Sealing the deal

[wizard]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Sealing the deal, posted by Robert D on May 13, 2003

I lived in NOLA for three years... Commuted back and forth to Houston for my profession... Fly to Houston on Monday morning and back home to New Orleans on Fridays... Never was able to find anything worthwhile in New Orleans for what I do... The joke in NOLA is that the only secure jobs are either making beds in the hotels or asking people "I bet I can tell you where you got them shoes!!!"

After three years of doing the SW Air commute, I gave up and moved to Houston, well, Clear Lake anyway... I would still live in NOLA today if the economy there wasn't so dependent on tourism... Funny thing was that the Monday morning / Friday afternoon flights back / forth ALWAYS had the same faces... People who had to travel to earn an adequate income to live in NOLA...

Houston may only be just across the border from "Cajun Country", but it's light years difference in culture, or lack thereof... Give me 5 pounds of bugs and an Abita and I'm in heaven...

Please, no flames... Just my opinion...

Good Luck...

[Robert D]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sealing the deal, posted by wizard on May 14, 2003

No flames at all.  Man you hit that one on the head.   This has been my complaint about this city, for some time.   The next one is crime, real and preceived.   Both issues if we do not figure things out will kill this city.    If were not for the city charm we would be another Detroit.  Dead except the burbs.  I remember when I moved here 25 years ago before the airport was built in Atlanta and at the start of the oil boom, we were doing very well and able to compete.  Now if you have a good job here, you spend most of your surplus money educating your kids at $8,000 a year for primary school alone.  Yikes.  And what goes for New Orleans, goes for the rest of our poor state in many ways.  Looks like Baton Rouge will be the place to be in La, soon.

And here is a secret no one likes to talk about.  Even Mardi Gras is smaller than 10 years ago.   I went to the quarter Mardi Gras day about 3 years ago, and walked right into Pat'o  and SAT at the bar at 4 in the afternoon.  Heck you can't do that even on a normal saturday.  The people still come but not nearly as many as years past.  

Robert D

[Travis]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Sealing the deal, posted by Robert D on May 13, 2003

Old city charm? That's why we drive to New Orleans :-) Gotta agree with the lack of mass transit, that in my opinion is the worst thing about Houston. My wifes issues don't have anything to do with the economy, her's are intent, and primarily how she went about achieving her goals. Greed is one of the 7 deadly sins...as are envy and wrath but whose counting. But that's ok, you reap what you sow! Come August I will elaborate more fully. Everything should be coming to a head at that time!

[John K]

... in response to Re: Sealing the deal, posted by Travis on May 13, 2003

She spends most of her time in Sevastopol, with some interludes in Zhitomir.  For Marina, before she came to America, her only perception of America was based upon the long running soap opera "Santa Barbara".  It has played in Ukraine for many years now.  Coming to America felt to Marina as if she were in a soap opera itself, it was very surreal to her.

For Marina, life in America is very restrictive.  We have a lot of laws regarding age of drinking, public intox, public nuisance, disturbing the publicm, public curfews in various areas, etc.  In Ukraine, there are none.  While she was going to the shoe repair place to get a shoe fixed, she met a man who was in America for a while.  He described America as a light security prison, because of all the public laws we restrict ourselves by.  Marina, for a good part, agrees.

To a certain extent, Marina is indeed correct that America is a lot more restrictive than a lot of other countries, despite our claim of being the "land of the free".  American goverment tends to put the interest of society over the interest of an individual.  Individual rights are more rigorously supported when the cases represent society's failure to protect the rights of it individuals.  Example, cases involving any kind of discrimination are prosecuted more severely, as this is viewed as a failure of society to protect it's constituents.  

In other cases, where society imposed mores are viewed to be "right", individual rights can take a back seat.  Example: many Alabama(?) schools have their classes regularly interupted by students saying prayers of devotion over the school PA system.  This continues, despite protests of a minority of parents regarding this violation of separation of church and state.  Apparently, Jews, Muslims, and other "nonchristians" have the right to cover their ears...

---------

On a different note, one of the best paid "honest" jobs in Ukraine is a plumber.  My wife was talking to one the other day and he mentioned that he pulls down 4,000 hryvnas a month, the equivalent to $750 to $800 a month here.  That's excellent money over there.  Anyone who's a plumber could possibly make a long term stay over in Ukraine a financial possibility.

