Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Don't tell Peapod, but I figured out how to use the limited-time coupons they send me.
You can place an order, and select a date and time in the future for delivery, and check out. Then up until late afternoon or evening of the day before delivery, you can continue to add stuff to the order. Usually I schedule delivery for the day or two after I place the order. I place an order for $120 to $200 about every three or four weeks. (Yeah, I don't eat much, especially since that includes household staples, too.)
A few days after my order is delivered, they email me a coupon for X dollars off
my next order over $100. However, that coupon usually expires within
two weeks or so, and I'm not going to need another $100 worth of groceries
within that time frame, so I seldom have an opportunity to use the
coupon. Very frustrating.
I accidentally found a way around that!
I placed my order last week and went through checkout, for delivery this Thursday. In the meantime I have been adding things as I run out of this or that or I think of something else.
Today, they sent me a coupon for my "next order", with the usual short expiration date. Apparently their system didn't notice that although I had checked out last week, I had not yet received this order. So, when I added another item today, I tried the coupon, and it worked!
From now on I'm going to start the order well ahead of delivery, so I can exploit that loophole.
Don't tell Peapod.
.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Monday, October 12, 2015
5024 Gun control blather
Monday, October 12, 2015
I don't understand why there's so much talk about gun control at a federal level. That's absolutely unconstitutional, but not for the reasons people think.
When the second amendment was written, the states very much considered themselves individual entities. You know, that "states' rights" thing? They each had their own government. They were jealous of any power another state might have, and that's why the District of Columbia was created. They didn't want to be completely subservient to a federal government, and that's why many of them insisted on the first ten amendments before they would ratify the new constitution. It was to be a union of states for purposes of defense, trade, major projects and the like, not a homogeneous country with counties or departments, like England or France or whatever. That's why the name is The United States, not just Columbia or something.
The individual states figured they had a right to self-defense, defense from any internal or external threat, whether it be natives, another land-grabbing state, another country, or even the federal government, so they had a right to maintain their own defenders. States had their own militias. Look at the military companies fighting in the Civil War. They fought under the union or confederate banner, but each company carried the name of their state. They were members of their state militias.
So a state is constitutionally allowed to have and maintain their own "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". That's what it says. It's plain English and doesn't even need interpretation. It refers to a state (not referring to the federal "state", but to a state as understood then) and its need for defense. A state can define a militia in any way they want. I don't understand why so many people are confused by the "well regulated militia" words in the amendment. It simply means that states are allowed to arm themselves, the federal government can't mess with that, and the states are allowed to define who makes up that militia and how it's regulated. The militia can even consist of every person in the state capable of wielding a club, and at one time, in many states, it was. And the state can regulate that militia any way its people decide.
That means if a state decides everyone in the state with a gun is a member of the militia, they can regulate it any way the people of that state decide.
So gun control is a states' issue, not a federal issue. And the states have every right to regulate guns.
Now that's all well and good and pretty clear. But after the Civil War, in a series of confusing and contradictory decisions, the SCOTUS redefined it as an individual right that even the states can't infringe upon, and that's when it got all messed up.
The Feds were pretty bummed by the whole Civil War thing. The general consensus was that this "states' rights" stuff was a load of crap and had to be stomped a bit. Maybe the states needed to be reminded who's boss.
Sigh.
I also hold an unpopular opinion on the Civil War.
My opinion is that the southern states had every right to secede from the union. The federal government was dead wrong to use force to stop them. That doesn't mean I in any way agree with their reasons for secession, just that I believe they had every right to leave the club if they wanted to. I don't believe the original intent of forming a union was to create a national homeowners' association where the only way to get out is to emigrate or die. Do you suppose that if the northeastern states knew that once they joined the union, they could never ever get out, that they would have joined? Nah. We'd have a country called New England up there in that corner. Those folks were fiercely independent. They'd want the right to take their ball and go home if they had to, to maintain that independence.
The states need some way to control the arrogance of the federal government. Threat of secession is the most drastic option, but other means are built in. Note that it's not the people who elect federal officials, it's the states. The state legislatures actually control who gets elected to federal offices, and it was designed that way. The Electoral College, for example, is very unpopular, but getting rid of it will weaken states' rights and give more power to the Federal government. States are (or perhaps were) not even required to hold general elections for federal offices. They just do it to gauge the preferences of their populace so they don't have a mob burning down the state capitol buildings.
You can take this all as blather, but I hope maybe someone will think about it.
.
I don't understand why there's so much talk about gun control at a federal level. That's absolutely unconstitutional, but not for the reasons people think.
When the second amendment was written, the states very much considered themselves individual entities. You know, that "states' rights" thing? They each had their own government. They were jealous of any power another state might have, and that's why the District of Columbia was created. They didn't want to be completely subservient to a federal government, and that's why many of them insisted on the first ten amendments before they would ratify the new constitution. It was to be a union of states for purposes of defense, trade, major projects and the like, not a homogeneous country with counties or departments, like England or France or whatever. That's why the name is The United States, not just Columbia or something.
The individual states figured they had a right to self-defense, defense from any internal or external threat, whether it be natives, another land-grabbing state, another country, or even the federal government, so they had a right to maintain their own defenders. States had their own militias. Look at the military companies fighting in the Civil War. They fought under the union or confederate banner, but each company carried the name of their state. They were members of their state militias.
