My Employer and the Great Wall of China

Yesterday afternoon I overheard my oxygen-wasting senior manager ask an interesting question of his EA, whose desk sits about ten feet from my office door. The question was prompted by the installation of a long (about eight foot) framed photograph of the Great Wall of China (“the GWOC”, as some of us have dubbed it) on the wall opposite the secretarial bay. His question was “What does the Great Wall of China possibly have to do with our business?” Funny he should ask, since there are some remarkably apt comparisons between the GWOC and our company and its products. Allow me to furnish some.

1. The GWOC was costly, complicated, took years to build and ultimately failed at what it was designed to do.
   
   
2. Looked upon as a technological marvel at the time of its conception, the GWOC was obsolete by the time it was finished.
   
   
3. The GWOC required engineering skills to build (the picture’s presence serves as a reminder that something is overwhelmingly and glaringly missing in our company).
   
   
4. The GWOC was built at the behest of the government. So is everything our company builds.
   
   
5. Because the GWOC was built at the behest of the government, comparison point number 1 resulted. Again, note the eerie comparison between centuries and circumstances.
   
   
6. The GWOC served as a lesson in strategic failure that no one seemed to learn anything from (remember the Maginot Line?). Oh, and about those five reorganizations you’ve forced in as many years. . .
   
   
7. The GWOC devoured those who built it.
   
   
8. The GWOC was built and serviced by half-starved slaves.
   
   
9. Though recognized as a failure and allowed to crumble into ruin, the GWOC was eventually restored and maintained at tremendous cost in the vague and ridiculous hope that it would ultimately serve some useful strategic purpose.
   
   
10. The GWOC is built with stones, mud and sticks.
    
    
11. The GWOC is immobile and unable to adapt to changing conditions.
    
    
12. The GWOC’s sheer size ensures that it is surrounded by ludicrous myths (e.g., “the only man-made object visible from the moon”).
    
    
13. The GWOC is trumpeted as an engineering marvel and a source of great pride, even though it is both a functional failure and thousands of years old.
    
    
14. The GWOC ultimately got in the way of progress and had to be torn down in parts to make way for modern technology.

And finally, what is perhaps the most apt comparison between the GWOC and our company’s products:

• The GWOC was never successfully replicated either in China or anywhere else in the world (as Hadrian’s Wall and the Berlin Wall, among other failures, both attest).
  

How's that for starters?

One Down, 533 More to Go

Well, it looks like a GOP Congressthing got caught with its tenticles in the cookie jar. From the contents of this particular news article, it apparently had the decency to spare us from a public display of apologetic, pseudo-humble blather. I also gather that the evidence against it is, well, overwhelming, seeing as it has forfeitted its house and other possessions nearly equal to the sum of the bribes it took. In other words, it seems to be going down without a much of a fight (we'll see if its tune changes as trial time draws near).

Let us hope that this is merely the tip of the iceberg and that Cunningham's is just the first in a forthcoming avalanche of indictments against legislators of both factions of the Government Party for their various crimes and misdemeanors (we can always dream, can't we?).

The Amended Constitution – Article I, Sections 4 and 5

(Part of the continuing series of posts on a hypothetically rewritten/amended Constitution, with emphasis on very limited government and maximum individual liberty.)

Section 4

Clause 1 - The original text reads:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.

Remove any congressional authority here to “at any time by Law make or alter” the time and manner of elections for senators and representatives. This is yet another example of federal meddling in what are clearly state prerogatives.

Clause 2 - The original text reads:

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, (See Note 5) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

The 20^th Amendment altered the date on which congress shall convene from the first Monday in December to noon on the 3^rd day of January. I have no problem with the date change; what I have a problem with here is that the time allowed for Congress to meet is unfixed, and therefore too long. A major reason for the current mess we are in as a nation is that we let these rogues meet for too long and too often during their terms of office. This is an open invitation for creating a bevy of useless, unconstitutional laws and for allowing unfettered access to lobbyists that so easily corrupt these untrustworthy creatures. Let Clause 2 of Section 4 read something along the following lines:

“Congress shall assemble once every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. However, no session of congress shall last for a duration of more than ninety consecutive days. Furthermore, no session of congress may be convened after the adjournment of the annual session except in the case of a national emergency requiring that congress exercise the powers delegated to it by this constitution, such as a declaration of war resulting from imminent invasion of the United States territory by a foreign power.”

