This is an excellent explanation of the type of government we have in the United States.
Hint: we are not a democracy!
25 February 2010
24 February 2010
Generation Wii
Have you read the We Declaration?
I get that kids today are concerned about their future. I was told all through school not to expect Social Security to be around when I grow up. Communism and acid rain were big concerns. I remember laying in bed thinking that I would see the mushroom cloud over Portland right before I was vaporized (Thank you "The Day After"!)
Some of the concerns outlined in the We Declaration are valid. Others I feel are based on a view of our country that is too far from what our founding fathers had in mind. So I will give my opinion on what seem like the most spurious points of the declaration.
First:
"The United States was formed to protect the interests of all citizens, including its young people. Our Constitution mandates liberties, rights, duties, and protects the people from oppression"
True and false. This seems like a case of using a statement of truth to bolster the false argument that follows. I don't think this was done intentionally. I truly believe that these people have not actually read the Constitution. How can they have? I have and I don't recognize any of the things listed.
The Constitution of the United States is not an exciting read. It's rather dry and boring, full of descriptions of the basic functions of the federal government. Aside from the preamble it doesn't even put its lips to the trumpet of freedom. It's more like, hey, you guys do this, you guys do that and you guys do this other thing. Done.
Certainly the ideas and concepts behind the writing of the Constitution had everything to do with liberties, rights, duties and protection from oppression. In fact, it was concern about these very things that prompted the Bill of Rights (aka Amendments I through X). The language of these amendments gives a clear indication of the purpose of the Constitution. Phrases such as "Congress shall make no law" and "...shall not be infringed" speak to restriction, not permission. That is, the Bill of Rights is more so a list of rights of out all the rights we have that the federal government cannot affect. Then comes the clincher, Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
To me that says the Constitution is not a document of what rights we have. We have all rights and amendments I through IX clarify some of them. We don't obtain our liberty and rights from the Constitution. They are unalienable rights, per the Declaration of Independence:
"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..."
Note that life does not equal health, or a guarantee of health. More on this later.
I get that kids today are concerned about their future. I was told all through school not to expect Social Security to be around when I grow up. Communism and acid rain were big concerns. I remember laying in bed thinking that I would see the mushroom cloud over Portland right before I was vaporized (Thank you "The Day After"!)
Some of the concerns outlined in the We Declaration are valid. Others I feel are based on a view of our country that is too far from what our founding fathers had in mind. So I will give my opinion on what seem like the most spurious points of the declaration.
First:
"The United States was formed to protect the interests of all citizens, including its young people. Our Constitution mandates liberties, rights, duties, and protects the people from oppression"
True and false. This seems like a case of using a statement of truth to bolster the false argument that follows. I don't think this was done intentionally. I truly believe that these people have not actually read the Constitution. How can they have? I have and I don't recognize any of the things listed.
The Constitution of the United States is not an exciting read. It's rather dry and boring, full of descriptions of the basic functions of the federal government. Aside from the preamble it doesn't even put its lips to the trumpet of freedom. It's more like, hey, you guys do this, you guys do that and you guys do this other thing. Done.
Certainly the ideas and concepts behind the writing of the Constitution had everything to do with liberties, rights, duties and protection from oppression. In fact, it was concern about these very things that prompted the Bill of Rights (aka Amendments I through X). The language of these amendments gives a clear indication of the purpose of the Constitution. Phrases such as "Congress shall make no law" and "...shall not be infringed" speak to restriction, not permission. That is, the Bill of Rights is more so a list of rights of out all the rights we have that the federal government cannot affect. Then comes the clincher, Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
To me that says the Constitution is not a document of what rights we have. We have all rights and amendments I through IX clarify some of them. We don't obtain our liberty and rights from the Constitution. They are unalienable rights, per the Declaration of Independence:
"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..."
Note that life does not equal health, or a guarantee of health. More on this later.
11 February 2010
Seven Car Garage
BMW E30 M3
Datsun 510 2-door
BMW E46 M3
Honda S2000
Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3-16V "Cosworth"
2010 Ford Mustang GT
Acura NSX
Compared to the cars I have actually owned:
1978 Honda Accord LX Hatchback
1988 Honda Civic DX Hatchback
1999 Acura Integra LS Sport Sedan
2001 Acura Integra GS-R
2002 Subaru WRX
And currently own:
1989 BMW 325i
2003 BMW 330Ci
Even if I had my seven car garage I would still have my bronze E30 ready for running around town.
19 January 2010
Eats, Shoots & Leaves
For some reason I have a knack for remembering the oddities of English grammar.
My intent today is not to regale you with examples of all those grammarian law-breakers out there. Surely a website is dedicated to such a topic. I am simply annoyed that one of my favorite commercials has been edited:
I love how as soon as their name leaves his mouth he realizes that he doesn't know how to pluralize it. Even I, the resident grammarian, have trouble with pluralizing last names that end in s or z.
Here is an excerpt from one of my favorite websites:
"When a family name (a proper noun) is pluralized, we almost always simply add an "s." So we go to visit the Smiths, the Kennedys, the Grays, etc.When a family name ends in s, x, ch, sh, or z, however, we form the plural by added -es, as in the Marches, the Joneses, the Maddoxes, the Bushes, the Rodriguezes. Do not form a family name plural by using an apostrophe; that device is reserved for creating possessive forms.
When a proper noun ends in an "s" with a hard "z" sound, we don't add any ending to form the plural: "The Chambers are coming to dinner" (not the Chamberses); "The Hodges used to live here" (not the Hodgeses). There are exceptions even to this: we say "The Joneses are coming over," and we'd probably write "The Stevenses are coming, too." A modest proposal: women whose last names end in "s" (pronounced "z") should marry and take the names of men whose last names do not end with that sound, and eventually this problem will disappear."
