Founder-ing on State's Rights

I was enthused by my mission, and I chose to accept it, to pontificate about the Founder's opinions about state's rights. I would be so historical, and just a bit pithy. I'd compare and contrast Paine to Jefferson to Adams, with a pinch of Franklin for flavor. But alas, it was not to be. You see, there is surprisingly little in their writings that is directly on point as we know state's rights.

"But why not?", I hear you cry. Didn't the founders believe in state's rights? And if they did why didn't they write more about it?

I happen to believe that the founders DID believe in what we call state's rights, and far more than we do today. I base this belief on three pieces of evidence.

The first evidence is the Constitution as originally passed, specifically Article 1, Sections 2 and 3. These set up Ben Franklin's wonderful contribution, a bicameral legislature. These two separate, yet equal bodies were to represent two different constituencies. The House of Representatives members, elected by the voters, were to represent the will of the people. The Senators, elected by their state's legislature, were to represent the interest of their home state, and not to duplicate what the House already did.

The second evidence is the overall Constitution as they passed it. The Constitution spells out what the federal government must do. But the founders wouldn't pass it until the Bill of Rights, which spells out what the federal government could NOT do. The federal responsibilities were few and limited, while the state's responsibilities, according to the 10th amendment, are vast and nearly all-encompassing.

The third evidence is like the second, but a bit more on point. Jefferson, the main author of the Constitution, later wrote the Kentucky Resolutions. In there he writes that the federal government had few and limited responsibilities, and that anything not specifically granted to them in the Constitution was reserved to the states.

Allright, they believed in state's rights. But why didn't they write more about it? I think it is because the founders could not conceive of any other reasonable alternative. They were, as we all are, limited culturally, historically, and technologically.

Culturally, each of the colonies, later states has a unique history leading to a unique culture. Also our culture, as theirs, has certain rules about identification. If here in Louisiana, I identify myself by town or parish. In New York, I identify myself as a Louisianian. Prarieville or Napoleonville or Tangipahoa would be meaningless to a New Yorker. Their cultures were not diluted by mass media or mass migration. They were steeped in it, and few traveled far enough to see anything different. When they came together, is it any wonder that they thought of themselves as Virginians or Pennsylvanians or New Yorkers first, and Americans second?

Historically, the founders had just risked their property and lives in a war with the world's only and greatest superpower. That war was brought about by a capricious and arbitrary centralized government, and cost thousands of lives. Do you think the founders wanted to give much power to a central government after that? They had only banded together because Britain could have defeated each colony in turn, but all together they had a chance.

Technologically, the founders were very limited. Our modern system of Federalism, with it's alphabet soup of regulatory agencies reporting to the Capitol at the speed of light would be unimaginable to them. They could concieve of our situation less than I could of having dinner with Lectriod leader Lord John Whorfin from Planet 10 in the 8th dimension. Remember that in their world, nothing of human endeavor moved faster on land than a horse. Not goods, not letters, not ideas, nada. Any central government's control over an area is limited by it's communications with that area. Smart central governments set up semi-autonomous regions or states, and limit their own role. Stupid ones overcontrol, and rebellion follows. The founders were smart enough to realize their technological limits.

In short, it is self evident that the founders believed strongly in state's rights. They believed so strongly that those rights are evident in the body of the Constitution and in the 10th Amendment. They just didn't talk about it much, anymore than we would write with amazement about the sun rising tomorrow. They just didn't see any other viable way. I think the founder's wisdom holds up very well centuries later.

As I started, this was not what I intended to write. Sometimes a writer's plans get hosed, and the writer gets taken in a new and wonderful direction. This happened here, and I depart with a better and deeper understanding into our founders' thoughts. Thanks for the opportunity.

The Grey Man

Hip To Be Square?

Ah, adolescence! I remember it well. I have it on the highest authority, the Bride, that I've never progressed out of adolescence.

When we first enter this age, many of us rebelled. We disagreed with our elders just for argument's sake, tried to do things our parent's wouldn't approve of. We read revolutionary, subversive material, fought The Man.

I did all of this. I wanted never to be conformist, to be, in older terms, a square. I was what I now call primary cool.

But I noticed all the other primary cool people did the same exact things in the same exact way. We were trying to show just how individual we were, and wound up wearing the same clothes and thinking the same thoughts as 90% of our generation. Our identical rebellions made us interchangeable bodies of a generation.

But I thought maybe I could do better. So I went for secondary cool. I started ignoring current fashion, and reading what would be revolutionary to the revolutionaries.

I read it all. Hitler and Heinlein. Friedman and Falwell. Gorbachev and Gingrich. Mao and Marx, both Karl and Groucho (Groucho is MUCH better!).

I didn't have the words for what I was doing until later. In the movie "Platoon" (1986), the character Junior summed it up, "Simple. Free your mind and your ass will follow."

Now I look around at the youth of today. They get the similar tats in similar places. Just style, no substance. They get similar piercings. Style. They wear similar baggy clothes. Style. (Trust me kids, the time to wear tight clothes is NOW. If you wait a decade or two, your body will remove that option from you.)

When I look at the substance of the majority of youth, and of older revolutionaries, it's just funny. Instead of "fightin' The Man", you're supporting him. You're not fighting the establishment, you're supporting it. What's next, tweed jackets with elbow patches and finger sandwiches?

You have come to revel in group think. You do not seek individuality in any substantive way, you seek to fit in with the establishment. You are not cool. Not Hip.

You, and the sixties holdouts are now the squares.

And since you might not read this, or think about it, and I can't present these thoughts in interpretive dance, I'll give it to you musically:



The Grey Man

Tea Party Continued?

