The Chicken or the Egg?

I once asked my friend Steve what was more important to him, the freedoms granted in the Constitution, or the process defined in the Constitution for the people to perform self-governance? Don't worry, I had to explain my question to Steve as well :-D

Basically, it works out to be, what's more important - the specific freedoms we presently enjoy, or, the freedom of process to decide what rights we have as a society. For example, presently we have things like the freedom to bear arms, free speech, protections against searches and seizure, etc. as amendments to the Constitution. But what if those amendments changed in a legal and valid fashion?

The Constitution defines the process for amending itself (you can't repeal an amendment if you want to remove it, you have to pass an amendment nullifying a different amendment) that requires Congressional approval followed by 3/4 of the states ratifying that amendment via a Constitutional Convention. Sound complicated? It's supposed to be.

So why do I bring this up? I was recently made aware of a group called "Oath Keepers" that got me thinking about this again. Intrigued, I spent an hour or so reading their website. It's quite the noble organization, but I found some discrepancies I simply couldn't just dismiss. Their mission statement reads as follows:

"Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution."

I'm good with that, makes sense as I see it. But once I kept reading, I discovered their Declarations, which begins as such:

"Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:"

and then it goes on to list the 10 orders they will not follow, the first of which reads "1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.".

Hmmmmm.

So here's the problem. Simply put, you cannot decide which amendments to the Constitution are "right" and which are "less important" when you promise to defend the Constitution. For example, WHAT IF the American people decide they no longer want to guarantee the right to bear arms, and ratify a valid, legal amendment to Constitution that removes the Second Amendment?

What now? Defend the Constitution, or defend the specific amendment? Chicken, or Egg?

Anyone who knows me knows I would say the Constitution is the more important thing. I like the way it is presently structured and support the freedoms in grants. But I support the document, the process of the people to self govern, above those amendments. I think a lot of people get caught up in the specifics of the amendments as the driving doctrine, and often miss a lot of the big picture.

All that said, if you can get 38 states to agree on ANYTHING, it's probably a no-brainer.

And what did Steve answer? He thought about it for a few weeks, and he decided the process was the thing as well, but, he also said he thought that some of the freedoms should be untouchable as well. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz In other words, he couldn't really decide.

Chicken, or Egg?

A lesson in being unpopular

Today is September 11, 2009. It marks the 8th Anniversary of the terrorist attacks involving 4 commercial airliners against the United States of America. For the majority of Americans, and maybe even the world, it's the day that has defined and shaped much of the 21st Century.

I say majority of Americans, but not all. Because it wasn't that kind of day for me.

Before I start on this let me say this: I love my country. I consider myself to be an upstanding citizen, and I think we here in the U.S. have figured out a pretty good system of government. I am in no-way "anti-American" and believe in the Constitution of the United States. I believe the society that has arisen from this document is special and unique and worth preserving.

9/11 simply doesn't have the impact for me that has for most people. On 9/11 I remember logging into my AOL account and seeing a news report that a plane had hit the World Trade Center and assumed it was some knucklehead from Yonkers in his twin-engine Cessna who couldn't figure out how to steer his plane. Just before leaving for work I decided to check out the news, and for the next two hours I watched the second tower get hit, heard the reports of the Pentagon being hit, and saw the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. And then I called my mom, who was at Johns Hopkins in the final days of her battle with Pancreatic cancer, a battle we knew she was rapidly losing, a battle she would ultimately lose 10 days later.

A lot of things happened over the next few days, but the circumstances of that time will always be overshadowed, for me, by the loss of my mom. We talked about 9/11 a couple of times, and she was worried about the world she was leaving us to look after. I told her I thought everything would be ok, we'd figure out who did this and where they were, and remove them from existence. I still hope I'm right about that. I truly did believe that at the time, that we would deal with this, figure out who did it and systematically remove then from the face of the earth. I think the saddest part of the whole thing is that eight years later we're still in Afghanistan chasing around the knuckleheads behind all this.

I understand why it affected so many people, why it was such an important event. Historical significance is not lost on me, it's the emotional attachment to the event that I guess is different for me than it is for a lot of people. I've never been a person to just accept what I was told and pretty much question everything. A complete cynic in many ways. And I've always felt the very best thing we can do to defeat the actions of 9/11 was to return to "life as normal", rebuild the buildings as they were, and go about our lives in a way that says "you can attack us, but you can't hurt us, you can't change us".

Was 9/11 a tragedy? Of course. Does it deserve a National holiday? Absolutely not. Memorials, Remembrances, of course, but not a National holiday. For me, it wasn't even the worst day of that week.

I realize this isn't my best blog post ever, so thanks for bearing with me.

2009 Football Predictions

(note: Facebookies, these Notes copy over from my blog, http://wellformedthoughts.blogspot.com/)

It's September 8, and I want to put these out for the record:

Maryland Terrapins - 5-7 (yes, I know they already got killed by Cal)
Washington Redskins - 6-10

Opinion: If Maryland goes 5-7, as I think, Ralph Freidgen should resign. You need to recruit better OL/DL/LB types, Ralph. Peer E Uhd.

Speculation: Last year for Jason Campbell in a Redskins uniform. Last year for Jim Zorn as head coach. Albert Haynesworth will remind people more of Dana Stubblefield than of Reggie White, and he'll miss at least 3 games. And hopefully, if they hire a Bill Cowher / Mike Shannahan / Jon Gruden type to come in, it means bye-bye for Vinny Cerrato. I'll help you pack your office, Vinny.

I'm down on both teams. Why? With both, it's the obvious lack of physical talent in the right areas. The Redskins will be more competitive because their defense has a chance to be quite good. I hope I'm wrong, but this is how I see it.

