Wednesday, November 21, 2007
This is likely my last post until next Monday as I'll be dividing my time over the next few days between driving and enjoying the Thanksgiving holiday with relatives in Mississippi and Louisiana. Having been quite busy lately, I'm looking forward to the break.
Thanksgiving is about more than just dozing off to a football game -- not necessarily to knock something that my very busy schedule is making me really look forward to doing at some point!
For example, I really enjoyed this post by Rational Jenn in which she talks about her fond memories of making rolls with her grandmother on Thanksgiving.
The rolls sound really good, and she includes the recipe!
Ari Armstrong and the Software Nerd write about Blue Laws, something that when I was a kid I thought was a dying remnant of Southern Baptist influence in the South. The laws keep certain kinds of businesses from operating and prohibit the sale of certain types of goods (usually and most notably, alcohol, but even things like milk) at certain times (usually Sundays).
As I was growing up, many of these laws were rolled back or repealed in my home state, which I'd had drummed into my skull was perhaps the most backwards part of the country. Imagine my surprise when, years later as a naval officer in Connecticut for training, I learned that Connecticut had more such restrictions on the sale of beer than Mississippi!
Apparently, the laws remain on the books in many states (including 16 that prohibit the sale of liquor on Sunday), although there are calls for their repeal in Colorado. I don't know how this effort will fare, but I found the Software Nerd's questions about the subject intriguing:
This got me thinking: how might a "constructionist" like Scalia rule on something like this? Since blue laws have been around ever since the constitution, wouldn't he take that as proof that the founders could not have meant to disallow them? And what of the slightly older, but still post-Constitution versions that were more explicitly religious but still hung around? Wouldn't those be upheld on the same basis?These laws clearly violate the separation of church and state. Their persistence can only make it even easier for the religious right to continue attacking this separation as it grows in power.
What say, you lawyers out there?
And while you're visiting the Software Nerd's blog, get a load of the Flat Earth Q&A he found!
Retire Social Security
Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute writes against "saving" Social Security:
Those who wish to devote their wealth to saving the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions should be free to do so through private charity, but to loot the savings of untold millions of innocent, responsible, hard-working young people in the name of such a goal is a monstrous injustice.This is a problem that is only going to loom larger as more "baby boomers" retire.
Social Security in any form is morally irredeemable. We should be debating, not how to save Social Security, but how to end it--how to phase it out so as to best protect both the rights of those who have paid into it, and those who are forced to pay for it today. This will be a painful task. But it will make possible a world in which Americans enjoy far greater freedom to secure their own futures.
Is there such a drink?
Here's what I pop up as from two fun quizzes I found over at Spark a Synapse and Rational Jenn:
Put 'em together, and I guess that makes me an "English Iced Coffee"!
And speaking of drinks, this video is hilarious, even if it is fictional!
With that -- and perhaps a little comment moderation here and there -- I leave for the long weekend.