Still Playing Ketchup...

and check out this guy.

Still playing Ketchup from my recent “Sidelined by Surgery” soap opera (altho it did produce an amusing, even interesting event I’ll get up here soon. But not now.

First, Meet Dom Scarcella. He is another one of the bevy of scintillating scribblers who share the Substack space. As mentioned previously, I’m always in the hunt for writers like Domenic who bring something unique to the conversation, not pounding the podium with cliché du jours. His new book is available “Good Neighbor, Bad Citizen”. I’m just starting the read. Will post a review asap even though I’m on my post-op Happy Pills, so put down your stop watches! We’ve exchanged pleasantries and I’m happy to report he agreed to squander some of his quality time on a pod cast here later this month. Click this link for his latest.  

And now…here’s a free-floating itch I tried (unsuccessfully) scratching in the hospital. Maybe you can find the Annoying Spot and lean into it!

Perfect Imperfection

The world is full of ideas. Even better, we’re free to pick and choose from them, within them, any part of them. Who knows what might work?  More importantly, there's no rule requiring that you have to like the person who happens to come up with that ‘something’ with which you agree. And there's no rule whoever it is must be infallible. There's not even a rule that says s/he has to be ‘good people’. You can probably think of a number of boneheads you’ve met who, despite their odious shortcomings, managed to have One Good Idea. Imagine Diogenes finding his long-sought Honest Man only to discover the guy was also an absolute dork. So what? Keep the Idea – lose the dork!

Rummaging through the market place of ideas is like dumpster diving for enlightenment. But it's not as if you can't find great insights there. Too often, people can't be bothered with ideas that aren't served up on a sterile platter, sanitized for their sensibilities and spoon fed by someone they like. The worst waste of time is debating the value of a concept with a fool or fanatic who doesn’t care about truth or reality, only the victory of his opinions, more notable for their vacuity. There are those who, no matter how much factual evidence, history and precedent they are presented, consciously refuse - or are bereft of the capacity - to understand; others are blinded by ego, hatred or butt hurt. All they want is to be right even when they are demonstrably not. They’ve won the battle but not the war. Reason, logic and facts are irrelevant and immaterial; power and control are all that matter. When you have those, you can do anything, anywhere, anytime and there isn't a damn thing to be done about it - legally. Like voting.

Despite consulting a number of Constitutional authorities, I’ve yet to receive a clear, concise answer to the question of a contradiction between the Declaration of Independence and our U.S. Constitution. Jefferson wrote: “…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.”

A few years later, James Madison, the presumed ‘father of the Constitution”, listed in Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have the power to…provide for the calling forth of the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

 Groovy. So how do “the people” exercise their “right…to alter or abolish” an unacceptable form of government when the Constitution empowers that same ‘form of government’ to muster men with guns to fight them? Factor in today’s novel practice of “Lawfare” currently in vogue with the Biden Administration and you can easily see this ending badly for the Liberty and Freedom team.

Several years ago, when I first noticed the conundrum, I promptly posed the question to a noted FOX jurist with whom I collaborated on a series of pod casts. He had authored several books concerning Constitutional “issues”, so I assumed the answer would be forthcoming and I could go back to my rummaging hobby.

Well…ya know what they say when you “assume”. Rather than receiving the Delphic Oracle’s insightful response, he said ‘It’s probably some interpretation thing.” Maybe that’s why he didn’t make the SCOTUS list as anticipated.

Irrespective of the above, the conflicting question remains. Maybe it’s no biggie. Maybe there’s a line of reason that has managed to escape my diligent dodge-ball investigation. The dearth of information about the colliding clauses may be a hint that it really isn’t a “thing”. Maybe my intellectual horsepower has been reduced to Pony Ride status and I’m just not tall enough for this ride.

Whatever.

Take a shot in the Comments section. Who knows!? Paul isn’t the only who can have an epiphany!

BW

Thanks for reading this far. Always a pleasure and privilege (and a tad amazing) to have this collection of brains, education, experience and perspective all hangin’ out here. Take a sec to invite some of your friends in low places to join us. Why not surprise ‘em with a free subscription! They’ll thank you for it later! Or maybe not. If not, think of the time and money you’ll save at Christmas!

S’cuse me now. Time for the medzzzzz