I fear that my last sentence may leave too wide a space for the interpretation of what constitutes a “national emergency.” If any of my readers can isolate further specific examples of such that would require a reconvening of congress to address a national emergency requiring the exercise of federal power, I’m all ears (and eyes).

Section 5

Clause 1 - The original text reads:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

My biggest problem here, at first glance, is the lack of a defined quorum. In my experience with parliamentary procedure on even a small scale, the bigger the quorum, the more difficult it is to get anything done. For this reason I suggest that the full membership of each house be required to conduct any sort of business whatsoever, most specifically to vote on any kind of legislation. The last thing this nation needs is the passage of legislation by a marginal portion of the congress, legislation nearly always “snuck in under the radar” and tailored to narrow special interest groups.

Additionally, a “smaller number” of legislators “adjourn[ing] from day to day” would be pointless if my suggestion for a strictly limited annual legislative session is followed. There would be no need or room for any legislators to be absent from any session of either house, since there would be very little time available for the conduct of the nation’s essential business, which itself would require the undivided attention of the full congress. The “adjourning” of legislators in either house today on a daily basis (that is, the absence of the majority of either house from the floor of the house of representatives or senate on a given day) is not “smaller numbers” or for a limited period of time. In fact, these “absences” simply give these political hacks more time to spend cozying up to lobbyists of all stripes and arrogating more power to themselves. A strict limit on absences from the legislative session would be a very helpful step in curbing these people’s individual agendas and forcing them to spend their limited time in session concentrating on business within the constitutional bounds of their offices.

So let’s try this rewrite of Clause 1:

“Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and the total membership of each [h]house shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; each legislature shall be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide, up to and including expulsion from office.”


Clause 2 - The original text reads:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

I have no problem with the concept of expelling a member of congress from office, particularly if he or she violates their oath to uphold the law as set forth in the Constitution, or for commission of a felony or misdemeanor crime. However, I have a serious problem with the lack of a definition for “disorderly Behaviour.” Anyone who has watched C-SPAN in recent years has to admit that “disorderly Behaviour”, as defined by the average American citizen with breeding of any degree greater than that of a domestic animal, is a workaday occurrence in both houses of congress. In fact, “disorderly Behaviour” can be a good thing, a healthy sign of a representative republic in action, the proof that legislators are not willing to “go with the herd”, an all-too-common problem in today’s corrupt legislative kleptocracy. Better still, the more “disorderly Behaviour” we have in either house, the less opportunity there is for these buffoons to pass any actual legislation, the majority of which over the last century and a half has been anything but constitutional. Let’s drop this requirement for expulsion.

I have a novel idea where the expulsion issue is concerned. How about this: If a two-thirds majority of one house does vote to expel a member, it can only do so after the member has been tried and convicted by a court of law, either a federal court if the crime falls under the constitutional definition of a federal crime (unlikely), or the appropriate state court for other felony or misdemeanor crimes.

So let’s look at the way Clause 2 might be rewritten:

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings within the framework of the law as set forth by this Constitution. In the event that a Member of either house commits a deliberate breach of office, whether through the endorsement of legislation that violates the Member’s duty to uphold the law as set forth in this Constitution or by commission of a felony or misdemeanor crime, said Member may, with the Concurrence of two thirds of the membership of said house, be expelled from office, but only upon conviction of said crime by a court of law.

“Expulsion” for any other reason should be at the hands of the member’s constituents during the next election.

Clause 3 - The original text reads:

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

As you’ve probably already guessed, I would eliminate, immediately, the permission to maintain any secret or sealed records whatsoever of any proceedings of either house. Such a practice has, as we all too well know, been routinely abused for far too long, almost always in the name of “national security”, and has the potential to destroy the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, the phrase “from time to time” is too vague; require that the journal (known today as the “congressional record”) be published annually, no later than one month following the adjournment of the annual congressional session.

