timeless. To understand the Framers is to understand what they wrote and the times in which they wrote. I expect changing the constitution moving forward will make it worse, not better.
much better said than me.
the jurists who cling most tightly to "originalism" seem to define it as "an interpretation that advances the beliefs of me and my party"
Well... Maybe one party understands the vision of the Founders properly, and the other...
Is consumed with their bullshit pipedream of how things supposedly are in Europe...
That could apply to both parties equally given the far right’s infatuation with the likes of Orban.
Touché
Orban isn't far right however. Regulating borders is a sovereign right of all nations. Defunding the alphabet mafia in the universities is also well within any governments purview as well as encouraging young women to have more children.. cos you know, without the latter, there is no future for any of us and it's all moot.
He has also won 4 elections in a row and not (or certainly not entirely) in the manner of Putin. Something that gripes the bien pensant EU bureaucracy. "Compare and contrast the US constitution with that of the EU" would make a good question for the young people of the EU. Clue - it's 15 times longer and nobody reads it.
The EU Constitution, as I understand it, is simply a long legal document that justifies the consolidation of power among unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
And they want to bring Europe here, along with advancing every perversion here and yet to be, along with DEI, and the right to execute any and all traditional-thinking people at noon on Thursday without penalty!
Many European countries were much less enthusiastic about COVID Vaxxing (like not recommending it all for years) than the US and Canada, and Sweden has a lot different views about immigration and gender transitions than it did a few years ago.
And the Tavistock Report is censored in the US but informing policy in the UK (no longer in the EU, but still Europe's Toorie).
Bill Maher (who apparently now is some sort of a "far-Right White Supremacist neo-Nazi") had a piece about this about a month ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XflM-LKXOW4
I took two of the Janssen vaxes, just to make sure I had something. Those were “normal.”
I don’t trust the mRNA vaccines any further than I can throw them! So when they pulled the Janssen pokes from the USA, I’m done! I’ve had the ‘Rona three times, and each time has been less taxing than the previous. Just a nasty flu, minus the gastrointestinal fuckery. (After a day, if I was well enough to drive, I’d go to McDonald’s to sate an ungodly Big Mac attack! No issues! 👍😋)
Agreed; this aligns with my preferred characterization of originalism, from Stephen Sachs: that the reason originalism requires knowing what the law originally meant is because we follow the principle that the law stays the same until it is lawfully changed.
"Originalism as adherence to the Founders' law is complicated and simple at the same time. It’s extremely complicated, because we have to know the content of the Founders' law in its full glory -- interpretive rules, context, rules of change, and so on. But it's also very simple, because it makes the basis for originalism very easy to understand: our law stays the same until it's lawfully changed. That ought to be the originalist's slogan, because originalism is a theory of legal change."
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6059&context=faculty_scholarship
The fundamental issue with the constitution and its interpretation is neither the document or any perceived limitations of the founders but rather our abandonment of the amendment process. Once the warren court started finding emanations and penumbras hiding everywhere there was no longer any need to amend the constitution. This also meant that our Republic effectively became, at least partially, dedicated to the nomination of 9 solons who would dictate every matter of our lives.
^ A "Like" was not enough for this excellent post. Sometimes excellent comments get buried due to timing and threading.
MotoAmerica's Superbike class continues to entertain with Cameron Beaubier, Cameron Petersen, Jake Gagne, Sean Dylan Kelly, Josh Herrin, and Bobby Fong at the sharp end of things this at Barber this weekend. The Warhorse Ducatis fell off after race 1 which is strange as I would have expected better given how strong Herrin was last year.
Race 1 with colder and overcast conditions started with Cameron B making serious time on the rest of the pack only to have the rear end step out and, thankfully, low side as he tried to break the group. Nice to see him crash without a concussion. Cameron Petersen led the race to the end and picked up big points in what must be a big morale boost after all the surgeries and missing much of last season. Jake Gagne would finish second, and Herrin eked out third ahead of Sean Kelly.
Races 2 and 3 in better conditions had Cameron B dominate the field and win by 3+ seconds in both races. Cameron P finished third in race 2 behind Sean Kelly. In race 3 Cameron P was well back in the field after losing a footpeg after a lowside. Jake Gagne reportedly suffered arm pump and he started well in races 2 and 3 only to fall off after a few laps and run mid-pack. Bobby Fong finished 5th in race 2 and second in race 3 so his team must be working set up magic and learning fast. Sean Kelly finished third behind Fong.
