Nightgaunt

You've got to introduce me to this chick! I'd love to ask her out.

Or just plain put out.

Yes, there are. MIOSHA is so underfunded however, that it's a joke to the point that any individual company can expect a surprise inspection once every 65 years. Whenever an inspection was coming, we would have to clean up the plant and rearrange things to give the appearance of compliance. Whenever MIOSHA would come in to do a question and answer session, the company had management there to cut people off if the discussion began going in a direction they didn't like. Emails were dispatched to MIOSHA by disgruntled employees from time to time, but there was never any response. As usual, the governmental agency sucked up its funding and completely failed at its appointed task. On the contrary, I am acutely aware of the depths of stupidity and complacency that my countrymen and -women have sunk to. Corporations, when they reach a certain size, become amoral juggernauts that would think nothing of committing wholesale slaughter if they thought it would fatten their bottom line. There is a book by Max Barry called "Jennifer Government" in which a future incarnation of the Nike Corporation actually has kids murdered as they leave the store with the latest shoe model in order to increase demand for the product. I think that without watchdogs, that kind of scenario could become reality. Having said all that, I don't believe that government agencies and programs are the answer. They become bloated and ineffectual, serving only to squeeze more and more money from the population. In an America where the Constitution was scrupulously adhered to (with Congress acting only within the cage that the Constitution was meant to keep it in), nonprofit and/or citizen groups would keep the corporations from running out of control. With the abolition of the Constitutionally-forbidden unapportioned income tax and the abolition of the Federal Reserve (Congress resuming its Constitutionally-given task of coining money), people would have plenty of money to support organizations like this. It would be much like things were before the government starting mucking around with health care. Obviously, I'm aware that none of this is going to happen. Things are going to keep wobbling along until the government collapses under its own weight and we'll finally be the serfs in service to a despot like we've been trained to be for the last couple of generations. Everything I've talked about in this thread has been in that spirit. I'm trying to point out how very, very far we've gotten from what the Founders intended. It's to the point that people just accept draconian things like the Patriot Act(s), income tax, and Federal Reserve as mete and good and quintessentially American. The CNN anchorbimbo shows us a little cleavage and we smile and nod. The good-looking young anchordork shows us just the right exp​ression of compassion and caring and we take comfort in the knowledge that everything is being done for our own good. Aaaah. We have taken the phrase "You can't fight City Hall," and incorporated it into our very being and we've reached the point where we're beginning to pay the price. Our children and grandchildren will reap the whirlwind. **Edited for grammar.

The Supreme Court has stated that the Preamble is meant to bear witness to the fact that the Constitution emanates from the People and not from the states.(1) It does not confer any specific powers upon the government, but acts to convey the scope and nature of the document overall.(2) So, from the best of my understanding, this line on its own doesn't give Congress any power whatsoever. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants these powers to Congress: Punishing piracy and crimes on the high seas; Declaring war, issuing letters of marque and reprisal; Raising and maintaining armies (with a two-year limitation on funds); Raising and maintaining a navy; Deciding how land and naval forces will be governed and regulated; Calling on the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; Providing for the organization, arming, and disciplining the militia, and governing any part of the militia that might be employed in the service of the Union, with certain aspects reserved for the individual states. While I'm not a Constitutional scholar or a lawyer, I can't rattle off specific court cases that address broad interpretations of Congressional powers related to defense, I think that extending Congress' Section 8 powers to apply to a health threat is sketchy at best. I'm not trying to piss in your Cheerios; it's just that I can't find anything that would come close to supporting such an interpretation. If you can find anything (legal precedents, rulings, etc.), I'd be very interested. The constitutional meaning of "welfare" is, to the best of my knowledge, health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. Again, the Preamble confers no power in and of itself. Promoting the general welfare is a broad concept, but we can look to Article I, Section 8, which states the powers of Congress. What we see there are things like regulating commerce, establishing post offices, and coining money. There is a power granted to Congress involving the progress of science, but this is limited to securing exclusive rights to discoveries for the discoverers or developers for a limited time. There is absolutely nothing granting Congress the power to regulate individual freedoms. Again, I'd be happy to be pointed to court cases addressing the "general welfare" concept. The 9th Amendment states that just because a right (e.g. the right to consume tobacco or the right to not be forced to consume tobacco) is not specifically addressed doesn't mean the government can step in and take control of the issue. The 10th Amendment ensures that any and all powers not delegated to the 3 branches of government falls to the States an the People. If the power isn't specifically given, it cannot be exercised. FOOTNOTES: (1) McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 403 (1819) Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471 (1793); Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 324 (1816), and that it was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 251 (1901); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891) (2) Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905)