Finally, let the responsibility for maintaining the congressional record be delegated to a non-governmental body, preferably a panel of citizens chosen at random by state legislatures, to ensure that the integrity and accuracy of the record is not compromised (one could argue that C-SPAN has contributed invaluably to ensuring that congressional proceedings are recorded accurately). In support of this end, the vote tabulation of either or both houses shall in all cases be entered into the record, regardless of the “Desire” of any portion of the house to do so or not. Bottom line: Transparency in the legislative branch of government. NO EXCEPTIONS!

Clause 4 - The original text reads:

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Refer here to my earlier proposals for a limited annual congressional session, a full quorum, and requirements for attendance. Allow adjournment only in the case of some extraordinary natural or national catastrophe, to be defined in this clause. Personally, I’m hard-pressed to think of anything that qualifies. War or foreign invasion? Nope. In session and preparing for a declaration of war is exactly where these people should be in such case. Natural disaster (e.g., the Potomac overflowing its banks and submerging New Rome [we should be so lucky], forcing the in-session congress to relocate)? Yes, under certain prescribed circumstances, such as what I just mentioned parenthetically. Otherwise, there is no reason for adjournment under any circumstances until the end of the 90-day annual congressional session.

Fun Things To Do On Thanksgiving Day

A little "holiday humor" to go with your feast:

1. Announce that you would like to start a new family tradition, and proceed to take off your clothes at the dinner table.
   
   
2. Open the oven, shove hunks of Velveeta cheese and Spam into the turkey while it cooks. Tell mom/grandma/your wife that it adds the coolest flavor.
   
   
3. Whenever someone at the table says a word beginning with the letter R, make a loud "BUZZ"ing noise.
   
   
4. Bring along old recorded football games, pop them in the VCR when Dad's not looking.
   
   
5. Suck your cranberry sauce loudly through a straw.
   
   
6. After soaking a napkin in some turkey gravy, simulate blowing your nose, letting the gravy drip onto your food. Start eating ravenously.
   
   
7. Hold your nose while you eat. Make soft gagging noises after every second or third forkful.
   
   
8. Recite the tragic and abusive conditions known to exist at turkey farms. Emphasize the negative health and sanitation aspects of the story.
   
   
9. Mid-meal turn to mom/grandma/your wife and say, "See, I told you they wouldn't notice. You were worried for nothing."
   
   
10. Load your plate up high, then take it to the kitchen, toss it all in the blender, and take your "shake" back to the table. Announce that you've got a new fear of choking.
    
    
11. When you arrive, promise that your date won't be more than an hour late, he/she just has to wait for the warden to get together all the necessary release forms, and then they are free go.
    
    
12. Come to the table dressed in a toga.
    
    
13. Midway though the meal, excuse your self from the table. Go into the next room and make loud gagging, vomiting sounds. Return to the table and ask for another plateful of food.
    
    
14. Observe aloud how much the stuffing and gravy resemble the contents of Uncle Ed’s colostomy bag.
    
    
15. When giving the “Thanksgiving blessing”, be sure to express how thankful you are that you only have to eat at the same table with your in-laws once or twice every year.
    
    
16. Turn the topic of conversation toward recognition of the early symptoms of food poisoning. Demonstrate these symptoms, just for safety’s sake.
    
    
17. Insist on having paper bags wrapped around the wine bottles at the table.
    
    
18. Bring the turkey from the kitchen to the table dressed only in a jock strap.
    
    
19. Before everyone begins eating, announce loudly that both turkey legs are yours. Place a loaded revolver on the table in front of your plate to show that you're serious.
    
    
20. Call the local Salvation Army mission to ask if the residents are enjoying the rice noodles, spam, sauerkraut and fruitcake that you donated for their dinner.
    
