Musing of one watching a guy who's girlfriend has just dumped him in favor of his identical twin brother.

A sort of semi-fable.

The movement variously known as Unoccupy Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street, the other 99%, etc. seems to have become somewhat quiescent lately. I was recalling interviews with various people in the different groups and the only goals I could come up with were: stop corporate greed, tax the wealthiest 1%, provide a better life, and the like. In one case the person didn't seem to know what the goal was.

Anyway, assuming for fun that the government puts a surtax on the wealthiest 1% what would happen? Well, there are some alternatives:

1. The government could take the extra money collected (if it could figure out how much it was) and distribute it pro rata among the other 300 plus million of us. This would be highly unlikely.

2. A more likely scenario - the government would use the money in trying to balance the annual operating budget. The other 99% would never know the difference.

As Julius Caesar once observed to me, "Sic transit gloria mundi". Freely translated - "That's the way the cookie crumbles."

Oh well.

Musing of one watching a fleeing felon who ducked into a convenient door, found himself in the middle of a women's group discussing spousal abuse and

in 30 seconds begged to be turned over to the police...
After watching the demonstrators clammering about Wall Street and sundry other villains, I've come to the following conclusions:
1. the demonstrators are not peaceable; they are interfering with other people.
2. the demonstrators may be well educated in fields such as social studies, science, and math, but when it comes to the Constitution and the things that make this country tick, they don't have the faintest clue.

Musing of one munching shortbread and wondering if anybody ever tried to bake longbread...

Thanks for the comments including the one from Nick on email. When we made the previous posting, we thought that perhaps some members of the younger generations (and that includes about everybody) would feel impelled to delve into the background and history of the Constitution. In our own amateur analysis (we don't claim to be Constitutional scholars) we detected 3 goals of the Founding Fathers: 1. to establish a strong central government with limited powers 2. to promote individual freedom and to foster the efforts of all individuals in their legitimate pursuit of prosperity 3. to bring the people and government closer together (it's easier to deal with a state or local government than with a remote central government which is trying to deal with 300+ million people). Maybe we should have a Constitution party which would finally get big enough to throw everybody out and start over again.

Musing of one thinking about the New Orleans jazz musician who got extremely charged up and played a jazz piece so hot that his trumpet melted

We thought it would be interesting to look at what various words in the Constitution meant at the time it was written. So we obtained access to the 1979 Reprint of Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1755), which was the authority at that time. Then we selected some of the most frequently quoted provisions of the Constitution and selected some words in each to look up in the dictionary. The results of all this follow.

We selected the following items:
Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; * * *
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; * * *

Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We decided to look up the definitions of several words. These follow:

Regulate:
To adjust by rule or method, To direct

Establishment:
Settlement, fixed state
Confirmation or something already done, ratification
Settled regulation, form, model of a government or family foundation, fundamental principle, settled law
Allowance, income, salary

Provide:
To procure beforehand, to get ready, to prepare
To furnish, to supply with of or with before the things provided
To stipulate
To provide against
To take measures for counteracting or escaping any ill
To provide for, to take care of beforehand

Welfare:
Happiness, success, prosperity


Substituting definitions for the original word, we would have:
Article 1, Section 8.
---To procure beforehand OR get ready OR prepare OR furnish OR supply with of or with before the things provided OR stipulate OR provide against OR take measures for counteracting or escaping any ill OR provide for OR take care of beforehand for the common Defense and general Happiness OR success OR prosperity of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To adjust by rule or method OR To direct Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting a Settlement OR fixed state OR confirmation or something already done OR ratification OR settled regulation, form, model of a government or family foundation OR fundamental principle OR settled law OR allowance OR income OR salary of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In our opinion, if that's what the words meant when the Constitution was written, then that's what they mean. And the only way to change that meaning would be by Constitutional amendment.

We move to wonder if courts ever consider this sort of thing when deciding questions of constitutionality.

Musing of one wondering what a medieval knight dressed in full armor did when his elbow started to itch.

We thought it would be interesting to review the evolution of telephone service as two old folks have experienced it. So here goes.

In a little town in the South where one half of the duo lived there were no dial telephones and push buttons hadn't been invented, but we were pretty advanced because we no longer had to go to a box on the wall and turn a crank. Generally, the phone consisted of a pedestal with a mouthpiece on top and a hook holding a receiver on the side. Both were wired into the wall. When you wanted to make a call you lifted the receiver and waited for a pleasant feminine voice (the voice with a smile) to say "number please." You would give her the number and she would connect you. Sometimes there were party lines shared by two or four families, which created all kinds of chaos with people trying to make calls on a line that was already in use, or listening to what other families on the party line were saying.

Long distance was somewhat more complicated. When asked for the number you said "long distance" and you would be connected to a long distance operator who would ask you for the city, state and number (incidentally there were no area codes). She would then connect you to another long distance operator at the destination and she in turn would connect you to the number. You had the option of telling the operator to reverse charges, in which case the amount would show on the receiving party's bill. I think it cost anywhere from $5.00-$8.00 a minute depending on the destination.

The other half of the duo lived in a large city with a sophisticated dialing system, so they could dial anywhere in their calling area, but if they had to call long distance you did so by using the dial to access the long distance operator. This happened fairly frequently because long distance could be between a city and its suburbs or even between areas in the city. In fact, sometimes long distance would be no more than five miles away from the caller's home. This was also very expensive.

If you were away from home and had an emergency you headed for a telephone booth and dialed the operator. These booths were scattered around the city, and usually you had to put a nickel in the slot to get the telephone to work (as an aside, the feminine half of the duo used to give the masculine half a nickel to carry in his pocket in case he had to make a call). This is the probably the origin of the expression "it's your nickel."

And so we progressed over the years to direct distance dialing, area codes, 911, push buttons, cordless phones, and cell phones. Quite an evolution.

The musing about the super salesman who went hiking in the backcountry of southern California, encountered a huge hungry bear...

...and sold it 2 tickets to the San Diego zoo.

We thought it would be interesting to look at dictionary definitions of various political systems. So here's what we found.

Imperialism. "The creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

Fascism. "A radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics."

Socialism. "An economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system."

Communism. "A sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate."

Republic. "A form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government, at least in theory, and where offices of state are not granted through heritage. The common modern definition of a republic is a government having a head of state who is not a monarch."

Democracy. "A form of government in which all eligible people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination."

We have found it interesting that under all of these systems capitalism or the free market system can flourish or be tolerated to some degree or another. This assertion is based on our own observations over many years. As an example, during a trip to Communist China, we were privileged to visit the Free Market in Beijing. Apparently, once the worker satisfied his obligation to the government he could take what he had left to the Free Market and sell it for whatever he wished. The place was a beehive of activity. In a way this is somewhat ironic.

We wonder where our government fits in all of this.

Musing of one watching a man trying to stuff a pig in a poke backwards.

This refers to our most recent posting regarding illegal immigration. A few days after we posted it we happened to come upon a news broadcast which was an interview with an official on the Texas-Mexico border. We're not sure but we believe he was a sheriff. The discussion involved the apprehension a few days earlier of a large number of illegals trying to sneak into the U.S. The interviewer asked what was the nationality of the majority of them? The sheriff replied, "Indian and Chinese"

Looks like we were a little late on the previous post.