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.

I'm gonna ignore the ridiculous birther movement to a more practical issue.... Today, three years ago, at 6:05 Central Daylight time.... Minneapolis, Minnesota experienced one of its largest modern disasters. On August 1, 2007, the I-35W bridge collapsed killing 13 people as well as injuring approximately 145. Even with the opening of the new bridge and a lot of new investments in infrastructure, many of us still can't help to remember that awful day and its ramification on US politics. The new bridge, although beautiful, is still just a scab over what occurred that day. I myself have not incurred and personal loss, but I know that some have. We all have accepted the new reality that is the post-collapse era, but it still affects us in many ways. We have lost some companies in the transportation chaos, as well as changed our outlook on mass transit. This issue as pushed us into a very mass-transit oriented environment, but there are many metros that have not accepted such a role in planning. I can remember that day very specifically and I hope that no one ever has to go through what we did. I hope that everyone takes this day seriously, not because of its penetration into the news, but because of its ramifications and its consequences on American society.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa Does anyone even know anyone who actually drives a Mercury? No loss, I say. Lincoln will be next, mind you. They have nothing to offer besides Continentals. Barbarossaquote> My dad drove a mercury up until last month hitting something like 175k and he decided to buy a new car. I agree, I don't really care if that model went...

Originally posted by: Meg Can someone tell me the definition of "real American"? I suspect that the people using the term believe that I am not one but I would like to know why not. quote> I do remember in the 2008 Presidential campaign, Palin had visited some rural town and said that rural America was "real America" and had gotten blasted by pretty much the 80% of the US that DOESN'T live in what is typically classified as "rural" areas. Yes, I do find it offensive that one person is somehow more American than the next just because one is of a certain ideological alignment. I seem to remember back in the 2002 to 2006 Bush era that these same people tended to say "If you don't like it leave" and I can't help but re-use that suggestion, if only in sarcastic spite.

Originally posted by: Boggy1 Wow, the US Census is far simpler..but also far less comprehensive..than the UK one. We get thirty nine distinct questions, including stuff like the number of bedrooms in a house. I think a census is one of the most vital things a Government can perform. Definately in support of it, and can't wait to complete ours next year.quote> The reason why ours is simple this time around is that the other questions that used to belong to the "long form" of the census which was randomly given out to a small segment of the population has been replaced by the biannual Community Survey. Both are statistical subsamplings and thus don't really need to be on the census years and instead occur more frequently since it doesn't require a full census effort. Its supposed to help make the census easier and allow increased response rates.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Even though I am not an American, and live a few miles north of the border, I would like to remind you that the federal government is only empowered by the Constitution to conduct an enumeration, and this enumeration must be taken every 10 years. The federal government constitutionally cannot force anyone to enumerate themselves to the federal government, or answer any other questions for that matter. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I suggest anyone who resides in that land to read it. quote> You're very conveniently leaving out a chunk of the Constitution to fulfill your point..... The line ACTUALLY reads.... and I quote Article 1, Section 2 from said document... "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct." I emphasize the last clause. The Supreme Court has routinely stated that statistic gathering beyond a basic head count is not unconstitutional because of this clause time and time again. In the US v. Moriarty, the District Court stated that the Constitution "does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated." Besides... as everyone has stated... I don't really think its intrusive in the least bit. Many of these questions are necessary for the enforcement of OTHER parts of the Constitution such as equal protection (making sure minorities are not systematically screwed over). You know full well that if there wasn't at least an attempt at a demographic count, reapportionment and funding could totally screw over the very people who need it. Being anti-government for the sake of being anti-government in what can only be described as one of the most necessary functions this government can actually do fairly well is a bit absurd. Even Michelle Bachmann shut up realizing that telling her constituents to not fill out the Census was one of the 85,000 dumbest things she's ever said.

To be fair, I don't agree with the "medals per capita" thing mainly because nations like China, India and to some extent the US would have to severely DOMINATE the games in order to be equal to one small countries medal. Which means for EVERY medal won by Norway, the US has to respond with... get this... 65.39 medals (which I'll stick with 65). There are only 258 medals to begin with. So Norway would have to win just 4 medals to make it IMPOSSIBLE for the US to win the per capita game. Imagine a game where a country wins 254 medals and isn't considered dominant by this measure . On that token... if Slovenia had gotten something like 8 medals, Norway's 23 would lose. Slovenia only needed 2 medals to out compete the US per capita. Plus, its not like all 300+ million Americans live in what you'd call "winter" (or even what I'd call winter). Had Andorra medaled, this graph would be relatively rough to read. Andorra would have 11.85 medals per 1 million people. Yes, its a numbers game, I know . Norway should be proud of its performance and I think pretty much every nation performed well at the expense of Russia. The US should be really proud as the US has not always been a strong contender for the podium (See Nagano, just 13 medals) The winter powerhouse of the US wasn't consistent until this century. So good work team.