[Lynn]

... in response to She's primarily from Sevastopol, posted by John K on May 13, 2003

Just as I said some time back , refering to a conversation one of my friends had with a graduate student from the FSU, she said "that she had more freedom there in a former communist state than we have here now and she found it ammusing that "we" thought we were "free" ". Isn't it ironic that it takes a foreigner to recognize the "light security prison" , when we as a people ask permission or obtain a license to do things that are garanteed to us as "rights" under the Constitution for the united States, darn, I forgot that's just an old piece of paper somewhere, which has presumably been replaced by the constitution of the United States. And who noticed? Most any school kid in Ukraine knows more, about the function of their (and our)government and it's history, than most college graduates do here.

Everything here is done in commerce, you do something against "public policy"---pay the man.

2 or 3cts.

Lynn

[John K]

... in response to Re: She's primarily from Sevastopol, posted by Lynn on May 14, 2003

I think we are free as a society, but as an individual that can be an iffy proposition.  The problem is balancing an individual's freedoms versus the common good of society.  If the individual's freedom is too strong, you'll get anarchy.  If the society's influence is too strong, you'd end up with communism.

I thing the US is a lightly socialistic society, despite the negative connotations people apply to socialism.  We have enough laws and restrictions in place to ensure a relatively smooth functioning of society.  There are sufficient checks and balances to protect the bulk of the US citizenry against each other, and from overwhelming influence of the goverment.

I understand your feelings regarding people's forgetfulness of the Constitution, Lynn.  I too feel the pain sometimes.  Still, there are avenues to challenge unjust laws up to the Supreme Court, where they can be weighed against the intent of the Constitution.  I am constantly amazed at how well the Supreme Court upholds the Constitutional intent, and I even enjoy reading the dissenting opinions to get a better feel of how a decision impacts upon daily life.

I remember reading one colonist's request to the old country, pleading for them not to send any lawyers over here, lest they destroy the country from within.  Still, the lawyers, laws, bureaucrats, court and legal systems have managed to regulate our society into a place that tries to promote the well being of it's citizens.  The constitution is still alive and well, despite the best efforts of lawyers over the centuries...

[Lynn]

... in response to I think we are nominally free, posted by John K on May 14, 2003

The Constitution "for" the united States was based on common law----under common law, if there was no injured party there was no crime. Unfortunately that Constitution was suspended when all the Southern delagates walked out in 1861 and it was at that point that the constitution (or charter)"of" the United States (corporate) came into effect. Note the "for" and "of", big difference. Under the 1789 version, each "State" is the same as a different "country" bound together by the Constitution only for the protection of the citizens of the states from threats from within the government or outside governments.

"If the individual's freedom is too strong, you'll get anarchy. If the society's influence is too strong, you'd end up with communism."

This country was started on the dream of individual "freedom". What we have today is Communism, it's just not called that, we are so politically correct, everybody has to be socialized, to fit into "society", in other words-----think what we want you to think, do what you are told and don't ask questions-------now ask you wife if that sounds any bit like the socialist youth camps in the FSU, I am sure she probably knows someone who was a part of that. Maybe that is part of what she doesn't like about Amerika.

By the way, does the supreme court rule on "law" or "public policy"?

way down South, in the land of cotton, where we came from is not quite forgotten...........

Lynn

[BURKE89]

... in response to Re: I think we are nominally free, posted by Lynn on May 14, 2003

Do, however, read some 'old' Regnery classics, if only, for your edification:

Garrett, Garet. The American Story. Chicago, 1955. (And, yes, of course, the Southern classic): Kilpatrick, James Jackson. The Sovereign States - Notes of a Citizen of Virginia, 1957.

The latter is shear brilliance; that is, if one understands liberty.

Vaughn

[Lynn]

... in response to Well said, Lynn, posted by BURKE89 on May 15, 2003

Thanks, will make note of the recommended reading, a bit overwhelmed in some other studies at present.

Best regards from Dixie,

Lynn

[BURKE89]

... in response to Re: Well said, Lynn, posted by Lynn on May 16, 2003

www.lewrockwell.com.

The sane 'lib's' appear to fit your vision very well.

I, however, am still trying too shed the: ...