In other news - I confirmed today my suspicion that the ST1100 has (minimum one) leaking fork seals and will attempt to remediate with the cheap option (scrape dirt out of the seal) before pulling forks off a motorcycle for the first time ever. The seal sets were reportedly replaced in 2014 according to an invoice so maybe they're just old and due.
I think many miss the point. It’s not that the Founding Fathers put together a document that would have any answer to any possible question in a future they couldn’t imagine. Rather, What they created was a very robust framework to protect the people from the idiots who would try to control their lives. They knew that there would always be a group who would try to take control, and limit others pursuit of happiness. So the built a country that, more then any other, would limit the power of the potential despots they knew would be coming. And as such, they succeeded more than they could have imagined.
This. It’s not about conservative vs progress. You can have all the progress you want but there are first principles for freedom that the founders articulated well. If you don’t like the constitution as written, there are mechanisms in place to change it. Have at it. Good luck getting it done in a country of 400 million. There are always opposing forces in any endeavor. The goal is to keep one side from dominating. It does generate friction though. We see that daily.
>first principles
he said it
he said the thing
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TitleDrop
This was written by one Mark W. Hendrickson:
Following is a partial list of the fundamental differences between Americanism and the alien philosophies that oppose it. Feel free to add to this list:
Americanism holds that government and law should be negative -- that is, that their purpose is to thwart evil and prevent the violation of individual rights; thus, law and government have a decidedly limited scope. Alien alternatives view the purpose of government and law as doing good things for people, thereby conferring upon government and law a virtually unlimited scope.
Americanism believes that government should act as an impartial umpire tasked with upholding impartial rules and letting the most talented and industrious reap the economic rewards of their efforts. The alien counterfeit believes in an intrusive, activist government that becomes the dominant economic player and picks winners and losers.
Americanism believes that individual rights are primary and government power secondary (see 9th and 10th Amendments). Alien philosophy believes that government power must supersede individual rights in the name of a "great" or "just" society.
Americanism holds that all men are created equal in the eyes of God -- that everyone is entitled to receive equal legal and governmental protection of their rights. Alien philosophy holds that nature or God -- depending on who its proponent believes is the creator of mankind -- blew it by making us different, and therefore it is up to "enlightened" (read: elitist) government leaders to remedy the defective natural order by making everyone economically equal.
Thus, in Americanism "justice" means equal treatment by the law, not unequal treatment designed to produce greater equality of result. The alien counterfeit version of justice is a corrupt nullity under which "justice" means violating the property rights of some Americans in order to bestow benefits on others.
In other words, Americanism is predicated on the rule of law -- the blind and impartial administration of justice that cares not whether a person is rich or poor, black or white, strong or weak. By contrast, the alien philosophy calls for a system of privileges -- that is, discriminatory laws that rob Peter to pay Paul.
Americanism holds that the legitimate way for individuals to prosper is to earn a living by providing something of value for others, thereby producing the wealth that one consumes. The alien antipode asserts that it is legitimate for individuals to enrich themselves via the political process whereby one may lay claim to wealth that others have produced. The American believes in making wealth, the alien, in taking it.
Americanism respects profits that result from creating wealth for others. The alien inversion rewards political "rent-seeking" behavior, whereby special interests exploit the political process to redistribute wealth and enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Americanism honors private property and upholds voluntary economic exchange as a fundamental human right. The alien attitude is to disparage and abrogate property rights while asserting the moral superiority of the involuntary exchanges effected by government transfer programs (of which there are now 2,235 at the federal level) thereby exalting the value system of criminals and institutionalizing theft as the modus operandi of government.
Americanism's fundamental tenet is that citizens of the Republic are the masters and government the servant. The alien philosophy throughout its long and tragic history exalts government elites as the masters directing the affairs of the people subservient to it.
Americanism includes gratitude for the many blessings we have enjoyed as Americans and, proceeding from a continuing basis of individual rights, a desire to use our liberty to attain a more perfect realization of our ideals. Aliens judge America harshly for having been imperfect and prefer a fundamental transformation into a "brave new world" in which individual rights and the "chains of the constitution" are the great obstacles to their power-hungry, utopian plans for us.
