Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Jan 2007 09:44 In article <eoo8aq$8qk_002(a)s1231.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45AF9CC5.DD8A4533(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Congress just passed a bill that cause all food processing to be >>> >>> moved to foreign lands. >>> >> >>> >>Does this bill have a name ? >>> > >>> >I can't remember its title. What it does is raise the minimum >>> >wage to $7.50/hour. >>> >>> OH BS. Studies have shown increasing the minimum wage doesn't lead to >lower >>> employment. And look at the many states which already have a higher min. >wage >>> than that. With booming economies (CA, for example). >> >>Expect BAH to now suggest that the agriculture in California is about to >collapse. > >It already has. Adding the burden of a minimum wage hike will >make it worse. > CA has had $6.75 an hour since 2002; they voted (the people) to raise it to $7.50 an hour starting Jan. 1. Are you trying to suggest CA's economy has been collapsing since 2002? >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Jan 2007 09:44 In article <eoo8dh$8qk_003(a)s1231.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <eoo0o7$bib$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <eons1k$8qk_006(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <45ACE35A.FDA46239(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Congress just passed a bill that cause all food processing to be >>>>> moved to foreign lands. >>>> >>>>Does this bill have a name ? >>> >>>I can't remember its title. What it does is raise the minimum >>>wage to $7.50/hour. >>> >>>/BAH >> >>OH BS. Studies have shown increasing the minimum wage doesn't lead to lower >>employment. And look at the many states which already have a higher min. >wage >>than that. With booming economies (CA, for example). > >My state's grocers haven't even waited for the bill to become >law; the price of milk just increased by $.30/gallon. > >/BAH Yes, those cows get higher wages now.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 18 Jan 2007 15:26 On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:48:46 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> On Thu, 18 Jan 07 12:51:28 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>Are you agreeing with Lloyd that the Constitution is subservient >>>to the UN charter? That is what he's implying and that is >>>what is underlying our discussions for the last two weeks; I >>>happen to disagree with his assumption, emphatically disagree. > >> I knew what Lloyd was talking about. I was imagining that you don't. >> I've read a few Supreme Court decisions, enough of them to see the >> Justices referring to these treaties with other countries in making >> their decisions. > >There's an inherent problem with any document, which is >supposed to be the supreme law of the the land with >specific methods required to be followed in order to >modify itself then turning around and allowing itself >to be modified by actions answerable to much lower >standards. I have to say that (1) I'm not an expert in law; and, (2) the Senate must act to ratify treaties. So it is my lay opinion that although there are theoretical problems, I'm not sure there are serious fundamental ones. >We could create and implement a treaty with England that >we would respect their state religion as ours, for >example. Setting aside exactly why the US and Britain might even want to do such a thing together for a moment, this would still require an act of the Senate and I rather doubt it is likely. But then, if we are admitting unlikely cases, it's also possible that a new Amendment could be passed removing the 1st Amendment, banning political free speech and making fundamentalist Christianity the state religion. Not likely, that, without bloodshed. Or modifying the Constitution to make slavery illegal, too. Oh,... that happened, didn't it? With significant bloodshed, as I recall. I think the Senate would act with some reasonable sensibilities. >Our states have no say in such matters if it is a treaty. That is true. In fact, there are a number of ways in which state laws are circumscribed by the federal Constitution. >This is an awful loophole giving the federal government >far too much power at the expense of the states. Well, this is another issue. And it isn't confined to any particular tier of federal powers, either. For example, the federal gov't has used the commerce clause to __greatly__ expand it's powers over the states. The civil war in the US completely reworked prior beliefs about state power and state militias. On this last point, in fact, Oliver Ellsworth, the 3rd Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and, at the time, of the Connecticut delegation, spoke out this way about militia during the federal convention on August 18th, 1787: "The whole authority over it ought by no means to be taken from the states. Their consequence would pine away to nothing after such a sacrifice of power." Which turns out to be quite prophetic, in its way. Jon
