Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

Sorry if I was a little snippy in the comments. Work just got to me and I probably shouldn’t have been arguing a contentious issue while hating my job.

Which isn’t to say I hate the work. I don’t. I like the work. Really. It’s just that, well, as a contractor there’s no recognition for what you do beyond your pay. That’s really starting to grate, especially today. It didn’t help that my contracting house cut my pay effective this week either. So, now I’m working below the wage I would have even accepted the job for, doing the same amount of work, with recognition coming my way only when someone thinks I screwed up.

I’m sick of being a contractor. It’s a terrible position to hold and it’s obscene that the IT field has, by and large, accepted that this is the way it’s done now.

And I didn’t get a job I interviewed for last week. One I really wanted. One I felt I interviewed very strongly for.

I’m home now. I spent about 30 minutes outside smoking my pipe and reading the new Dresden Files book. Harry has a daughter and needs to punch vampires to save her. I feel better.

I’ve stopped smoking cigars because they’re too expensive. I find I likes pipes better anyway so it’s a win-win.

I really need to start writing again too. My hands feel itchy, like they want to reach out and strangle a story out of a pen and legal pad. I read over the 24 pages of a new screenplay I’m working on and I find that I really like what I have so far. It’s fun. My last script was dark and this new one is fun and bright. Maybe I’ll post some of it for you to check out.

Anyway, Aziz, Dean, I love you two dearly. FYI

{ 8 comments }

No, this post isn’t about arguing for the states to secede from the Union. I simply want to get your thoughts on the issue. We’ve talked about the possibility of secession for reasons X, Y, and Z but I don’t recall the legal case for or against being made.

Texas v. White seems to be the final word on the issue for most but, like anyone, it’s easy enough to find a Supreme Court decision they feel fell on the wrong side of the Constitution (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission being the most recent example).

Given my feelings on state sovereignty it should be easy enough to surmise where I fall in the debate. However, my opinion hinges upon three points that, if dismantled, would force me to reexamine my position. I encourage anyone to do so. The three points are as follows:

1. The ratifying states did not believe the signing of the Constitution was suicide pact. Indeed, in the years following the ratification many of the states threatened secession. The Founders answered these threats not with admonishments reminding them of the illegality of such an act but, rather, they emphasized the greater strength the states enjoyed united.

2. If secession is not a right enjoyed by the states in perpetuity then you must admit the colonies had no authority upon which to separate from England. Yes, arguments went back and forth on the issue at the time but the bottom line is they did separate. The 13 states seceded from England.

3. If the 13 states did not have the right to secede by what authority did they break from the union as established by the Articles of Confederation?

Now, on the latter two points one may, for example, point to something James Madison said in a letter to Daniel Webster in 1833:

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes “nullification” and must hasten the abandonment of “Secession.” But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.

I would ask Mr. Madison that if there is no controversy over secession due to “intolerable oppression” but “to secede at will” is “a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged” by what right then did the states have to secede from the Articles of Confederation? A secession, I’d remind you, that you championed by deed, if not by word!

The Philadelphia Convention was convened under false pretenses. The representatives of the states came because there was a desire to amend the Articles of Confederation. No one arrived believing they were going to toss the document whole-cloth out.

So, there you have it. My feelings, more or less, on the issue. How do you feel?

{ 50 comments }

Why work when you make more on the government dole?

The Davey family’s £815-a-week state handouts pay for a four-bedroom home, top-of-the-range mod cons and two vehicles including a Mercedes people carrier.

Father-of-seven Peter gave up work because he could make more living on benefits.

Yet he and his wife Claire are still not happy with their lot.

With an eighth child on the way, they are demanding a bigger house, courtesy of the taxpayer.

Yes, they’re British. But this style of entitlement is coming our way at breakneck speed. If these first few sentences alone don’t get you a little hot under the collar, keep reading.

At their semi on the Isle of Anglesey, the family have a 42in flatscreen television in the living room with Sky TV at £50 a month, a Wii games console, three Nintendo DS machines and a computer – not to mention four mobile phones.

With their income of more than £42,000 a year, they run an 11-seater minibus and the seven-seat automatic Mercedes.

But according to the Daveys they have nothing to be thankful for.

Uh-huh… yeah… ::looks around for a bat – why don’t I own a bat?::

She added: ‘I don’t feel bad about being subsidised by people who are working. I’m just working with the system that’s there.

‘If the government wants to give me money, I’m happy to take it. We get what we’re entitled to. I don’t put in anything because I don’t pay taxes, but if I could work I would.’

What, like your husband who was working before he realized he could make more taking money from the suckers that decided to keep their jobs? ::okay, bat is out of the question – I do have a sword…::

Despite filing for bankruptcy 18 months ago after racking up £20,000 of debt on mail order catalogues they still insist on splashing out on four presents per child at birthdays and last Christmas spent £2,000 on gifts alone.

‘Santa is always generous in our house,’ said Mrs Davey, who once applied to join the police but was turned down.

She insists her husband would do any job ‘as long as we could still afford the lifestyle we have now’.

Mrs Davey, who spends £160 a week at Tesco, says she does not intend to stop at eight children. Her target is 14.

14!? Are you starting your own street gang? Will you be training them in the art of the ninja so they may, with stealth and precision, steal more from the workers of your once great nation? ::sword will not be effective – need RPC::

{ 10 comments }