Enoch

Went shopping for booze and food today, and then I made a nice beef stew for dinner. The best part: the cup of thawed sweet peas added at the very last minute. Also a highpoint: the martini I made myself while it was simmering. Mmmm... Gin!

Radiohead -- All I Need. Easily my favorite track on In Rainbows, and it's rapidly climbing the charts as one of my favorite Radiohead tunes altogether. Would it be weird to have it played at my wedding (which will be in July)? It really is an excellent love song. EDIT: Okay, so the wedding comment is a bit odd. I blame the wine-- opened a bottle to make a sauce with some mushrooms at dinner, and didn't stop when I should've. In other news, it's time for bed.

As the resident Chargers guy, Kelv, what do you think of McCree?

The canal-zone thing makes for an amusing theoretical legal argument,* but in a practical sense, there no way that a federal court would disqualify a duly elected President because he or she had been born on an American base outside the U.S. Nor should they. * Playing devil's advocate, here's the theory: The 14th Amendment's definition of citizenship added some depth to the meaning of Article II's "natural born Citizen" language. Section 1 of the 14th Am. says that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State in which they reside." It could be argued that a child born on an overseas base is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., but is not born in the U.S. Thus, the statutes providing that such children are citizens effectively naturalizes them, but they are not "natural born Citizens."

I certainly do. Particularly RPGs where story and dialogue are such important parts of the appeal. I love Fallout and PS:T, but I don't think I've played either more than twice. (Something like Super Mario World, with the appeal based more on gameplay than story/character, gets replayed more often. And Civilization doesn't count as a "replay.") Although I'll admit that I was more into replaying games (and rereading books) when I was still a student and my gaming was limited more by money than it was by time.

To clarify, Hume wrote that all human perception of causation was non-rational, because we couldn't observe the actual causing. We simply came to associate the two by observation ("every time I jump up, I fall down") and come to believe in causation based on our experiences (rather than logical proofs). This kind of belief, though, is based on our experience interacting with the world. It's not the same as metaphysical or religious belief (which Hume was not particularly fond of). Good summary Here.

Somebody's been reading his David Hume...

Gene Ammons -- Hittin' the Jug Some slow, laid-back jazz-blues. Infinitely relaxing.

Egad... That might have been me!

Interesting notion. But what makes the point relevant only to primitive societies? Unstable societies are the majority across the globe. I'm not entirely sure, but it's certainly true that the most dominant modern societies on the globe are religiously pluralistic. I'd surmise that the rise of modern civilization made other factors contributing to societal success more important than religious cohesiveness. For example, the rise of an ethos of nationalism essential replaces religious cohesion with national cohesion.

It's evolutionary biology. Primitive societies in nature survive better when they are cohesive and stable. Religion makes primitive societies more cohesive and stable (e.g., "don't overthrow the chief-- the gods will punish you!"). Thus, population groups with strong religious tendencies (i.e., a genepool characterized by well-developed brain development in the areas associated with religious experiences) tend to thrive moreso than those with weak religious tendencies.

Well, the purely rational approach is to avoid politics. In environments the size of modern Western democracies, the marginal impact of one citizen adding his/her efforts to a particular cause approaches zero. Instead, a rational person chooses to free-ride on the efforts of his/her more civic-minded (and less rational-minded) neighbors. Politics is a pure example of the Shaw quote in Gromnir's signature-- all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

The States can file suit in federal court if the federal action was in fact beyond it's constitutional powers. States have won suits like this before (see, for example, New York v. United States). They can also try to influence members of Congress to change laws and cede more authority to them. As to the second question, yes. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Art. IV, clause 2) ensures that the federal Constitution and all laws made under its authority (i.e., by Congress) are the "supreme law of the Land." State laws that contravene federal laws are a dead letter.

Sure, but is that always a good thing? A legislator who spends all of his time writing back to every nutball who sends him a letter isn't doing a whole lot of reasoned consideration of larger policy issues. There is a continuum between a totally responsive rulemaker with zero subject matter expertise, and a non-responsive expert rulemaker. Local and state governmental officials tend to be closer to the former, and federal bureaucrats delegated power via legislation tend to be closer to the latter. And, depending upon the nature of the policy being discussed, one will generally be more effective than the other. I really don't know much about Education's funding and programs (in federal parlance, the Department of Energy = "DOE" and the Department of Education = "Education"), and it may well be that they're promulgating some poor policies (I'm not the biggest fan of NCLB, either). But on a theoretical level, I don't really think that entirely local control over educational standards and funding is a particularly good idea. Sure, it made sense a century ago, when geography determined a person's employment future to a great extent, but nowadays, the educational needs of children don't differ a whole lot based on their location. And education is a vitally important part of ensuring the future of America's international economic competitiveness , so I don't see much wrong with federal legislators and bureaucrats having the authority of prevent local elected officials from sabotaging this by retaining lousy teachers, overcrowding classrooms, or indulging in the periodic curricular lunacy of the Kansas School Board. Also by drawing on a national or state-wide source of funding, communities can avoid the vicious cycle of bad schools --> low land values --> low tax income --> bad schools. More local control has the advantage of quicker response time to fix policy failures, and it preserves the experimental benefits of federalism (i.e., states and localities being "policy laboratories" where ideas are tested before being applied more broadly). But some federal oversight added to the mix is very helpful to bring substandard jurisdictions in line, and to distribute resources in a more effective way than local tax funding does.

Although I apply it more to wine than to beer, my rule is to eliminate anything with an animal on the label. I haven't really found a good "interesting beer store" since I moved two years ago. So I've mostly been drinking what they carry at the Safeway or the Costco. Although there is an Irish pub around the corner where I'll stop in for a Smithwick's every now and again.