Nice. Sorry we're so stupid. The thing is, you didn't address any of the main points. All you did was remind us that smoking is unhealthy. Yes, it's obvious that you think that it's okay for the government to step outside its Constitutionally-limited bounds. I have yet to see a logical and reasoned argument as to why that should be and why each step in that direction does not open the door to future abuses of power.

Again, the government is not given the power to regulate these things by the Constitution. Yes! Remove the ban on asbestos insulation! See how fast the builders that use it go out of business! That is how things are supposed to work.

It's not hard for me to understand where you're coming from. At my previous job, I had to breathe in polyvinylchloride fumes without a mask, stand in 3 inch deep water with non-wet-location-rated extension cords, and eat my lunch with toxic chemicals on my hands. I couldn't afford to quit, so I dealt with it. The fact is, I DID have a choice in where I worked, even with the crappy economic climate. As a citizen, I am not guaranteed a job, much less an ideal work environment. If you're having problems with the smokers where you work, as your boss to consider making it a nonsmoking establishment. When I asked the company to address the problems I mentioned previously, I was reminded that I could quit if I had a problem with the way things were being run. If making a bar, restaurant, etc. smoke-free won't have any economic impact (as I keep hearing), then your boss should have no problem taking care of the needs or desires of his employees. No special law needed. Oh come on. Not specifically, no. Neither is the right to masturbate, the right to pick your nose in public, or the right to eat M&Ms drenched in ranch dressing. What we do have is the right to live our lives without government interference. What some people really, really don't seem to be getting here is that this is not about smoking. It's about allowing unacceptable levels of government intrusion into our lives. It's as if all they have to do is coat something with a thin veneer of "common sense", "political correctness", or "public health", and the mindless American masses will knuckle under to just about anything. My favorite is "for the sake of the children". Today, it's smoking, but because everyone's been trained to have a certain reaction to cigarettes, the violation of the basic tenets of how our society is supposed to function is overlooked. This makes it easier the next time. It's another step in the incremental march to a police state. The time is not far off when you'll be required to routinely have your home inspected for "green violations" or whatever cute little term the government cooks up for it. Will that finally be too much for you? Or will that be a-ok, because Al Gore or whoever the green zombies are following, says it's necessary to save the planet? I could go on, but it's all inevitable. Michigan is dead anyway; it just hasn't quite realized it yet. The country won't be far behind. Mercury, artificial hormones, and arsenic in the water. Thalites in the plastic. BGH and melamine in the milk. Genetically engineered crops. Pesticides in and on the fruit and vegetables. But at least something's being done about the smokers.