    
21. Start a food fight at the table.
    
    
22. Present your guests with an itemized bill for the food, making sure to add a 15 percent gratuity.
    
    
23. Engage your brother-in-law in a belching contest before dessert. Ask someone else at the table to judge volume, tone, duration and “viscosity.”
    
    
24. Drink copious quantities of wine, washing each spoonful of food down with at least half a glass. At the same time, sip out of your water glass sparingly, ensuring that it’s never more than half full.
    
    And finally, the number one way to have fun on Thanksgiving Day:
    
    
25. Call the local Salvation Army mission and tell them that you’ve prepared a massive feast that you and your family can’t possibly eat by yourselves. Tell them you can feed at least twenty-five hungry and homeless people if the Salvation Army can bring them to you. Give them directions to your obnoxious next-door neighbor’s house.
    

Who says Liberranter doesn't have sense of humor?

HAVE A HAPPY AND SAFE HOLIDAY!

A Budding Entrepeneur(ette)?

Well, my wife’s embryonic business is getting off to an auspicious start, in its own very small way. Indeed, it looks like she’s going to zoom past me in my own efforts to get a small business off the ground (as I posted back on May 5^th). I’m proud of her, since she has not been particularly happy at her current job and has always wanted to be her own boss. Selling jewelry, accessories (handbags, wallets, etc.) and clothing has always been her forte, and she can sell salt to a snail. She seems to have found a niche market for the stuff she’s selling, which also seems to be a step in the right direction.

The sad part of it is, she doesn’t want to grow the business to any great degree for the twin reasons that hold anyone with entrepreneurial aspirations back: taxes and government regulations. Who can blame her? The silver lining is that the more she sees, first hand, the behavior of the nanny state and its toxic effect on commerce, the more she understands why I think the way I do and why I maintain this blog.

I’d like to post a catalog of her inventory online (she doesn’t plan on creating a website just yet) since the holiday season is soon upon us, but I don’t think she’s quite ready yet to support online marketing. If she does, my readers here will be the first to know.

The Secession Question Returns

It is perhaps a sign of just how deep the dissatisfaction with the national status quo is that the topic of secession has become newsworthy for the first time in nearly a century and a half. I read with interest an article linked to today’s LRC about a group in Vermont seriously attempting to establish a Second Vermont Republic (SVR). Other groups in the Southern states are forming with a similar agenda. All of these have the same overriding concern underpinning their platform: a federal government that is out of control.

This is an obvious truism and a very valid reason for the people of a state to extricate themselves for an entangling union that clearly isn’t serving their (or anyone else other than politically-favored groups’) interests. The problem with secession, as I see it, is that it doesn’t address the fundamental issue, which is the oppressive nature of the State itself (“the State” referring here to government at any level).

A cursory look at the history of the federal government’s expansion since the end of the War of Northern Aggression suggests strongly that much of the legal and political intervention in the affairs of the states after the war was done on the pretext that states were violating the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of individuals. The unconstitutionally-enacted (along with the Thirteenth and most subsequent amendments) Fourteenth Amendment, in particular, gave the newly-strengthened federal government the muscle to intervene, through the federal courts, in cases involving what were clearly state and local matters of law that could not even be remotely construed by the Constitution as the concern of the national government. The notorious Brown v. the Board of Education case is one well-known example. While all of us no doubt believe that school segregation was and is a horrible thing that needed to be brought to an abrupt end (the debatable legality of government schools notwithstanding), the fact is that nowhere does the United States Constitution grant authority to the national government to adjudicate either education or social policy. In other words, the issue in Brown involved no federal law as defined by the Constitution and was purely a matter for the people of the City of Topeka and the State of Kansas to resolve. Therein lies a clue as to why, if the aim of secession is to maximize the rights of individuals, such a move will not achieve its goal.

