That does sound like something to get upset about.

But if the money is in my possession, doesn't a fair reading of the Constitution mean they have to prove it never belonged to me?

Because too many Americans want their government doing everything for them, and it nearly does. But we only get a few votes each year. This gives the politicians the opportunity to do a lot of things wrong so long as they do more things right than their opposition likely would.

Let me put it this way. I can about the national debt, generally following the Constitution, specifically allowing freedom of religion, illegal immigration, lowering spending, global warming, racism, NASA, good treatment of America's allies, treatment of America's enemies, free trade.

Every year I get just over one chance to choose Democrat or Republican on all these issues. I don't get to say "I'll have a Republican on following the Constitution, a Democrat on global warming, a Republican on illegal immigration, a Democrat on NASA..." Nor can I choose specific models "I'll have a far right republican on freedom of religion and a moderate republican on free trade..." I get to choose 1.1 person a year.


On the other hand in electronics I get to choose an Apple laptop, a Samsung handheld computer, a philips stereo, a Sony TV,... And when I choose that Sony TV I get to choose from so many models. And if I find I don't like one of these items after getting it home I can return it.


We need to have less control by the government and more control by the market because market control generally means freedom and excellent service.

Or a recognition that if the money goes in the bank your spouse will expand your expenses to match the income. The interest on the refund isn't nearly as much as I save by not letting my wife spend it for a year. It gives us a chance to buy something nice once in a while.

This is why the notion that we need more "compromise" in Washington is so overrated. The Democrats say they want higher spending and higher taxes. The Republicans say they want less spending and lower taxes.

The compromise is usually higher spending and lower taxes.

I have long thought that we should amend the Constitution to say that every bill must be read out loud in its entirety before it can be voted on, and that only members who sit quietly with no electronic equipment though the entire reading should be allowed to vote on it.

A bonus would be that every sponsor of a bill would have to approve every amendment to a bill. That way you would always have at least one person who could be held personally accountable fore the whole bill (i.e. they wouldn't be able to claim they had to vote for the bill even though it contained some provisions they didn't like since they would be able to eliminate any provision they didn't like).

Stop exploding liberal fantasies with your ridiculous facts.

Congress is more like .0001%, and yes they are as always. (Perhaps your 0.01% is accurate if you include enough government functionaries.)

I would like to know about the whole "due process of law" thing in the Constitution. I money considered property? If so, don't they have to give you due process before taking it (and generally "due process" is considered to be a trial where the burden of proof is on the government)?

Or is this one of those cases where some judges have already decided that their preferences and policies are more important than what the Constitution says?

If you can stand up, you get "on" the vehicle. Otherwise you get "in" the vehicle.

Have you ever met a doctor with the same opinions as the parent? Have you ever met a lawyer with those opinions? I suspect the reason your comments is that you haven't met many people who don't share your views on this matter, and that even if you have you have n't given them a fair hearing because you were to busy making presumptions about their motivations and background.

It looks like I mis-remembered one thing - the article doesn't mention people of Asian ancestry.

Way back when this came out, I read about it in National Review. Here is the original: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/io...

Yes I have met a black person with a college degree. And I have met a woman who is more than 6 feet tall. (In fact I've met a black women with a college degree who is more than six feet tall).

From this I conclude that all statistics about most women being less than 6 feet tall are pure nonsense, or at least that any statistic claiming most black women with college degrees are less than six feet tall is pure nonsense.

Some years back when Bush II was running for president, someone pointed out how dismal education was in Texas, pointing to another state that was doing so much better (run by Democrats if I recall) based on test results.

Someone else look at the statistics and compared the two states demographically.

White kids in Texas were doing better than the white kids in the other state.
Black kids in Texas were doing better than the black kids in the other state.
Hispanic kids in Texas were doing better than the hispanic kids in the other state.
Kids with Asian ancestry were doing better in Texas than kids with Asian ancestry in the other state.


Looking at each group, they were doing better in Texas than in the other state.

So why was Texas worse overall? Texas had more black and hispanic kids, while the other state had more white kids and kids with Asian ancestry, and in both states the white kids and the kids with Asian ancestry outperformed the black and hispanic kids on the tests.


Lesson: if you want to compare education systems fairly based on results, you can't ignore the demographics.

I hope someday we can have a scientific discussion about why that is. Actually, I hope even more that things can change before then so we don't need to have the discussion.