I don't understand how anyone is forcing you to do anything. If I'm standing on a street corner and a car is idling next to me, I move away to avoid breathing the exhaust fumes. I don't whine at Congress to outlaw motor vehicles. I wasn't really trying to compare the two, per se. It was more of a reaction to the glee and "nyah-nyah-nyah" attitude I keep getting shoved down my throat. Today, the law limits the freedom of people who do something you don't. Tomorrow, you'll be affected. Here's how I see the issue: The Constitution and Bill of Rights are (the manifold abuses by Federal, state, and local governments notwithstanding) the Law of the Land. The Bill of Rights enumerates certain "natural" or "god-given" rights to us all. The right to not ever have to encounter cigarette smoke is not among them, so I'm not buying the "But what about my right to not breathe your nasty secondhand smoke?" argument. I also keep hearing about the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That would be a convenient catch-all, were it actually in the Constitution. Regardless, this line from the Declaration of Independence refers to the natural right of the individual to pursue his or her destiny without interference from the government. The very idea that the legislature can tell a business owner what he or she can or can not allow on private property (apart from partaking in unlawful, prohibited substances) is antithetical to the spirit of our nation. Yes, I get that this is a state issue, and that this is one of those things that, as the Bill of Rights says, "falls to the states themselves, or to the people", but the spirit is the same. The very fact that we're now going to have legions of cops in every bar, club, and restaurant in the state looking for people smoking and issuing tickets should tell you that this is not, at heart,, a public health issue. This is a revenue-generator at best. At worst, it's conditioning to knuckle under to authority no matter how ridiculous the edict. If this were the government trying to show us how very concerned it is about our health, they'd be fining the bar owners, not individual patrons for violations.

I am soooo glad they enacted this law. I'm so unbelievably sick of people eating meat around me. I mean, whenever I smell meat on someone's breath, it just makes me want to gag. Also, a carnivorous diet makes farts smell so much worse. You think I want my kids exposed to that? Do you know how much your risk of heart disease and certain kinds of cancer goes up when you eat meat? (I heard that it does, but I've never actually seen a study that proves it.) All I hear is people whining about how their "right" to eat meat is being abridged. What about my right to not have to look at a lump of flesh sitting in a pool of blood and grease at the next table? What about the poor animals' rights to life and liberty? Oh wait, that's next year. Carry on.

We'll offer up our lunchbox-sized home for hangout night. Depending on how many show up, you might need to bring your own chairs...

I just caught this...it's 7 Layer Tortilla PIE!

As an aside, I think it's absolutely horrid that we have gone from "innocent until proven guilty" to the opposite. Notice how the whole tone of the article concerns people having to "prove their innocence"? When, precisely did the burden of proof shift from the accuser to the defendant? Does it just reflect the outlook of the article's author, or does the fact that it's written this way reflect fundamental changes in the fabric of our society? Again, nothing really to do with the computer virus issue, but it just really struck me when I read the article.

I first noticed this last year at Halloween USA. I couldn't believe the kinds of costumes that were being marketed to little girls. I'm actually finding it hard to think straight about this after seeing that picture of Noah Cyrus; it almost makes me weep. It's as if there's a concerted effort to wipe out any trace of innocence from our culture.

So, you'll go to jail and get put on a sex offender list if you take nude pictures of a 16 year old, but going to a club to watch a 16 year old girl take her clothes off is a-ok. Got it.

Thanks for putting me in my place.

If it were possible to create a black hole in a laboratory, it would be so small as to pose no threat,as I am given to understand it. It has been theorized (and claimed to be reality by John Titor) that two of these tiny singularities spinning in opposition would be necessaryto facilitate physical time travel. Titor went on to claim that there are no paradoxes in time travel because when you go back in time, you actually shift to another universe or reality that is very close to, but not precisely the same as the one you originate from. The difference may be as small as a single blade of grass being a slightly different shade and you wouldn't notice the difference. I don't necessarily buy into the whole Titor story, but what these scientists are saying is something I can keep an open mind about. When you start mucking around at the quantum level, all bets are off. We have only the barest understanding of the underpinnings of reality where science and poetry seem to comingle with reckless abandon. I have always supported the supercollider. Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead! Did the men in charge of the Manhattan Project let the possibility of igniting the Earth's atmosphere hold them back? Was the Apollo program scrapped over concerns about Van Allen radiation? If we don't take calculated risks, we're going to go nowhere.

O sagacious and hoary Majik 8-Ball, will I be forced to reenter the ratrace?

Ha! Script Frenzy is in April...