Regards from the high desert,

Vaughn

[John K]

... in response to Re: I think we are nominally free, posted by Lynn on May 14, 2003

"Under common law, if there was no injured party there was no crime."

That looks like "no harm, no foul".  So an attempted murder, rape, burglary that didn't work out would be exonerated?  In this case, I'll take the newer interpretation, thank you.  Deterring crime is as important as punishing it.

"Under the 1789 version, each "State" is the same as a different "country" bound together by the Constitution only for the protection of the citizens of the states from threats from within the government or outside governments."  

Hmm, sounds like a lot of problems with this.  First, this reduces the "all men are created equal" concept, as each member state could be free to control its citizens through whatever application of laws each Governor saw fit.  Under such a condition, you might still theoretically see slavery in the old South today.

Also, extradition would be a major pain to enforce.  Commit a crime in one state then run for the border.  While that happens even today, murder is a capital offense and federal law transcends state supremacy to ensure that capital offenders will be brought to justice.  Under the old system, the capital offenders could easily avoid justice by jumping from state to state.

At least the old Constitution laid legal grounds for the North entering the Civil War to repatriate the South.  Secession could easily be interpreted as a "threat from within the goverment".  Otherwise, we could have ended up a series of little countries constantly at war, like what we see in Africa.  Had the secession succeeded, it could have spurred more and more breakups, creating a throwback to a feudal system akin to what was in the Balkans.  I would argue that secession is a form of quasi-goverment sponsored anarchy.

"What we have today is Communism, it's just not called that."

Um, pardon me, but do you own property?  Under Communism, that wasn't allowed.  Are you required to belong to a certain political party in order to get an advantage in life?  Under the old Soviet Union's communist system, that's what you had to do.  Are you subject to goverment controlled wage/salary caps?  Are you required to work or else be forced to go to a "work camp"?  Are all businesses owned by the goverment?  Such are the trappings of Communism.  As I said before.  I don't think we have become communist in any way, shape or form.  

"everybody has to be socialized, to fit into "society", in other words-----think what we want you to think, do what you are told and don't ask questions"

I'd like to see you say that to a skinhead, a black supremist or a militant homosexual.  :-)  Granted, there is a lot of media spin out there, trying to impress upon people what is "right" or "cool", but you always have the freedom to change the channel or turn it off completely.  If you do watch a presidential broadcast, the minority party also gets airtime for rebuttal.  Also, people do have the right to assemble and peacefully protest.  

While you might grumble about having to get a permit first, I think it's a good idea.  At least the civil servants know what to expect and are (hopefully) smart enough to keep the skinheads and black supremists from walking down the same street at the same time.  It allows the populace to know what's going on, so that they can participate or avoid the area on their way to work.  It is freedom of speech, mildly constrained by simple practicality.

'By the way, does the supreme court rule on "law" or "public policy"?'

The Supreme court rules upon law, of course, but the laws often have far reaching impacts on public policy.  Also, public policy can be challenged within the framework of law, to ensure that public policy doesn't overwhelm individual freedom.  Look at equal opportunity (EO) or equal employment opportunity (EEO) as examples of this.

I guess the issue really is how much freedom should an individual have?  If he has total freedom, you have anarchy.  If he has none, you have totalitarianism or communism.  I personally think a person's freedom should be limited where it causes another person to lose theirs.  If you disagree with this, I'm sorry, but I'm looking at the relatively smooth functioning of our society as a whole, as opposed to what you or I as individuals should be free to do.

As always, this is simply my 2¢ and strictly my own opinion.  You mileage may vary...

[Lynn]

... in response to In rebuttal, posted by John K on May 14, 2003

[This message has been edited by Lynn]

"So an attempted murder, rape, burglary that didn't work out would be exonerated?" ---the attempt of these thing "is" a intrusion upon someone else----therefore it is a crime, where do you get that I said something like this wasn't? Punishment under common law was more severe than the social re-indoctrination camps of today.

Point #2, Each and every state has it's own constitution (most are patterned after the Constitution for the united States) or didn't you know that? Also, New York was a major slave trading port city and there were slave owners all over the north, although manufacturing overshadowed farming in those areas, it was still there. State's rights of self rule were a big part of the original concept of this "free nation". If you think for one moment that slavery was a reason for the war between the states then you are way off base, that wasn't even part of the equasion. Taxes, power, control was all it was about. By the way, do you know who Lincoln said was his greatest enemy? Bankers and lawyers. So, you are for Big Brother telling you what to say, do, think and who to worship?