I’m reading this in my mind with the voice of Paul Harvey if anybody remembers him anymore.
He was that Midwestern man on the radio who was like a pleasant version of Grandpa!
It did need to end with "Good day."
I never thought of that.
I just read that again in his voice. He would have had probably a sentence or two of something bittersweet and profound to say, and then:
“Paul HAR-vey! Goo-DAY!” 🥲
The above is a comprehensive view of my own "Citizens vs Serfs" analysis of the difference between American self government and European.
As I said above, it's the difference of where the rights come from. Do they come from "God" and are protected by the government, or are they "granted" by the government?
This is part of the problem. The bill of rights was put into place to protect the citizenry from the government.
I was listening to a lawyer on a podcast, and he made one of the most salient points I have ever heard:
Our constitution was written with the idea that rights come from God (creator, naturally born..etc), and that the bill of rights in part protects those rights from the government. In European countries, rights generally come from the government, and are protected and granted by the government.
I never understood this years ago, but this is why many people across political ideologies want the government to grant rights or restrict rights because they feel that is the government's responsibility, when our framers never intended this.
Because many european countries believe that rights come from government, they far to often believe in positive rights, where as our constitution is centered far more around negative rights. Our citizenry, in general, has no idea the difference between the two, and in most cases, simply don't care. The concepts of positive and negative rights are an important understanding when looking at our constitutional framing compared to other countries and where the ideas of positive rights originated.
That is it. Not only to protect the people from the government, but ensure that both sides understood that the people were above the government. They allowed the government to govern. Elected representatives were the servants of the people. Not a view that seems popular in Washington today.
“that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights” is not just flowery prose.
The European approach is more like
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PLAY CENTRIFGUAL BUMBLEPUPPY... NOW EAT YOUR BUGS
is centrifugal bumblepuppy available on ps5
“You’ll get nothing and LIKE IT!”
The Bill of Rights was only intended to protect the citizens from the federal government, which had little power over the citizenry then. It did not apply to the states, which very much did!
That’s what separation of church and state is supposed to mean. If people don’t understand it, I think it’s fair to blame schools. I was incorrectly taught for years that it meant religion was to have no influence on politics and that the government just shouldn’t stop people from wacky religious stuff if they did that on their own time.
There is no 'separation of church and state' in the constitution. That whole concept was fabricated from whole cloth in the 60's. The 1st amendment only says that there can be NO 'state religion'. That's all it says.
I don’t think you are correct on that only being invented 60 years ago.
It didn't start until the 60's. That's when they went after prayer in schools.
Now there was a court case a decade or so earlier wherein the Supreme Court decided to give a written letter the same force of law as the Constitution. Why those Court members weren't impeached and thrown out of office is beyond me, as they completely violated their oaths and this country.
As maligned as he is here, Shapiro's "How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps" covers this distinction well.
IMHO, the writers of the Constitution had no need to know what technology in the future would be. Because it's not in anyway relevant. The Constitution is about -people- and about how the government would -rule- those people. I find that most of the people who question the Constitution don't even know what it SAYS.
The First amendment is misquoted by everyone.
The Second is misinterpreted constantly - for all that it's incredibly clear.
And then we have high priests (why else does the supreme court wear robes?) who examine 'penumbras' and make constitutional decisions based on letters that aren't even a part of the Constitution.
The Constitution was written to be simple to understand. If you have an 8th grade education, you can understand it. It takes a Ivy College education to bend it into a pretzel that makes no sense at all, and the same education to think those contortions are legal.
Last of all, we haven't been following it for decades. All of those regulations made with the power of law? Specifically BANNED by the constitution. FISA Courts? Banned.
There is just so much that's been done, and no one knows enough to care, or if they do, they either still don't care, or understand just what might happen to them if they do.
about PEOPLE! exactly!
The obvious problem is that there are people in various branches of government who are making decisions about how the "law" applies to technologies that they don't even understand.
The 'law' doesn't. If it's not in the Constitution, then the Federal Government is NOT ALLOWED to make ANY laws about it.
Period.
That's up to the states.
Any thoughts on how to roll back the infinite stretching of the commerce clause? By currently accepted legal precedent, it covers ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.
Short of overthrowing the government?
