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.
"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.