From: unsettled on 18 Jan 2007 15:57 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:48:46 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > wrote: > > >>Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> >> >>>On Thu, 18 Jan 07 12:51:28 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>>Are you agreeing with Lloyd that the Constitution is subservient >>>>to the UN charter? That is what he's implying and that is >>>>what is underlying our discussions for the last two weeks; I >>>>happen to disagree with his assumption, emphatically disagree. >> >>>I knew what Lloyd was talking about. I was imagining that you don't. >>>I've read a few Supreme Court decisions, enough of them to see the >>>Justices referring to these treaties with other countries in making >>>their decisions. >> >>There's an inherent problem with any document, which is >>supposed to be the supreme law of the the land with >>specific methods required to be followed in order to >>modify itself then turning around and allowing itself >>to be modified by actions answerable to much lower >>standards. > > > I have to say that (1) I'm not an expert in law; and, (2) the Senate > must act to ratify treaties. So it is my lay opinion that although > there are theoretical problems, I'm not sure there are serious > fundamental ones. Of course they are fundamental. Look at what it takes to amend the constitution as opposed to what it takes to ratify a treaty. >>We could create and implement a treaty with England that >>we would respect their state religion as ours, for >>example. > Setting aside exactly why the US and Britain might even want to do > such a thing together for a moment, this would still require an act of > the Senate and I rather doubt it is likely. But then, if we are > admitting unlikely cases, it's also possible that a new Amendment > could be passed removing the 1st Amendment, banning political free > speech and making fundamentalist Christianity the state religion. Not > likely, that, without bloodshed. Or modifying the Constitution to > make slavery illegal, too. Oh,... that happened, didn't it? With > significant bloodshed, as I recall. > I think the Senate would act with some reasonable sensibilities. It doesn't matter. This does a very nasty end run around states rights which are part and parcel of the balancing power regarding the US Constitution. >>Our states have no say in such matters if it is a treaty. > That is true. In fact, there are a number of ways in which state laws > are circumscribed by the federal Constitution. They have a logic to them, and an agreed to validity. > >>This is an awful loophole giving the federal government >>far too much power at the expense of the states. > Well, this is another issue. And it isn't confined to any particular > tier of federal powers, either. For example, the federal gov't has > used the commerce clause to __greatly__ expand it's powers over the > states. The civil war in the US completely reworked prior beliefs > about state power and state militias. I had mentioned the highway fund being used as a club to bash some states in the past just a few days ago. The fact is there's relief available from those, but none where treaties are concerned. > On this last point, in fact, Oliver Ellsworth, the 3rd Chief Justice > of the US Supreme Court and, at the time, of the Connecticut > delegation, spoke out this way about militia during the federal > convention on August 18th, 1787: > "The whole authority over it ought by no means to be taken from the > states. Their consequence would pine away to nothing after such a > sacrifice of power." > Which turns out to be quite prophetic, in its way.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 18 Jan 2007 16:51
On Thu, 18 Jan 07 13:22:15 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <i98qq29j207ke01380bfk1h82rhguhf8lb(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Tue, 16 Jan 07 10:34:37 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>wrote: >> >>>In article <eoin12$8qk_002(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>><snippage for bah's reader> >> >>>>NATO is now in charge of helping Afghanistan. Bush isn't supposed >>>>to be helping there. >>> >>>What? We invaded! >> >>Yeah! So everyone else has to help patch things up after we break >>them. That's fair, right? Our motto, "We break 'em, you remake 'em." >> >> ;) > >It would behoove you to watch what happens and NATO's performance. None of that changes my 'teasing.' The US made the decision to invade. That it may hand over some of that later on does not dissolve its responsibilities created by that event. By the way, I do tend to think that Afghanistan was the right place for us to invade. Bush's admin got that one right, I think. However, I don't know if you remember, but the Taliban actually offered to turn over bin Laden to a neutral nation (not the US) and without any having to see any evidence (in other words, 'without recourse') that may be used in a trial, after the 9/11 attack in the US. They wanted a halt to the bombing, though. Bush said, "No." >Our enemies certainly are and, at this moment, are testing the >backbone strength of a European-based association. I'm not granting that you either (1) that you know anything about their motivations you seem to feel you can speak for; or, (2) that there is a single mind of some enemy, as implied by the way you write about this entity, our 'enemies.' You will need to show your case here with some reason why I should imagine you can speak to this. In any case, that doesn't mean you should get cowed in some direction. >If there >is no backbone in Europe, one tactic may be to whack that area >first because it is the weaker. And it's closer. I think you are personifying the 'enemy' and 'Europe' to the point of terrible distortion and uselessness for thinking well about the problems. I don't see Europe as something with a 'backbone' nor do I see 'our enemies' as possessing a single mind and motivation or even purpose. It's just rubbish to even think that way, as it won't help you very much in working out the complex solutions that are needed. It just turns everything into flat, lackluster cartoon bubbles that tell you nothing helpful. Jon |