Maybe stop voting for left wing communists? So we can hopefully get some Constitutionalists in the Supreme Court who will go back and throw all of those stupid rulings out?
If leftists interpreted the Second Amendment the way the do the First, there would be legal scholars insisting the ownership of machine guns was mandatory.
It's the separation of church and state in the first the leftists lie about. It's not in the 1st amendment anywhere. But no one reads the actual amendment anymore, so they've changed what it says every time they talk about it.
Also, according to leftists, the First Amendment only applies to atheists, Communists and homosexuals, but not to devout Christians or Orthodox Jews.
Congrats Dannyp!
Thanks! I didn’t have the pace of the other EP cars last weekend, but the Sunday race was one of attrition. Two of the cars from the beginning of the weekend didn’t take the start, and about halfway through the race the car that was running second had a spin. Though his car looked unscathed, I don’t think he continued the race.
I had a great battle with a CRX in another class, went from 25th to 13th overall, and cut about 2.5 seconds off my previous best lap time. Much better result than my Saturday electrical short DNF, and all in all a great weekend.
And you were only 3 seconds a lap behind a prep-school mom who was also parenting her wayward adult daughter all weekend :)
Looool yeesh. Tell Gavin to pass that burn gel over here when he's done treating his hand..
"even fewer can stand the grating, dirgelike oppression of not being liked"
Good news! You can get used to this.
i wonder if that resilience comes from a wholehearted conviction in your beliefs
either way it sounds unpleasant
Nope. I change my mind on a lot of things. Im far less right than i used to be and 10x more anti corporation than i was as a teen. Theres a few things i absolutely refuse to change my opinion on but clown world modern politics mostly isnt it. Gave up libertarianism with ten minutes in the real world and the effects of legalization of pot make me go back to making it hard to get.
my pot idea is to give the cops the power to take away any of it they find in public, period.
Mainstream libertarianism is a joke, other than the few LP twitter accounts now run by hoppeans.
re: legalization - Isn't that sad? I thought legalization would simply make it easier for responsible people to enjoy pot in moderation. Nope... it means I have to dodge "pot zombies" doing 27 in a 45 on my way to work. 8:30 in the morning, they're already stoned to the gills.
If you're high all the time, it is no longer an escape from reality. It IS your reality. How is that any fun at all?
Highway trips now invariably fill the car with second-hand vape-pen weed smoke.
For adults, it's an annoyance, but how is this fair to children?
Second hand smoke kills children! What about all the marijuana smoke everywhere? Perfectly healthy. I'd rather smell cigarette smoke on everything than pot. It's awful and it's everywhere.
My theory is that the Left wants to ban smoking because it harms the lungs & causes cancer, and because they regard your body as state property, they see it as equivalent to vandalizing a police car or a courthouse.
But marijuana destroys your mind, which lines up nicely with their desire for the easily-controlled drones their ant-colony utopia is populated by.
Guyssmoke/vape in the bathrooms and stairways of our shared office building. I'm not going to pretend I've never had a drink at lunch occasionally but I don't get drunk at lunch. These people are high constantly from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep. And they're dumb as bricks for it. Weed makes you stupid.
And yet they're employed.
We have a set of “conversation starter” cards on the (informal) dining room table, and they’ve actually been great for talking to our kids (7 and almost 12). Tonight’s card was “what hurts your feelings and why.” My kids said some things, and then I said very little hurts my feelings, because in order for someone to affect my feelings I first have to care about what they think. And then I said the majority of people about whom I care what they think are sitting right here around this table.
Exactly this
Please tell me your Gen X without telling me your Gen X. I have never cared what most people think and too many people do need outside validation.
Is that a 2 stroke Saab in your avatar ?
I wish! Sorry I am not one of the cool kids. 1973 V-4. Runs and drives and my son and I are slowly working on mechanical reliability. Fun project together.
Bob the Saab. Named for the prior owner.
One day I will join the cool kids and be the scourge of the HOA leaving plumes of smoke.
Sorry I sent a message earlier and it looks like it god posted to a different thread
wouldnt that be baab the saab
anyway it looks rad
Ha. I will never get that out of my head.
It is fun, not Miata fun, but fun.
Don’t pass yourself coming and going either.
“Oregon trail” early Millennial (1982) but same difference.