Went house shopping with the fiancee again today. Saw a 3 bedroom colonial not far from here that we liked (and 6 other places we didn't like as much). It's a decent location (about a mile's walk to the subway station, and the walk goes right by what appears to be a good mexican restaurant), nicely appointed with new floors and a solid kitchen (gas stove, new appliances, and butcher-board countertops). On the other hand, it's on a pretty busy street, has no bathroom on the 1st floor (1 upstairs, 1 basement), and the bedrooms are pretty small. And there's a spot at the bottom of the steps into the basement where I would be in continual danger of whanging my head. We've seen about 20 places, and this is the strongest contender so far. It's been on the market since September, so we should have some leverage in negotiating if we decide to make an offer.

One of the coolest ideas I've seen on the web lately: Garfield Minus Garfield. The concept is self-explanatory, and the result is brilliant. The author explains: "Who would have guessed that when you remove Garfield from the Garfield comic strips, the result is an even better comic about schizophrenia, bipolor [sic] disorder, and the empty desperation of modern life? Friends, meet Jon Arbuckle. Let’s laugh and learn with him on a journey deep into the tortured mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against lonliness [sic] and methamphetamine addiction in a quiet American suburb." Examples:

Enoch you just summed up in a single sentence why I dislike and will not vote for democrats. Ever since FDR they have been working actively to erode the 10th amendment and have not even paid lip service to the concept of Federalisim. Granted the Post-Reagan republicans have been little better but when I must choose between fast decline and slow decline I must opt for the lesser of the two and vote for slow decline. Well, legally, the 10th Amendment is a guarantee of residual power (dealing with "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States"), which doesn't actually limit anything that was given to the feds in the original Constitution. And, like it or not, the original Constitution was written with deliberately vague terms like "interstate commerce" and "general welfare" to allow the new government the flexibility to deal with unforeseen circumstances. In a more practical vein, I can understand getting emotional about substantive issues, and I can understand having a preference over whether governmental decisions are made in the state capitol or in Washington, based on a guess at the substantive outcome of those decisions made in either venue. But, outside of hard-core Confederates, I really don't understand how one gets to the point where one cares so fiercely about which level of government makes which decisions. Surely it's the substance of the laws and regulations that matter moreso than the place where the legislators & bureaucrats make them? To me, the question should be one of efficiency-- if an issue has an inter-state scope (e.g., air pollution, transportation, international economic competitiveness, etc.) it is most efficient to address it at the national level. Since the 20th century has been marked by dramatic rise in the economic and social interconnectedness of geographically distant places, it makes perfect sense to me that it has also been a period characterized by a growth in the federal government relative to state and local governments. But that could just be the heartless federal bureaucrat in me shining through.

True. But focusing entirely on geographic majorities/minorities is dumb, because it ignores all the other types of divisions where minority oppression can occur. What credible reason is there to worry about New York outvoting Wyoming more than we worry about Christians outvoting Jews or the poor outvoting the rich? The existing counter-majoritarian structures in the U.S. government (filibusters, vetoes, Court review, etc.), combined with the Federalist system (leaving significant authority to state & local governments) is more than enough to safeguard geographic minorities just like they do every other minority.

Juicy example? I doubt it. They tried to write budget authority to issue loan guarantees (which was totally unnecessary given that the underlying act already did that) and ended up putting a temporary cap on the total principle amount to be guaranteed. Which has the desired effect in year 1, but leaves amount of potential guarantees unlimited in subsequent years, absent further legislation. It's a new program, so I doubt that the staff members of the governing appropriations subcommittees have much experience with loan guarantees. At least I think that's what happened. I'll need to brush up on the Red Book at bit to be sure. As for the mole I mentioned the other day, I doubt I'll do anything. It's irritating on the day that I cut it, but once the bleeding has finally stopped, it's not that big a deal.

As well they should. People have the right to vote; geographical areas don't. The 945,000 residents of Montana should have exactly the same influence as 945,000 residents living in uptown Manhattan. It's an exceedingly dumb system in a modern democracy. But, unfortunately, as GD mentioned, it is quite unlikely to be changed anytime soon. Obama will be the nominee. Hillary would need ridiculously large margins of victory in Texas and Ohio to pull even in the delegate count and the popular vote. (If the shoe were on the other foot and Obama had lost 10 straight contests and was pinning his hopes on a last-minute comeback, everyone would be wondering why he hasn't conceded yet.) Right-wing GOP'ers are still salivating over the idea of Hillary's (who they view as the embodiment of pure evil for no reason besides that Rush told them to) ego sabotaging the Democratic Convention. It ain't gonna happen. The superdelegates are all politically shrewd people who very much want the Democratic candidate to win in the general election. They won't screw it up.

Usually Amazon, with the "super saver" shipping option (i.e., free but slow). Occasionally, I'll find myself at the Best Buy (usually when someone has given me a gift card) and buy stuff there, too.

Here is a fun issue-based candidate chooser. (It's better than most of the ones I've seen because it lets you weight the importance of the various issues.) Obama came in at 79% for me, 1% ahead of Clinton (and tied with Mike Gravel, oddly enough).

I have a small mole about a half-inch above the left corner of my mouth. This morning, I shaved half of it off. I do this with alarming frequency (roughly once every six months or so). It doesn't hurt very badly or anything, but it takes forever to stop bleeding. I'm sure I drew some odd looks on the subway with a little square of tissue stuck to my face. I'm beginning to think I should switch back to an electric razor.

The Flaming Lips -- She Don't Use Jelly