A Big Problem

I was 21 years old in 1988 when the movie "Big" came out, and I remember going to see the movie with my friends Tim and Frank. For those of you who might be cinematically impaired, "Big" is a story about a boy who makes a wish and wakes up the next day as an adult, and follows his adventures over the span of a few months as he learns to be an adult all while trying to become a kid again. At the end of the movie, Tom Hank's character (Josh Baskin) goes back to being a kid and all is well.

When the movie was done, we began discussing how each of us would have handled that scenario. Back then, Tim was 22, and Frank was probably 35 or so. I steadfastly argued that Josh made a huge mistake going back, and should have continued his life as an adult. Sure, he went from being 11 to probably 30, but, in his short time as an adult he landed a great job (toy company executive), an awesome loft apartment, and a legitimate relationship with one of the most elegant and beautiful women I've ever seen (Elizabeth Perkins) in my entire life (even still to this day).

Frank was adamant that you had to go back to being a kid, and Tim agreed with Frank. Now, over the course of the last 21 years, I've forgotten why Tim took that position, but Frank took his stance based on the idea you could still have all those things later in life. I argued that was crazy, and that Josh had basically won the life lottery and might never get those things back.

And here I sit, 21 years later, at the age of 42, having just watched the middle portions of "Big" on cable, and it started me thinking about that discussion. And while I still think did win the life lottery, I have to admit I'm reconsidering my viewpoint. Perhaps it's my age, the extra life experience, perhaps it's just a mid-life crisis, but I'm starting to think Josh made the right decision in going back to being a kid, even if that meant giving up Elizabeth Perkins. Now, was Josh stupid for not liquidating all his assets and placing them in an offshore account before he went back so he'd be able to keep all that he earned? Maybe ;-)

What I'm really curious to know is, how would you handle that scenario? Would you stay as an adult or go back?

The Warp Core Breach

• 4.5 oz Bacardi Superior (or any white, clear, cheap rum out there)
• 3 oz Bacardi Limon (or any lemon rum you can find)
• 1.5 oz Bacardi Select (Meyers Dark rum also works, or whatever dark rum your store has)
• 1.5 oz Bacardi Spice (Captain Morgans also works, but any spice rum will do)
• 1.5 oz Dekuyper Lucious Raspberry Rush (formerly known as Razzmatazz, this is the most important part, other Raspberry liquers don’t seem to work)
• .75 oz Bacardi 151 (any 151 proof rum will do, since they all seem to taste like gasoline by themselves)
• 30 oz (1.5 bottles) Sobe Power (finding Aceorla/passion berry juice is too hard to find so just use Sobe Power, besides, the caffeine in the Sobe Power ads an extra kick to the drink)

Mix the alcohol, pour into a bowl, add the 30 oz of Sobe Power and food-grade dry ice and there you have it, the Warp Core Breach.

Jon Plus 8 - Beat it, Kate

So the world watched with great anticipation as "Jon and Kate plus 8" premiered their new season last night on TLC. I haven't seen the new episode yet but man, am I tired of these two. For the unwashed, it's a reality/documentary about a family comprised of a husband, wife, a set of twins and a set of sextuplets.

I won't go into the tabloid stories, the rumors, etc., but I am left with one overall thought on the show: this woman, "Kate", would drive me insane. She's the perfect combination of martyr and shrew. Jon just seems like a guy who wants to be a dad and take care of his kids, and he seems completely beat down by this attention-loving wench.

Let me be clear about this: the only people I feel remotely bad for are the kids. Their chances of having normal lives have plummeted to somewhere just north of zero.

So I'll settle the issue for everyone. I'll grant the two an instant divorce and give the kids to Jon, not because I'm a father myself or because I'm a man, but I think he presents the only chance these kids have of experiencing something approaching a normal childhood. Kate gets custody of the TV show, the book deal, and the impending made-for-Lifetime movie. Oh, and she is legally barred from that awful reverse-mullet haircut she wears.

Honestly, someone needs to just slap these two around, lock them in a room and not let either of them out until it's all resolved or one of them dies of "natural causes". I've wondered if all this crap hasn't been manufactured to promote the show, maybe it has. I hope it has.

Redskins ruminations

The QB for the Redskins, Jason Campbell, is in a contract year. And the Redskins tried REALLY hard to replace him before the draft.

So, you're reading it here first.

The starting QB for your 2010 Washington Redskins: Michael Vick.

He'd be inexpensive. He's a glamour name. He'd sell a boatload of jerseys. He doesn't need an offensive line (and he won't have one). And he'll go 7-9 or 9-7. It's a perfect fit.

Remember, I called it.

How bad are the Nats?

How bad are the Washington Nationals this season? Bad. Really Bad.

This is a scene of the Phillies dugout before the played Washington in the Nats' home opener yesterday, a game in which the Phillies won 9-8. And apparently, they did while they were high. Ryan Howard, Phillies first baseman and the National League 2006 Most Valuable Player, is seen here doing the "puff puff pass" drill from spring training. Jayson Werth was quoted as saying "Dude, don't bogart the J".

After their win, the Phillies celebrated with nacho cheese Doritos and all the Pringles they could find in Southeast D.C., then went over to Five Guys and shut the place down.

The Nats fall to 0-7 for 2009. How bad are they? They lost 102 games last year. They'll probably lose 95-100 this year and I will not be surprised if they lost MORE than 102. It's one of the the worst major league pitching staffs I've ever seen, bar none. Defensively, they are mediocre at best. Ryan Zimmerman, the annointed "star" of the team, has shown nothing more average major league talent in his 4+ seasons and appears to be regressing defensively.

I love the Nats, they're my team and I'll go to more games if they lose than win (because there will be less crowds and traffic) but really, let's just just completely tank the next two seasons and get some good draft picks to rebuild the farm system. And if you someone could even possibly be traded for prospects, trade them.