Oh we played Oregon Trail too.
Wild guess you died of dysentery?
I think the "Xennial" concept makes a lot of sense.
Got a link? Was thinking about adding this to family game night.
https://www.cardsagainsthumanity.com/
;)
Hah! There is a Kids Against Maturity version.
You really need the now defunct "crabs adjust humidity" cards.
I feel like I didn’t spend $33 on this but this is what I have.
https://www.amazon.com/200-Family-Conversation-Cards-Relationships/dp/B0891Y35LR/ref=mp_s_a_1_8?crid=355UGJKGBAN9R&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.lKcGAB11MRWQSmcIQKRFfI2egFpMnGIktoum4alBPsNZoh6wW5er92rMq6tHyULmWYEi5qANafTnqmUM-ij1nEQ_L0-ufacIccpWyxi9zzzSYpZPOXCl5DUNwA0zbqlIcSiWyqqGJVwCn5Vn1wDTThM23R37QeJ6--AY6HXy_QD71i8Kx2fK4fWlEg0fCqyQMfJzToDjwbXmYPZCCZXJQg.pqdJEWb4AZKqIt7Zu7NZGz8nCW7_wM90Y38CjT4YAXs&dib_tag=se&keywords=conversation+cards&qid=1716476733&sprefix=conversation+cards%2Caps%2C90&sr=8-8
Yeah just looked they were $10 cheaper back in November.
Bidenomics(TM)
Thanks! Grabbed one.
Well said.
i think a better cadre of leadership might emerge or rather resurface if the most competent people were actually allowed to take the reigns instead of shunned into obscurity and placated by easy vices and dead end jobs
i dont like the notion that the good men are all gone and we will have to be saved by others
there are men right now that given the chance can right a substantial amount of wrongs that exist now and do so with lightning speed
as a canadian im utterly furious at just how bad you guys are being strangled by people who hate you
“ as a canadian im utterly furious at just how bad you guys are being strangled by people who hate you”
That’s interesting because my perspective from down here in the US is that you guys have it much much worse. Or, more scarily, you guys are 5-10 years ahead of us. I know you don’t necessarily have an equivalent to our 1A and 2A, but those are fundamental rights that Trudeau seems to want to destroy. Maybe my perspective is warped though, I dunno.
youre right and it is much worse
we do have a charter of rights and freedoms but theyve trampled all over that and the govt is free to do whatever it wants
i said what i did because i feel for what you guys are going through
We codified our freedoms in black-letter law and STILL we've had to play whack-a-mole with the socialists trying tirelessly to snuff them out for the past quarter-millennium.
I can’t help but agree with your conclusion, while also agreeing with all four of your arguments.
I think the wrench is the works (or maybe the foot on the accelerator pedal) is the force of judicial review. The founders KNEW we’d want and need to change the Constitution, so they established a mechanism to do so. But we don’t even try to use it anymore, we cry to mommy (the court) to reinterpret it for us.
you aren't alone in agreeing with all four of Jack's final points.
I'll be echoing some other commenters here, I'm sure.
The Constitution, as all forms of government, is alive in the sense of interacting with a given culture and people (or context if we want to be broad). Liberia didn't work and it wasn't because they had a radically different Constitution from the United States'. What they worked out was fairly robust - and - due to the way it was formed it contained the seeds (or at least lacked guardrails) for its own destruction. As we drift toward direct democracy the power of voting blocs/buying votes with gibs becomes increasingly apparent. Without limits on who gets to vote being enshrined there is real danger toward ochlocracy which rolls into something like oligarchy where who can buy the most votes is the real power center. As always, lots of factors play into this but it's right there in the stories over time from cities to states to the federal government.
Moreover, the Constitution does not guarantee the context and it cannot address every possible context. Humanity may not change in terms of what motivates people, but the acculturation of a people, shifting expectations, the relentless beat of some technologies (not limited to the smartphone) and techniques, mean that it seems not entirely well suited to what we have today. If they saw what was going on today I expect there would have been much more explicit limits put in place and a lot less "lol figure it out u have the power." The flexibility is a blessing and a curse because it depends on who is implementing it.
This was way more dragging on the Constitution then I thought, I think it's fine but considering it apart from everything else is a fool's errand.
the states have individual power; gotta get rid of the chevron decision and say EVERY rule has to be passed by congress
Yes, and someday hold those who vote for oppressive Fed Regs to be held accountable for their votes.