See? Clear as mud.
Sadly, Orbitz has since dropped the pluralizing gag in deference to those misunderstanding the joke. It is not making fun of the name, only the pluralization of names with similar endings. It would have worked just as well if they were the Joneses.
Sigh.
My intent today is not to regale you with examples of all those grammarian law-breakers out there. Surely a website is dedicated to such a topic. I am simply annoyed that one of my favorite commercials has been edited:
I love how as soon as their name leaves his mouth he realizes that he doesn't know how to pluralize it. Even I, the resident grammarian, have trouble with pluralizing last names that end in s or z.
Here is an excerpt from one of my favorite websites:
"When a family name (a proper noun) is pluralized, we almost always simply add an "s." So we go to visit the Smiths, the Kennedys, the Grays, etc.When a family name ends in s, x, ch, sh, or z, however, we form the plural by added -es, as in the Marches, the Joneses, the Maddoxes, the Bushes, the Rodriguezes. Do not form a family name plural by using an apostrophe; that device is reserved for creating possessive forms.
When a proper noun ends in an "s" with a hard "z" sound, we don't add any ending to form the plural: "The Chambers are coming to dinner" (not the Chamberses); "The Hodges used to live here" (not the Hodgeses). There are exceptions even to this: we say "The Joneses are coming over," and we'd probably write "The Stevenses are coming, too." A modest proposal: women whose last names end in "s" (pronounced "z") should marry and take the names of men whose last names do not end with that sound, and eventually this problem will disappear."
See? Clear as mud.
Sadly, Orbitz has since dropped the pluralizing gag in deference to those misunderstanding the joke. It is not making fun of the name, only the pluralization of names with similar endings. It would have worked just as well if they were the Joneses.
Sigh.
04 January 2010
The Parable of the Cinnabon
Years ago, when Teresa and I were first married, I found a Cinnabon copy recipe on the internet. It's been our tradition that I make a batch for Thanksgiving and Christmas mornings. We spend the rest of the year pining for the buttery, sugary goodness.
When Elliott was still at home, I would be annoyed that he always wanted the coveted middle cinnamon rolls. As the rolls are arranged three by four in the pan you would only have two of the middle rolls. At the time I thought it a bit pretentious for a teenager to think himself entitled to the middle roll. I mean, who the hell did he think he was? So I started placing the smallest rolls in this place and the largest ones at the corners. I also made sure the outside rolls got the most icing and the corner rolls the most of all.
But not this year.
As I cut the rolls to length this Christmas, I ended up having an especially fat and plump one. I found myself placing the big roll in one of the middle spots and wishing Elliott could have it. He's earned it.
Elliott has gone out into the world and become a man. He will always have a middle roll waiting for him in my home.
When Elliott was still at home, I would be annoyed that he always wanted the coveted middle cinnamon rolls. As the rolls are arranged three by four in the pan you would only have two of the middle rolls. At the time I thought it a bit pretentious for a teenager to think himself entitled to the middle roll. I mean, who the hell did he think he was? So I started placing the smallest rolls in this place and the largest ones at the corners. I also made sure the outside rolls got the most icing and the corner rolls the most of all.
But not this year.
As I cut the rolls to length this Christmas, I ended up having an especially fat and plump one. I found myself placing the big roll in one of the middle spots and wishing Elliott could have it. He's earned it.
Elliott has gone out into the world and become a man. He will always have a middle roll waiting for him in my home.
24 December 2009
Hey Prius Driver!
Can you stop saving the world long enough to check your blind spot? I'd rather not knock your carbon-intensive batteries out of your back end with front end of my Earth-killing Bimmer.
30 July 2009
The Least
I just read an editorial piece in our local newspaper, The Register Guard. In it the author cites religion as proof and justification for a single-payer health care system in the United States.
This is what angers and frustrates me about organized religion. Because we are taught by Jesus Christ in the scriptures that to help the poor and needy is a blessing, we must be forced to participate in such, literally at gunpoint (try not paying your taxes and let me know how that works out for you). The US government is the only organization that can legally take your money at gunpoint.
My limited understanding of the Gospel is that we are here on earth to exercise our agency, to choose right from wrong. I also understand that Satan's plan for us was that we be forced to obey God's will at the end of a whip. Which does a single-payer, tax-funded health care system resemble?
Do away with every government-funded entitlement program and this country would witness an upwelling of local community and church-based charity like never seen before. When presented with the needs of our neighbors I will respond. When presented with the requirement of government I recoil.
In Matthew 25:35-40, Jesus tells us:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Clearly we need to care for the least of our brethren. But I do not want my secular government forcing my hand. Let me choose and let me experience the blessings of helping my brethren.
This is what angers and frustrates me about organized religion. Because we are taught by Jesus Christ in the scriptures that to help the poor and needy is a blessing, we must be forced to participate in such, literally at gunpoint (try not paying your taxes and let me know how that works out for you). The US government is the only organization that can legally take your money at gunpoint.
My limited understanding of the Gospel is that we are here on earth to exercise our agency, to choose right from wrong. I also understand that Satan's plan for us was that we be forced to obey God's will at the end of a whip. Which does a single-payer, tax-funded health care system resemble?
Do away with every government-funded entitlement program and this country would witness an upwelling of local community and church-based charity like never seen before. When presented with the needs of our neighbors I will respond. When presented with the requirement of government I recoil.
In Matthew 25:35-40, Jesus tells us:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Clearly we need to care for the least of our brethren. But I do not want my secular government forcing my hand. Let me choose and let me experience the blessings of helping my brethren.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