As the facts surrounding Brown demonstrate, the wrongs central to the case were enshrined as law not by the federal government, but by the city of Topeka and the State of Kansas. There was no federal law at the time requiring that schools or other public facilities be segregated and that African-Americans be treated as second or third-class citizens. Similarly, moving the calendar forward a few decades, homosexuals in the states of Florida and Texas, for all the fear and hatred they expressed toward a Republican presidential administration’s potential persecution through the force of law, needed to look closer to home for the source of their discontent. Both states had anti-sodomy laws on the books that violated these people’s natural rights of free association. There was no equivalent federal law that targeted homosexuals. It was the majority of the voters of Georgia and Texas, through their elected state representatives, who decided that same-sex congregations of an intimate nature were to be illegal and punishable by force of law. The idea that living in an independent Republic of Texas or Georgia would change this is ludicrous.

The point is that secession from the United States will not guarantee respect for individual rights; in fact, the seceding sovereign state that results may be much less free than if it had remained part of the Union. After all, there would be nothing to prevent a tyranny of the majority unless the newly-independent “state” adopted a constitution that prevented this, and even then such a move would likely fail. Indeed, looking at all of the myriad volumes of legislation on the books in each state, many containing laws clearly unnecessary, unenforceable, and contrary to the rights accorded the individual under the principles of natural law, it is hard to imagine that suffering the oppression of a state or local government is in any way an improvement over the trampling of rights perpetrated by the elitist denizens of Rome-on-the-Potomac. Does anyone really believe that the state government of an independent Republic of Mississippi, for example, will respect the rights of all individuals residing within its borders any more than the federal government now does? I seriously doubt it.

The only quasi-workable solution, as I see it, is to look beyond the State for the solution, or at least work within the framework of state and local government to effect change. Only when the citizens of each state work to ensure that the few laws they have are those that guarantee individual liberty by respecting the rights of property and person will effective change come about. Perhaps then this will spread to the national level and secession will be a moot point.

While this doesn't appear likely to happen anytime soon, we can always aspire to the goal.

Election Day in the Commonwealth: So What?

Today is the day that the compliant little lemmings who make up the citizenry of the Commonwealth of Virginia go to the polls to elect new guardians for the next four years. I’m going to pass. I can think of many better things to do with my time (like watching dust gather on the wall), but doing something as futile as voting isn’t even on the list, particularly considering the corrupt and inept buffoons populating this year’s ballot. Even the Libertarian candidate for delegate in my district, Chuck Eby, can’t get my blood excited. His platform is sufficiently compromised that he might as well be a Demopublican (amazing how this always seems to happen with [Big “L”]ibertarians come election time).

I won’t go into all the reasons why I’ve finally decided to quite voting, cold turkey. Others have done a much better job than I ever could of explaining the philosophy behind this attitude. Butler Shaffer, in particular, does a brilliant job of it here and here. Anthony Gregory, Brad Edmonds, and Wendy McElroy also weigh in with some insightful reasons to stay away from the polls.

I can hear the rejoinders right now, one of the most trite being:

“If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain about the government!”

Wrong! I have more right than anyone else to complain. By not voting, I have refused to sanction these statist thugs and their illegal, immoral and unconstitutional actions certain to follow once they’ve ensconced themselves in office. Therefore, I can say with absolute moral authority that these people do not “represent” me and that I do not, under any circumstances, recognize their authority over me. The aforementioned quote is often followed by:

“So just vote for the lesser of the two evils. You’ll be voting against [Scumbag Candidate X], not for [Scumbag Candidate Y].”

This has to be one of the most moronic things ever to issue forth from a human mouth. This is like saying that you prefer cancer over AIDS. What on earth does it matter whether my intent was to vote against one candidate by voting for his opponent? The simple fact of the matter is that my vote constitutes an endorsement for Scumbag Candidate Y, period. It doesn’t matter whether or not it’s a protest vote against Scumbag Candidate X. If Scumbag Candidate Y gets elected because of my vote, will I really be any better off? In all likelihood, Scumbag Y’s conduct in office will be just as reprehensible as would be Scumbag X’s, so it is difficult to fathom exactly what would have been gained. There is no better illustration of this than the election of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. I defy anyone to tell me with a straight face that we are really better off with Dubya in the White House. If your answer is yes, then you are obviously in thrall of the State and all of its degeneracy (and don’t even start with the “If Gore had been President on 9/11. . .” crap).