It's heartening that school boards are finally getting the negative attention they deserve. I hope that attention moves up the ladder of electeds.
"It's heartening that school boards are finally getting the negative attention they deserve. I hope that attention moves up the ladder of electeds."
Literally the ONLY conventionally "American" thing that's happening right now at any level of government. Let's hope you're right.
I agree with you in theory. How to make that work practically is beyond me.
Theory Three (which is likely to get me metaphorically stoned):
The Framers were aristocrats of British (and Dutch) lineage who had scores of slaves (Thomas Jefferson, for example, owned over 600 slaves over his lifetime) that were directed to a number of wide ranging tasks that have been erased from history books. Being as they were ultimately British, they were in the business of legend building to justify the ill gotten wealth that was bequeathed to them. So, they put a large score of those slaves through a strict classical education and then set them to writing the tomes and drawing up the plans for the architecture that have been used to create the idea that their masters were great minds beyond our own understanding, when in reality they were scoundrels in fancy clothes.
If the founders could teach sub saharran africans to be aristocrats, we should do everything in our power to invent time travel and have them run our modern education system.
we wuz the founders of america an shiet
Nigeria is considered sub-Saharan, correct?:
"According to the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute (MPI), Nigerians in the United States are the most educated immigrant group, with 61 percent holding at least a bachelor's degree, compared with 31 percent of the total foreign-born population and 32 percent of the US-born population."
They weren't the aristocrats, just like most of the intelligentsia today is not a part of the 1%. They were the minds to put to task by the aristocrats.
is there a difference in african between a specific subset that immigrated to america recently and a slave of 250 years go
So you think they were bringing over people (sorry, I'm not sure if you agree with that classification) they considered bottom of the barrel? Why would they do that? And I'm sure being put into slavery for a couple hundred years wouldn't put the next few generations a bit behind the rest of society, it's all genetics!
well yes being a slave means you were likely captured and made a slave by better africans
to put a finer point on it i believe there is a definite cognitive difference between the slaves they had at that point time and a nigerian that has the mental firepower to make enough money to emmigrate to the states and pursue a proper education
I worked with immigrants from Nigeria when I lived in Chicago. I have great respect for them, certainly lots more than for the average black person native to Chicago.
The Nigerians I worked with were law-abiding, honest cabbies and retail clerks who must've worked at least two jobs and were devout Catholics who spoke proper English.
Putting a finer point on it doesn't make it anymore true. Keep rationalizing slavery buddy!
Always loved this shirt.
https://www.tshirthell-australia.com/products/niger-lover-ladies-tee
outstanding
Well then I guess we're both getting stoned, because I'm inclined to agree.
The idea that the Founders were such uniquely brilliant men that foresaw the future challenges of the nation is bullshit American mythology. The reality is that these men were as flawed as anyone. Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the hallowed line "all men are created equal," was fucking his slaves. And let's not forget the Three-Fifths Compromise that was used to get the slave states to sign on to the Constitution - note that Native Americans were explicitly excluded as being worth even 3/5 of a human being. I think it's unfair to altogether damn the dead by modern standards, but it can't be glossed over and explained away, either.
I don't think it's unfair from any perspective to damn anyone who would enslave another human being, but I guess I may be in the minority in that regard. That's why I'll get a little more controversial and say that I believe the whole history of Rome was a fiction created to justify the belief in a stratification of people based on some indescribable inherent greatness, rather than circumstance, and ultimately justify slavery. It's why the stewards of Roman history who have taught it to the world as being a shining example of mankind emanate from Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard. Also, having your family lineage interrupted by a period of enslavement seems like a surefire way to throw the following generations out of whack, which can then be used to point to your inferiority.
why not use healthy criminals as slaves? doing menial useful works under humane conditions is near-infinitely better than just locking them up!
what
Do you believe in universal healthcare? Government payments to needy families, anything like that?
I believe we need to stop being governed. Allow families to reform. Families not in the nuclear sense but in the full intergenerational, multigenerational sense that has been purposely broken up so that we are dependent on this system that wants us all as slaves or dead.
So what sort of anarchist are you?
"...all as slaves or dead."