"Um, pardon me, but do you own property?" No and neither do you, you may think you do but all you may have is a warranty deed--that only gives you the right to use the property with the government's permission.

"Are you required to belong to a certain political party in order to get an advantage in life?" That depends mainly on your status or should I say classification as a "citizen" wheater it be a national or a US citizen, the latter is considered to be a ward of the federal government----which by the way is the classification your wife falls under.
____________________________________________________________
"everybody has to be socialized, to fit into "society", in other words-----think what we want you to think, do what you are told and don't ask questions" to clarify this comment, I was actually refering to our so called educational system here.

            And.

"I'd like to see you say that to a skinhead, a black supremist or a militant homosexual. :-) Granted, there is a lot of media spin out there, trying to impress upon people what is "right" or "cool", but you always have the freedom to change the channel or turn it off completely. If you do watch a presidential broadcast, the minority party also gets airtime for rebuttal. Also, people do have the right to assemble and peacefully protest."

You better read Patriot Act I real close here, the new Partiot Act II and the DOD field manual on dealing with citizen combatants (incidently published a few months before 9/11).

"The Supreme court rules upon law, of course, but the laws often have far reaching impacts on public policy."

I think you better check your facts here, it has been years since they have ruled on anything but public policy.

"I guess the issue really is how much freedom should an individual have? If he has total freedom, you have anarchy. If he has none, you have totalitarianism or communism. I personally think a person's freedom should be limited where it causes another person to lose theirs. If you disagree with this, I'm sorry, but I'm looking at the relatively smooth functioning of our society as a whole, as opposed to what you or I as individuals should be free to do."

Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people are afraid of the government you have tyranny, when the government is afraid of the people you have good government"

Our Constitution was patterned after common law. Your statement: "I personally think a person's freedom should be limited where it causes another person to lose theirs." is in total agreement with common law concept-----just as I said before----"The Constitution "for" the united States was based on common law----under common law, if there was no injured party there was no crime." wouldn't someone be injured if their freedoms were restricted by someone else's actions?

By the way, what do you consider the supreme law of the land?

Just a quiz.

Lynn

[John K]

... in response to Re: In rebuttal, posted by Lynn on May 14, 2003

I guess I'm going to have to do some reading up here.  I admit, I haven't bothered with either Patriot act and I hadn't even heard of the DOD manual on citizen combatants (BTW, how is a peaceful protestor a combatant?).

I was aware that each state had it's constitution.  That's part of every high school goverment class, for those that pay attention.  The point I was trying to get across is that there does need to be a federal set of laws that provide a common set of protections and enforcement, regardless of what state you live in and that it must preempt state laws.  Otherwise, you have a loose confederation of states that will constantly be at odds with each other.

I never claimed the Civil War was over slavery.  Slavery was a scapegoat reason.  Secession occured over what the South felt was it's inability to get adequate representation in Goverment, if I remember correctly, even though it had significant seats in the House of Representatives, due to a slave being counted as 2/3 of a man or something similar.  It's been a while since I read Kenneth Davis's book, so I'm a bit rusty on that one though.

I never claimed to be for "Big Brother".  I dislike goverment influence as much as the next person.  I do, however, realize that goverment is a necessary evil, because a significant percentage of people nowadays need the threat of legal retribution to keep them in line.  Otherwise, I'd likely be spending the bulk of my time locked behind my front door with a loaded shotgun (especially from some of my neighbors).  

Incidently, the last time I checked, the goverment didn't tell me who to worship, what to say, or what to think.  My mother on the other hand...  :-)  I did have some opinionated teachers, but that never stopped the students from challenging their ideas.  At least in Iowa, we are allowed to think for ourselves.  As far as what to do or not to do, there does need to be some regulation there.  Otherwise, I'd again likely be hiding behind my door with the shotgun.  

Most of the personally restrictive laws aren't federal, btw.  Zoning laws, DOT regulations, permits, property taxes, etc. are all part of civic law.  Civic law comes from state, county, and city goverments.  So if you're grouchy about having to buy a permit or pay property taxes, don't blame the US goverment.  Look a little closer to home for that.