And finally, although I can’t locate the original article, Charley Reese made the following statement a couple of years ago:

“The voting booth is not a place to make a statement.”

You’re right, Charley, it’s not, the fact notwithstanding that everyone who votes is making a statement of choice. I know you didn’t mean this statement in the context of which I’m thinking, but since you mention it, I agree. The voting booth is a pretty useless tool with which to express one’s political opinion. It’s like trying to cook dinner with a vacuum cleaner; it’s the wrong tool for the task. Rather than use a tool that is so obviously rigged in favor of the State, just stay home. Write. Publish. Email. Evangelize liberty to friends, coworkers, and associates. Treat your fellow citizens and their property with respect, and demand that they do the same to you. These simple actions will do far more to make a statement than going into a voting booth every two to four years to give legal sanction to thieving bullies.

So for those of you Virginians (or denizens of any other state holding a FoolsFest today) who have nothing better to do with your time, go cast your vote. Let’s meet again in four years and see what has changed for the better. I’m laying a paycheck on “nothing of substance.” Care to wager?

Boundaries, Privacy and Lack of Respect Thereof

I’ve needed to get this off my chest for a long time, but it seems to me that no one holds any concept of boundaries in today’s society, nor do people respect the desires of others to maintain them.

So why the rant now?

Early this evening, a quiet Sunday at home for us after a hectic week and a crowded Saturday, I was in the kitchen cooking dinner, the wife and daughter working a jigsaw puzzle on the dining room table, and BooBoo being BooBoo, playing with things he wasn’t supposed to and getting in the way. The phone rings. Caller ID reveals it to be the neighbor who set up the block party a couple of months ago, the woman whom I originally judged a saint. Since we often choose not answer the phone on weekends when we just want some peace and quiet, I let the phone ring. If it’s important, she’ll leave a voicemail message. Not two minutes later, the house phone rings again. Then, two minutes later, my cell phone. Five minutes later, the front doorbell rings. Jeez, woman, can’t you take a hint? Either no one is home, or if we’re home, we don’t want company! Doorbell rings again. Knocking. More doorbell ringing. Knocking turns to banging. My wife, sitting in the dining room not even twelve feet from the front door, screams “We’re not available! Go away!” Rude, yes, but how do you exhibit politeness in response to blatant harassment? Neighbor screams my wife’s name “Hey, girl, it’s me, Veronica.” Liberranter’s thought? So f&#*ing what! Does that give you some mystical sort of special privilege to harass your neighbors? At this point I tell my wife to answer the door and deal with this, or I’ll do it and hurt this woman (her body and her feelings) in the process. Fortunately the moron finally got the hint and walked away.

Sadly, this incident isn’t the first time that so-called “friends” have exhibited this sort of behavior, nor is it at all uncommon for friends, neighbors, coworkers, and even relatives to presume that your time is at their full disposal, for their every need. Liberranter is, quite frankly, getting sick and f&#*ing tired of it. The most recent straw before today to put pressure on the dromedary’s hump was a co-worker who last Friday somehow thought that it was perfectly within his right to schedule me for a meeting with a client for tomorrow afternoon without consulting with me first. The unprofessional behavior of such a stunt notwithstanding, common sense would tell anyone with half a cerebral cell that if you are unfamiliar with someone else’s schedule in minute detail, especially someone working multiple projects for multiple clients, you have no f&#*ing idea whatsoever whether or not that individual is available to cater to your insignificant whim. Although I politely disabused this cretin of the notion that he would ever get away with pulling said stunt again, this weasel is sufficiently arrogant that I have no doubt that I will see something else like this happen again soon. Next time, yours truly won’t be so polite in pointing out the error of said individual’s ways.

Rhetorical question: Have Americans been raised by feral animals? In fact, I don’t think the question is really rhetorical. In all my years of living and working abroad I can say that I have never, in any other culture, seen people behave with such arrogant and contemptuous obtrusiveness toward other people and their time the way I have in the last ten years of living back here in “the land of the free [sic] and home of the brave [sic]”. Unfortunately, such behavior is order of the day in the US of A(rrogance).