In that order.
wasnt the 3/5 thing to do with not allowing the votes of slaves to be counted as one but rather less than one to prevent an outcome of sorts and having nothing to do with inherent worth as a person
i recall someone here mentioning that
3/5 was to prevent the Southern states from being dominated in the House by the Northern voter numbers. That was the only way they'd ratify the Constitution.
yes that
thank you
I think you have it reversed. It was so the Southern Slave states wouldn't dominate the House of Representatives.
Probably. It was the North that wanted to dominate the House by excluding the slaves in the population count.
That would never happen these days would it? Ir's not like criminal aliens are being counted for Representation purposes in order to dominate the House.
Politics is kind of like making sausage, you might like the outcome, but you really don't want to look to closely at the process. The 3/5's was a compromise that doesn't look good to people in this day and age but was necessary to get the Southern States to sign on.
The Three Fifths things would be appropriate for midgets, don't you think?
i think we ought to break out the measuring tape and go by percentages or we go for round numbers and call it a flat 1/2
makes the math simple
Slavery has likely existed in more places over time in one form or another over human existence than it hasn't. Much more.
it's going on now in muslim africa, i've been told
Exactly. Our best educated guess is that the species homo sapiens has been around for ~270,000 years, and it was only about 500 years ago that it began to dawn on a few of us that owning one another might be universally Wrong, and it took another 350 years for that idea to become mainstream.
"Jefferson and Madison were BAD because they enslaved people...I am GOOD because I would never have done that." Right.
And yet it is perceived as some form of original sin of solely Christian Europeans and used as a cudgel to extort concessions and impose punishment, to include the invasion of their homelands.
I've read an hypothesis that one of the origins of slavery was humanitarian, an alternative to killing off a defeated tribe. Can't remember the source.
Humanitarian? Isn't that the cannibal restaurant down on 9th?
They serve a Gangsta Wrap, but nobody orders it because it's tough and tasteless.
Wow! Just wow!
It wasn't Sultan Ahmed bin Mohammad who abolished slavery. Never forget THAT.
it's already been explained away--and are you saying america would've become even more wonderful without slavery?
free people can regulate themselves wondrously. attacking them because of slavery--long gone--tries to camouflage the magnificent accomplishments of america after slavery was abolished
Kinda funny that your idea of freedom was created by slave owners. Seems kinda contradictory.
Gandi apparently fucked little girls, two at a time. You gotta take your freedom where you can find it.
Gandhi was a piece of garbage as well, and I don't think most Indians have a high opinion of him. His dad was a tax collector for the British Crown and Gandhi himself went to law school in London. Seems more like a controllable face put on top of actual civil unrest. Anyway, I'll shut up now.
Here’s a question about slavery that even I, noted outspoken uncensored asshole, am afraid to bring up in any company:
Given the propensity of rape (or at least affairs) between masters and slaves, isn’t a large number of people who are descended from slaves also likely descended from slave owners? Wouldn’t the average slave descendent who thinks they are entitled to reparations owe those reparations to themselves given that they are also descended from slave owners?
I think the Henry Louis Gates series actually touched on that -- he is not only a black American by descent, he's a slave owner by descent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAm79T6qScU
I take great shame in posting this.
How do people think this shit up?
Hurry up, you stupid asteroid!
It’s funny, Shapiro and his ilk cry about how Universities spend their money yet they aren’t shy about demanding tens of thousands to speak on your campus.
I cannot speak for every University, but for ours (a trade school masquerading as a University) more than half of Shapiro’s fee was funded via our activity fund. The remainder (around $5k) was kicked in by local businesses. This was all spearheaded by the “Conservative” student org.
The cynic in me believes that these Conservative campus movements are mostly astroturfing as a way to funnel money to these grifters by way of the speaking fees. If a school does not approve the funding, they get to cry about being canceled.
A few years after the Shapiro visit, the school booked Rachel Dolezal for a speaking engagement. After a bit of public outrage (on both sides, I might add), her speech was canceled.
Shapiro is a snake
not a strong enough word but i agree
To be more accuracte, Shapiro's main concern is what's good for Ben Shapiro. If conservative philosophy or practice interferes with that, it loses.
If that were 100 percent true, then why would he and his company invest in creating other content?
