confused04

Been awhile since I've posted.... From our wedding 10-10-15 And the addition to our family...

Pretty much everything you buy at the supermarket is technically sold by weight. With the exception of produce and a few other unique items such as baked goods, everything must be labeled with the net weight. So I never feel cheated really. Says right on EVERY chips (or crisp) bag, exactly how much you're getting. Its not saying "1/3" of the bag is actually edible goods, it says 8 or 12 oz (net weight). Most supermarkets tell you the unit price too ( X cents per oz). Regarding sales tax; the main reason for not including it in the price is what was stated before, the complexity of local and state sales tax laws. But there's also to keep in mind that there are also sales tax exempt transactions for taxable goods (depending on state) where a good or service is normally taxed, but the purchaser is tax exempt, typically a non-profit. Some states all you to just forgo adding the tax at all. Other states will allow the tax exempt purchaser to claim it on taxes and an itemized receipt with the exact tax is saved for records purposes. I know that in my metro area that between school districts, counties, municipalities, and various other taxing districts, we had some 700 different sales tax combinations. Requiring a business to call out the final price would be extremely confusing and inefficient because at some point, they'd rather just not sell the product in high tax areas at all if its just going to eat into the rounded price's margin.

Pre-Paid debit cards have their place, I just don't think you should be getting paid through them. I believe in most (all?) cases, you must consent to being paid via payroll debit cards. I believe a company MUST allow you to be paid by direct deposit or paycheck if you request it. There are several cases pending regarding employers not living up to this. I'm not a huge fan of paying people this way because there are often so many little fees and the most vulnerable people in our society end up paying the richest simply to use their hard earned cash. There are obviously some very unique situations where getting the card may in fact help people. I just hope that no one here lands in such a situation where essentially the only other option is pay day loan companies and check cashing companies. I, like Meg, exclusively use credit cards. Much safer and in the end, I get a few percent in cash rewards while building/maintaining my credit. I would never accept payment this way.

November 6th Vote No Campaign Headquarters (T'was a good night for us) One of our pictures even went viral. Happy New Year! A bit late... At my friends wedding slightly peeved at the person holding the camera.

No, no one has explicitly stated this, but modern political discourse obviously portrays this. All you have to do in a political debate is say "X is ignoring the Constitution" and the audience will automatically buy into it without actually knowing what the abuse is and the actual constitutionality behind the action in question. The "X Abuses the Constitution..." is a risk-free political attack. So no need to really say the Constitution is "perfect" out right, but its almost set as a cultural foundation that this single document is a source, an extension, and a preserver of our "American exceptionalism" principle. Therefore, to suggest scrapping it or reformatting it is almost an admission that America is not exceptional. I really can't deal with a hypothetical new constitution as I don't know what is hypothetical judicial system acts and how specific this Constitution 2.0 will spell things out. Of course you say that Congress and the President might pass a law that violates the constitution, but as it currently exists, all it takes is the Supreme Court to "reinterpret" the clauses in violation and you move on. Doesn't sound like a working system. I'm not saying that a single transgression makes the document obsolete, but to the point where 99% of what we understand of the Constitution is not on the actual piece of paper, but through precedents set by Supreme Court cases just trying to figure out whats "Constitutional", it might be obsolete. And maybe its not just legislation that makes this obsolete, but the whole system of representation, voting, and hell, maybe even some aspects of the Bill of Rights. You can pull this further into structural elements such as the Seperation of Powers, federalism, bicameral legislatures, first past the post voting, etc. As a note, just be cause I bring up something as an avenue to explore changing, it doesn't mean I necessarily don't like it, but to approach something from a post-modern perspective, you have to challenge all previously held assumptions (pretty much by definition). Is the sum of all our principles working the way it was intended? I think most people today would say no. Now it begs the question, "What should be done about this?" and I'm sure there will be no majority agreed upon answer. My point being is that the Constitution, although its a good bedrock, it isn't the be all end all that politicians suggest this to be. We aren't considered the most free country in the world on a number of things (Economic freedom, civil rights, personal freedoms, journalism etc) and yet other "constitutions" or constitution equivalents seem to be supplying their citizens the guidance it needs to without a cult-like mentality.

The whole idea that we are "trashing", ignoring, abusing, etc... the Constitution is laughable. All these acts of negative impact that we are supposedly committing runs under a single faith driven assumption that the Constitution is a perfect document and that despite the ability to alter it through the amendment process, it is not in need of much alteration. The Constitution is a document and in my opinion, is no longer necessary. What may have worked for 200 years doesn't necessarily mean it works now. As a gay, secular minority, I totally disagree with the notion that Democrats are somehow more abusive to the Constitution than Republicans. Going back to the formation of the party, Republicans have notoriously been just as abusive to the Constitution, but it depends on what kind of view point you are approaching the document from. I weigh some rights more than others and find some transgressions rather minor that others find offensive. Its easy to say "but Confused04, ALL rights are paramount and are equally important," but in reality, lets just watch FOX news and see which ones people really find more important. But perhaps the abuses against the master document of the land exist not because of the faults of contemporary society, philosophy, corporatism, or some other -ism, but because the document no longer applies. Its deliberate vagueness in a society of exactitude is showing its strains. The document is the issue, not just the people who run the government. This is why I can't stand the "Founding Father" mentality that many people espouse. "What would Washington think," or "Would Ben Franklin be okay with this?". They're dead, they were imperfect and they don't live now. I do not understand this pedestal we place these human beings on. Sure, in their time they were visionaries (or pick whatever other ego-stroking adjectives you so please). But quite honestly, I don't care what their "vision" or their intent. A lot of their "intents" were to keep everyone but white males subjugated. So why would I personally want their intents to be carried forward. Well, thats my rant. In short, Constitution is just a document and if we don't follow it, perhaps its time to really think about scrapping it. I think its dangerous to have a cult of ... documentation.

Hey, I know them! Been awhile since I posted.

Bivalves are tasty.

Loons are the Minnesota State Bird... the more you know.