Just sit back and listen casually to conversation at work or in a public place of business. Odds are that it will reveal people behaving with a complete lack of respect for their fellow humans, whether among coworkers, bosses, or clients. Children today get away with talking to adults in a manner that, had I tried as a child (my childhood being not as far back as you may think) would have gotten my jaw slapped hard enough to fracture it, and deservedly so. Walk into any retail business in America today and listen to illiterate epsilon simi-moron sales clerks (to borrow some Huxleyan terminology) treat customers with contempt normally reserved for stray animals and vermin. Worse yet, try, as a customer, to engage the services of a business on a timetable convenient to you, rather than the provider. Good luck. Want your carpet cleaned? We have an opening at nine o’clock PM next Friday. Not convenient? Well, then go on and get screwed by somebody else who will give you the same lousy choice. Take it or leave it. Most customers on the receiving end of such treatment don’t bother to complain, knowing that for every epsilon simi-moron, the boss above him is a delta idiot whose manners and understanding of business are just as atrocious. But businesses aren’t the worst of it.

Belong to a church? A civic group? A fraternal organization? Do you happen to belong to one of these and have 1) some free time, 2) a little bit of money, 3) a big car or SUV, 4) organizational skills, or 5) motivation to get something done? If you answered yes to any of these or all five, congratulations; you’re going to be used and abused like a ten-peso Tijuana whore. Have you heard the old expression “in any organization, five percent of the people get ninety-five percent of everything done?” That’s true, because those five percent who are “doers” are kindhearted simpletons who have no backbone and a tongue that’s too soft to bite or sting. Here’s some free advice from Liberranter, who has been a very slow learner in this area: Don’t be one of these dolts if you want to have anything remotely resembling a life of your own.

It pains me to write this. The Christian lifestyle I’ve been trying hard to live counsels against this attitude. But enough is enough; I’m not doing these parasites any good by allowing them to cling to me and feed. Besides, the energy they draw from me is too precious to waste. Give a man fish, and he’ll depend on you forever; teach him to fish, and, well, you get the idea. No wonder the federal entitlement budget is off the scale!

“Compassion Central” is hereby closed. Bridges are going to be burned and friendships and longstanding associations may be ended, but frankly Liberranter no longer gives a piece of desiccated rodent excrement. If “friendships” mean tolerating people who attempt to pirate every minute of your available time and beg you at every turn to use your precious resources to help them through a life they can’t cope with, never offering anything other than aggravation in return for the effort, give me enemies and antagonists! They can’t be any more bothersome than these sorry excuses for flesh and blood.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest, but my patience and reservoir of human kindness are at a breaking point, as are my wife’s, who feels even more strongly about this than I do and who has been on the receiving end of more than her share of this from her own friends, family, and coworkers. It’s past time that people learned that other people’s time and resources are not theirs for the taking. REMEMBER THE GOLDEN RULE! HOW F&#*ING HARD IS IT TO SHOW OTHERS THE RESPECT YOU WOULD DEMAND BE SHOWN TO YOU? I’m sure this problem isn’t unique to the geopolitical scourge of North America, but it’s reaching particularly intolerable levels here in today’s anything-goes social atmosphere. If any of you are affected by the same thing, feel free to adopt this rant as your own if it adequately expresses your feelings. It might save you some energy.

(P.S: Veronica, while you will probably never read this message, it's written especially for you. You need to remember that this ain’t “the ‘hood” of North Philly. You may be used to “dissin’” your neighbors up there in that godforsaken shit hole, but that crap doesn’t wash here in the ‘burbs. I’m sorry you have none of what my wife calls “home training”, but if you come calling at my house again the way you did earlier this evening, I’m going to give you a crash course in “home training.” I don’t think you want it to come from me. On the other hand, you don’t want it from my wife either. Although you two share the same racial/ethnic background, she has even less use or tolerance for “ghetto culture” than I do and is even more pissed off at you for your behavior tonight than I am [trust me, you should be damned glad she didn’t answer the door tonight]. My wife is not “your sistah” as you referred to her the other day, when you were trying to weasel me into talking her into burning her precious gas in her SUV to help you on some ill-thought-out errand. In fact, she is probably even less of a friend to you than I am, assuming that after tonight’s nonsense that I will consider you in the future to be anything other than a nuisance. So shape up, or leave us the f&#* alone. And no, I will NOT be endorsing you for HOA council representative is this is the behavior I must expect of you. I will, however, say this in closing: I’m glad you work for the same company I do; you two deserve each other!)