So a state is constitutionally allowed to have and maintain their own "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". That's what it says. It's plain English and doesn't even need interpretation. It refers to a state (not referring to the federal "state", but to a state as understood then) and its need for defense. A state can define a militia in any way they want. I don't understand why so many people are confused by the "well regulated militia" words in the amendment. It simply means that states are allowed to arm themselves, the federal government can't mess with that, and the states are allowed to define who makes up that militia and how it's regulated. The militia can even consist of every person in the state capable of wielding a club, and at one time, in many states, it was. And the state can regulate that militia any way its people decide.
That means if a state decides everyone in the state with a gun is a member of the militia, they can regulate it any way the people of that state decide.
So gun control is a states' issue, not a federal issue. And the states have every right to regulate guns.
Now that's all well and good and pretty clear. But after the Civil War, in a series of confusing and contradictory decisions, the SCOTUS redefined it as an individual right that even the states can't infringe upon, and that's when it got all messed up.
The Feds were pretty bummed by the whole Civil War thing. The general consensus was that this "states' rights" stuff was a load of crap and had to be stomped a bit. Maybe the states needed to be reminded who's boss.
Sigh.
I also hold an unpopular opinion on the Civil War.
My opinion is that the southern states had every right to secede from the union. The federal government was dead wrong to use force to stop them. That doesn't mean I in any way agree with their reasons for secession, just that I believe they had every right to leave the club if they wanted to. I don't believe the original intent of forming a union was to create a national homeowners' association where the only way to get out is to emigrate or die. Do you suppose that if the northeastern states knew that once they joined the union, they could never ever get out, that they would have joined? Nah. We'd have a country called New England up there in that corner. Those folks were fiercely independent. They'd want the right to take their ball and go home if they had to, to maintain that independence.
The states need some way to control the arrogance of the federal government. Threat of secession is the most drastic option, but other means are built in. Note that it's not the people who elect federal officials, it's the states. The state legislatures actually control who gets elected to federal offices, and it was designed that way. The Electoral College, for example, is very unpopular, but getting rid of it will weaken states' rights and give more power to the Federal government. States are (or perhaps were) not even required to hold general elections for federal offices. They just do it to gauge the preferences of their populace so they don't have a mob burning down the state capitol buildings.
You can take this all as blather, but I hope maybe someone will think about it.
.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
5023 Criteria
Sunday, October 11, 2015
I found this interesting. Common motifs, disputed vociferously by some, especially by those who have turf to protect.
Horus, Egypt, 3000 BC
Born in early winter
Born of a virgin
Star in the east
Adored by three kings
Teacher at 12
Baptized and began ministry at 30
12 disciples
Performed miracles
Was known as the Lamb of God and The Light
Crucified
Dead for three days
Resurrected
Mithra, Persia, 1200 BC
Born in early winter
Born of a virgin
12 disciples
Performed miracles
Dead for three days
Resurrected
Weekly holy day for worship
Attis, Greece, 1200 BC
Born in early winter
Born of a virgin
Crucified
Dead for three days
Resurrected
Dionysus, Greece, 1000 BC
Born in early winter
Born of a virgin
Performed miracles
Was called "King of Kings" and "Alpha and Omega"
Crucified
Resurrected
Krishna, India, 900 BC
Born in early winter
Born of a virgin
Star in the east
Performed miracles
Crucified
Resurrected
One gets the feeling that humans have certain requirements for religious leaders/founders, certain innate criteria, and that those leaders seemed to be conforming --- or at least their followers and chroniclers were.
Another explanation could be that God kept trying, at various times and in various areas, sticking to a pattern that seemed to appeal.
It is the nature of humans to absorb, twist, embellish, and then incorporate whatever makes a story more exciting.
.
I found this interesting. Common motifs, disputed vociferously by some, especially by those who have turf to protect.
Horus, Egypt, 3000 BC
Born in early winter
Born of a virgin
Star in the east
Adored by three kings
Teacher at 12
Baptized and began ministry at 30
12 disciples
Performed miracles
Was known as the Lamb of God and The Light
Crucified
Dead for three days
Resurrected
Mithra, Persia, 1200 BC
Born in early winter
Born of a virgin
12 disciples
Performed miracles
Dead for three days
Resurrected
Weekly holy day for worship
Attis, Greece, 1200 BC
Born in early winter
Born of a virgin
Crucified
Dead for three days
Resurrected
Dionysus, Greece, 1000 BC
Born in early winter
Born of a virgin
Performed miracles
Was called "King of Kings" and "Alpha and Omega"
Crucified
Resurrected
Krishna, India, 900 BC
Born in early winter
Born of a virgin
Star in the east
Performed miracles
Crucified
Resurrected
One gets the feeling that humans have certain requirements for religious leaders/founders, certain innate criteria, and that those leaders seemed to be conforming --- or at least their followers and chroniclers were.
Another explanation could be that God kept trying, at various times and in various areas, sticking to a pattern that seemed to appeal.
It is the nature of humans to absorb, twist, embellish, and then incorporate whatever makes a story more exciting.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)