We had good success with the Tea Parties here in Louisiana last month. Many of the well connected (electronically) came and have helped spread the word about how fed up we are with government spending. But we had two significant problems.

First, the MSM, predictably, almost totally ignored us.

Second, our elected decision makers did not see us, and will also find it easy to dismiss voter's concerns.

I propose we keep showing up, but now where the politicos will be. The advantages are obvious.

Second, the politicos will have to acknowledge that all us sheep are not happy with their spending our money like teenagers with credit cards.

And first, with politicos come media. The MSM might not like us, but will have to explain us if we're in the background.

A couple of events come to mind.

Senator Mary Landrieu, who did not read the stimulus bill before voting, will "discuss how the federal stimulus bill will impact small businesses" at the Baton Rouge Small Business Outreach Conference on May 15. The event is at the Baton Rouge River Center, and Senator Landrieu will "kick off the program" at 11 am. You can register for the conference beginning at 10 am.

Governor Bobby Jindal will be speaking at the Hammond Chamber of Commerce General Meeting on the 21st of May from 11:30 am to 1 pm. The event is at the Twelve Oaks Dining Hall on Southeastern's campus in Hammond. I think it's member's only, but the dining hall is all glass, so anyone outside WILL be seen.

Governor Jindal is doing OK right now, but remember the pay raises? Politicians work best when they know they're being watched.

As before, please be polite at all times. Take nothing but pictures (and video and lots of both), and leave nothing behind but an uneasy feeling in a politician.

Please, especially you bloggers, spread the word.

The Grey Man

The Monkey Recovery

With our current economic downturn, we could use some help. We could use new jobs, new products, new wealth creation. But who to provide it?

Right now, many, if not most, are looking to the Federal government to provide the above relief. But the problem is that the government is a single entity, pursuing it's own economic goals. Is this the best solution?

Someone once said that an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters would eventually reproduce the works of the Bard, William Shakespeare. Wouldn't it be better for our recovery to have multiple entities working on it?

Instead of a single entity, we could have a couple of hundred million entities pursuing their own economic goals. Do you think this would increase the chances for and speed of recovery?

This would be the Free Enterprise Recovery Plan. Instead of having the Federal government direct the recovery, perhaps it's best role would be to make it easier for hundreds of millions of citizens, our little economic monkeys, to each direct their own recovery?

And how would the government do this? Easy. Remove the impediments to personal economic freedom. Since the government directly competes with private citizens for money, the government should cut itself back.

Cut spending. Reduce spending. Cut taxes. No deficit spending. Cut onerous regulation. Cut paperwork and compliance costs. A fair and flat tax system.

This isn't rocket science. Just smart math. Are our odds of recovery greater with one entity to perform this mighty task, or hundreds of millions each doing a small part?

Let my economic monkeys go.

Top Gear Goes Grey

Some say, unlike the Presidential Auto Task Force, he actually owns American made cars.

Others say his secret identity is "The Dread Blogger Roberts", cruising the internet aboard the "Revenge".

All we know, is he's called The Grey Man.


Ahh, the late 70's! America being bullied by Iran, our ships captured on the high seas, bad music, leisure suits, Chrysler going broke.

I didn't do any heavy drugs back then, and damned little of the minor ones. But it must have been enough, I'm having a flashback.

Back then, I was interested in getting rid of zits, getting booze, getting laid, and cars. I only had occasional success with the first three, but did pretty well with cars. And no, my priorities haven't changed much.

Back then, environmental weirdness and uncertainty over gas prices led to some of the worst cars ever. The only way you'd have fond memories about those cars was if you got laid in one. And given how anemic those cars were, it was difficult to keep it up long enough to even get laid. Remember the Chevy Citation?



The only citation you could ever get in it was for insulting caskets worldwide. Or how about Chrysler's savior from bankruptcy, the K car?



Naming this the Reliant is like Brittany Spears changing her name to Virginia.

Now, the President has decided that Chrysler's new savior will be Fiat. It seems the President is NOT a car guy. Anybody who can tell a Johnson rod from a lug nut knows FIAT stands for "Fix It Again, Tony". Not the best choice for car owners, but pretty good for the repair guys.

But Fiat's reputation for reliability is much better that it's support for free enterprise. According to Wiki:

"Fiat has a long history of licensing its products to other countries regardless of local political or cultural persuasion."

Well that explains why they want to do business with Obama.

Fiat has co-operated with Mussolini and the Nazis. They've also done joint ventures with all the paragons of civil liberties: Turkey, Egypt, Ethiopia (They make cars?!?), South Africa, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union.

Now that Obama's invited them in, he'll be able to apologize a lot more.

But enough of the politics, lets look at their joint venture cars.

With the Soviets, they helped make the Lada Riva. According to
Wikicars, "often regarded as one of the worst cars ever made".



Damn, something that looks even worse than the Citation, less reliable than a Ford Fairmont, and performs worse than a Reliant. The Trifacta!!

But, gentle readers, it can get worse. And it does. Fiat was also involved in the Yugo.



A good friend owned a Yugo, affectionately named "The Blue Yugoslavian Death Trap From Hell". The car had an amazing tendency to regularly shed parts. Something would just fall off, and usually when he was on a date. After a couple of years, he'd had enough. He couldn't sell the bloody thing. Nobody would take it in trade. The best he could do was get $50 from a junkyard, but only if he's bring it in.

And now, by Presidential direction, Fiat will take control of Chrysler. Bye bye, Hemi Challenger.



Bye bye turbodiesel Ram.



Hello to Change, to the eco-friendly multicultural, White House approved, Congressionally mandated, Fiat Designed transportation of the future!!



To drown my sorrows, I'm going to pour some high octane through eight cylinders in a V.

The Grey Man