Is he or podcasters like him NOT allowed to make money? I'm not sure I see the point. I see alot of hate against him for hate's sake. Don't like his politics? Fine, I don't either.
One, he doesn’t independently run that company. Two, they only tolerate people voicing opinions within certain bounds. Just like any traditional media organization.
Shapiro is a quisling plant for most of what's wrong on the "republican" side of the aisle.
Dear Tim,
It's within the realm of possibility that you used the lower-case initial capital letter to ladle on a little more disrespect; but, as a dear friend and colleague, I do beg that you give serious consideration to using a Capital "Q" for Quisling.
Not that he is currently in a position to care, or to complain.
I have read a huge amount of 20th-c. history. Let's call it an obsession. One of the episodes I recall is taking a volume down off the shelves, consulting its index, and then happening upon something I was not looking for.
The memoir of a young Catholic priest who had been kidnapped by the French Resistance, so that he could give the Last Rites to a family they were about to murder, for collaborating.
The charge was that the parents profited from their daughter's sleeping with Wehrmacht officers. The priest was brought forward, and the prisoners were given the opportunity to make a Confession and to receive Extreme Unction. The parents went for it, while the daughter sneered at them. They then all were shot.
The young priest later memorialized, "That was a real shame, because she was very beautiful."
OK, I get it. You get Ordained, but you never really stop being a French guy.
john
I've hated Shapiro since he rage-quit Breitbart because he wanted to white knight over that reporter that claimed Corey Lewandowski (Trump's then-campaign manger) assaulted her.
I've since done a 180 on my opinion of Breitbart and Trump, but everything Shapiro has done in the ensuing years has reaffirmed my belief that he's an abominable, two-faced whore.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. It's also not the universities who pay for it directly, it's some group or organization who already has that money set aside.
There is alot I like about what Ben Shapiro says, theres also a whole lot I don't like. He's a snake, but why?
Here's the thing I do applaud the DailyWire for even though I don't give them a penny. Far too long conservatives whined and moaned about not having TV shows or anything cultural. At least they are putting their money where there mouth is, like or hate their politics. I know I'm tired of the complaining. It's the singular reason I never liked Rush or Bill O'Reilly.
id be tempted to call most of the dailywire cast neocons or rinos and i dont think im alone in that and watching their reactions when jews or isreal is brought up is
interesting
He’s a snake because he supports Israel over the US.
yup
entirely correct
fuck that guy
I cannot speak to how every University operates, but for the ones I do have direct knowledge of it works like this:
1) Each student pays into a “Student Activity Fund” or similar
2) Part of that fund is earmarked for various student orgs
3) Student orgs are issued an annual budget
4) Certain “premier” organizations have larger budget and more stringent requirements (these are the ones booking bigger names)
5) Other orgs can submit formal approval for budget increases to book speakers if they meet certain criteria. This increase usually has a hard cap involved.
So yes, they have the money “set aside” so to speak. They can also solicit outside sponsors. But at the end of the day, the students are paying the bulk of it one way or another. Every formal student org runs this way, from the Campus Brony Club to the Formula SAE team.
I'm big enough to hate the player AND the game.
One thing that isn’t taught anymore, because people actually understanding it would make the powers that be violently shake in their boots. It is the exact opposite of how they are trying to have people see the world, and the role of government. It’s likely the most radical document ever written for the founding of a country:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”
Those few lines turned the world upside down.
The existential problem is that the Declaration of Independence does not have the power of law, it is just pretty words.
A lovely Packard, so to speak, on jack stands in an apple orchard, but with no wheels or tires. No way to get traction.
ciao,
john (I did earn a law degree at Vanderbilt in 1979. And I wrote Poetry at Brown under (not physically under, mind you) the Poet in Residence. That's where the above image comes from.)
it's not a car on jacks, it's a beacon illuminating much/
The Declaration is an inspiration and an exhortation, but it has no legal effect at present. One could get very picky and say that the Treaty of Paris retroactively conferred upon the Declaration that it at one time had the legal effect of separating the Colonies from Britain, but I think that that is wishful thinking.
Bottom line, today, there is no section of the Declaration that you can take into a Federal court and assert as a basis for some sort of legal remedy.
john
if the packard is on jacks in a field are you still supposed to ask the man who owns one
absolutely! the kerensky gov't was proud that their constitution closely paralleled ours