As far as the "supreme law of the land", again according to my old high school goverment class, it is supposed to be the Constitution.  I suppose you have a different answer though.  :-)

I still don't think that the Supreme Court tackles public policy directly.  Their job is to review legal cases brought before it to first, determine if the case holds enough merit to be tried.  If there is legal precedent, the Court rarely takes the case, the exception being if the legal precedent is seen to be possibly flawed.  Second, in trying the case, the justices weigh the case against the precepts of the Constitution, to determine if the laws being applied, and the application itself of those laws, are valid within the framework of the Constitution.

It is through the Supreme Court's validation or nullification of laws, that public policies sometimes get changed.  The Supreme Court does not dictate public policy.  They simply determine whether laws are valid or not within the framework of the Constitution.  The laws, however, are what often shape public policy.  So it is the legislators, not the Court, who are truely trying to shape public policy.  The Court's function is simply to act as a check against those legislators, by ensuring that the laws they pass are valid.

Incidently, the right to peaceful assembly is a part of the Constitution (Article 21).  If any security act is enforced against this, the protestors have the right to go to court to get the act repealed.  I'm certain the Supreme Court would love to have that case on it's doorstep.  And I'm equally sure the ACLU would be waiting anxiously for the chance to try it.

I didn't mean to get into this debate, but I'm afraid I just couldn't resist.  I normally agree with you on most things, Lynn, but in this case I had to take exception.  Not with your facts, but with how you choose to apply them.  The Constitution and the canvas of legal precedents it spawns are not designed to be static.  They are dynamic and designed to be relevant to the needs of the population here and now.  Your historical stance regarding strong State and weak Federal goverments, while admirable, has already shown itself to be a catastrophic failure.  How else would you describe the Civil War?

Anyway, I'm going to do some reading and see what I can ferret out of this mess.  It's going to be challenging keeping up with you...  :-)

[Lynn]

... in response to I'm gotta do some reading..., posted by John K on May 15, 2003

(BTW, how is a peaceful protestor a combatant?) That is what I would like to know, read the Patriot Acts, your right of free speech has been infringed upon.

"The point I was trying to get across is that there does need to be a federal set of laws that provide a common set of protections and enforcement, regardless of what state you live in and that it must preempt state laws. Otherwise, you have a loose confederation of states that will constantly be at odds with each other." Yes and no, the Constitution allows for certain things to be governed at the federal level, but not to the extent that it has been taken. The Constitution "for" the united States of America was "for" a loose confederation of states and yes there did come a time when they were at odds. Have you ever wondered, who benefited the most from the war? The causes of the war were a lot deeper than the popular history version.

"because a significant percentage of people nowadays need the threat of legal retribution to keep them in line." We all know that the threat of going to jail is not as fearful as it once was, in fact it is like a badge of honor for some to be able to say that they have pulled time, besides----"all" crimes are commercial, whether here or in the FSU, money talks---wheater it be in private or the court room--we've all seen it.

"As far as the "supreme law of the land", again according to my old high school goverment class, it is supposed to be the Constitution. I suppose you have a different answer though. :-)" Affaid so, it's the UCC.

I think you need to do some serious reading on the functions of the Supreme Court and while you are at it read the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto----I think if you do some serious checking that you will discover that we has at least one statute for each plank that either partially or fully puts each into effect.

"dynamic and designed to be relevant to the needs of the population here and now" It is and if you study it closely and realize if we had stuck to it as "originally written", we would be the strongest economic nation in the world instead of this huge debtor that we have become. Read Article I, Section 8 & 10, you will discover that threr is no legal currency here in the united States, only paper with a percieved value, just like the money in Ukraine. Up until 1913 our currency was the strongest in the world, by 1933 we were bankrupt, why? because the government sidestepped the Constitution.

Tell you what, if you will e-mail me a postal address I will send you two books that you may find quite interesting, one includes the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independance, The Ten Comandments and The Communist Manifesto, and the other is about "Useful Knowledge About Governing Bodies" and the author offers to print a retraction if you can prove him wrong on any account.

Happy reading, better get something for nausea, you might need it.

Lynn

[John K]

... in response to Re: I'm gotta do some reading..., posted by Lynn on May 15, 2003

You should have my address in your inbox.  I guess I'd better start reading all those books on Jefferson that I set aside for a rainy day as well...