The Amended Constitution – Article I, Section 3

Section. 3.

Clause 1: The original text reads:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

I have no problem with this as originally written (although I still think a term limit should probably be added somewhere here). What I have a problem with is the Seventeenth Amendment which changed the election of senators from being a function of the individual state legislatures to a direct popular vote by the electorate of the states (later on I’ll discuss in greater detail why this is a bad thing when I dissect the individual amendments).

Clause 2: The original text reads:

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

Again, I have no problem with this as originally written, the changes affected by the Seventeenth Amendment notwithstanding. In fact, I wonder if it wouldn’t be beneficial for the representatives’ terms to be staggered as well, especially if my recommendation for longer individual terms was to be adopted.

Clause 3: The original text reads:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

See my comments in my previous rant on Article One, Section Two (Clause 2) for my views on minimum ages and residency/citizenship requirements for representatives. The same view applies here for senators.

Clause 4: The original text reads:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

I’m a bit nervous about this. While clearly the framers were careful to preserve the integrity of the legislature by not granting the veep a vote in his role as President of the Senate except in the case of an exact tie, the potential for executive interference on those rare occasions when a senate vote is deadlocked is still there. Still, I’m not sure that there is any other realistic or workable alternative to break a tie without either tabling a vote or calling for “run off” counts. Suggestions, anyone?

Clause 5: The original text reads:

The Senate shall chuse [sic] their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

No problem with this as written.

Clause 6: The original text reads:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

I have a problem with the senate “trying” impeachments; perhaps another term should be used. The problem lies in the well-established fact that the separation of powers through checks and balances has long been proven a chimera. More importantly, the term “trial” is misleading; these “trials” by the senate have no legal standing in the traditional and accepted sense of the word. As Clause 7 points out, the sole punishment that the senate can mete out to a sitting president, federal judge or anyone other official accused of malfeasance of office through impeachment is removal from that office. Hence, the term “hearing” of an impeachment is probably more accurate. What is lacking in this amendment is legal teeth; that is, an officeholder shall face a mandatory criminal indictment if impeached. If conduct is sufficient to warrant removal from office, then it is certain that grounds for indictment on felony crime charges should follow.

Clause 7: The original text reads:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

I’m trying to think of a way to modify the wording here so as to firmly state that anyone removed from office following an impeachment hearing shall, in all cases, be indicted by a federal grand jury and face criminal charges. I’m open to suggestions as to how best to word this. The point is to force the legislature to take action against those guilty of official misconduct. Perhaps a review of other portions of the document is in order to set mandatory grounds for impeachment, as well as penalties against legislators for failing to keep the house clean, so to speak.

Next: Article I, Section 4

The Little Devil (Not Just a Costume!)

I couldn't help but post this of BooBoo's first Halloween costume. He wore this last year to his first Halloween Party, but this was his first year to go out trick-or-treating (you can't see the black horns very well, since the genius friend of ours who took this shot didn't think to move away from a dark background). Granny led the trick-or-treating expedition around the block and BooBoo made out like a bandit, so much so that he needed a second bag. I guess those big saucer eyes are what prompts extra generosity in people.

Now maybe by next year he'll understand that candy rationing doesn't equate to candy confiscation. I sure hope so, because the screams of indignation before bedtime last night could be heard all over the neighborhood (kind of reminded me of what I heard in reaction to gas prices a couple of months ago). That combined with a sugar high made for an "interesting" evening.

Hope everyone else had an enjoyable All Hallows Eve, especially if you have little ones.