Tuesday, February 24, 2009

If You Want an Inch . . .

About 16 or 17 years ago I was working for my previous employer and there was a group of four people on 3rd shift who worked totally unsupervised. Well three of them worked and the fourth would disappear every night about a half-hour after the shift started and return just in time to punch out. One of the guys in the group finally had enough and said something. The next night a supervisor followed the guy home and watched as he spent over six and half hours at home while the time clock said he was at work. He was warned and then did it again the next night. This time to production manager was following him and, understandably, fired him.

He had a friend in the maintenance department who was very upset about the firing and began watching the cleaning crew very closely. If they were a minute late coming back from break he reported them. If they went to the bathroom he reported them. If they stopped working for a minute he reported them. The engineering manager finally told him to knock it off and he was complaining about favoritism in the break room where I could hear him. Another maintenance worker told him that there was a big difference between getting 8 hours pay for going home and sleeping for six hours, and stopping for five minutes to catch your breath. He responded "Not if a friend is fired, it's all the same." I didn't say anything but I sure wanted to as I knew everyone involved and knew the fired guy was useless (another co-worker once said We had to take his pulse to see if he was still alive!) and the guy who complained was not simply a tattle-tale but a hard-working co-worker who had had enough. (The maintenance worker who was "avenging" his fired friend was fired shortly afterwards for drinking on the job after repeated warnings and repeated help given.)

It's a common thing. If you want an inch . . . be prepared to give me a mile or two. If you won't let me have a mile or two, don't ask for a single inch.

We are complaining about an out of control federal government. Does that mean we should reject every legitimate function of the federal government? Such an idea is absurd but seems to be the strawman that the left lifts every time we complain. The Constitution clearly lays out the responsibilities of the Feds and then the Tenth Amendment clearly states that everything not expressly referred to in the Constitution is the responsibility of the states and they can individually act on it as a state or let the individual citizen decide, but the Feds have to stay completely out of it. It is the responsibility of the federal government to do things like maintain highways, protect our borders and sovereignty (and they are doing that so well that we should trust them with anything else?), regulate commerce between the states (but intra-state commerce is entirely the responsibility of the state.) The feds have zero authority over education, welfare, "reproductive rights", etc. If they feel that the feds need that authority then they need to amend the Constitution to allow it. Even the Obama has admitted that the Constitution does not allow for wealth redistribution and he considers it a weakness of the Constitution, so he simply ignores it. Is he going to ignore the rest of the Constitution as well?

They are so busy interfering with the states' responsibilities that they are neglecting their own, like securing the border and keeping terrorists out (their two most important jobs at the moment).

Government is like fire. It's a useful tool but a deadly master. It must never be our master.


Blogger Ducky's here said...

From section 9 which is the express list of limits to Congresses power:

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.


So Congress is free to make appropriations by law so long as they let us see the books now and again.

Of course, Chucklenuts kept the Iraq War OFF THE BOOKS, which may have been illegal but it was certainly naughty.

I notice that didn't upset you and it seems a clearer violation than anything going on now.

Other than the Second and Tenth Amendment do you guys ever read the Constitution?

4:41 PM  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

This post should be read far and wide, Mr. Shoprat. You are wise beyond your years.


8:12 PM  
Blogger Z said...

Wise beyond your years and wise between your ears.

Don't know where that came from, but it's TRUE!!
Excellent post.
Obama doesn't respect the constitution or America, why would he bother to adhere to laws?

8:46 PM  
Blogger Z said...

By the way, you might have heard this yourselves..The Libs got the memo and it says this "when they say 'it's not in the constitution, just remind America that the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are in it" Apparently, that's supposed to encompass free health care, homes paid for, no more student tuitions, etc. etc et c....because it'll make us all HAPPIER.
listen for it...it's everywhere.

8:48 PM  
Blogger Chuck said...

Good post Shoprat.

Duck, yawn

9:12 PM  
Blogger Average American said...

Shoprat, they had no right to fire that guy, he was just in the pursuit of his happiness. It's in the constitution! Just ask Ducky.

3:45 AM  
Blogger dmarks said...

Ducky: We also read the First Amendment, which is why we are alarmed at so many Democrats in Congress now calling for laws to silence conservative radio commentators.

The left seems to think that the Bill of Rights starts with the 3rd Amendment.

7:56 AM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

dmarks, tie a can on it.

Nobody is trying to silence rabies radio. Rush can still tell you all about the thrills of cruising Denny's parking lot to score oxy. That crap isn't going to change.

You guys want to stay stupid then be my freakin' guest. Gonna make it a lot easier to defeat you.

As for the second amendment. It's a train wreck. There is no way to put a meaningful propositional calculus on it. "well regulated" vs. ownership. It's the fools on the right who don't see that conflict and can't understand the necessity of compromise.

I really don't care about the fairness doctrine. It ain't gonna happen and it's too cumbersome anyway. If the right wants to stay stupid then let them stay stupid. What gets me is when you "constitutional scholars" start blowing smoke.

We have becomw a sorry people and the right has to take the lions share of the blame. Thanks and keep listening to Sean Hannity. It makes you smart.

8:46 AM  
Blogger shoprat said...

It's curious that not one responded to my actual point. That there are those who think because we don't want the government doing what it shouldn't be doing that we shouldn't allow it do what it should either.

6:12 PM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

shoprat, I think righting the economy is a very legitimate function of government.

Now the right has a neuroses about government. The right is just going to have to get over it especially since they have presided over the single largest failure of the private sector in history.

You also haven't made much of a case for just what government should and shouldn't be allowed to do. I say spending is a legitimate function and can't find a reasonable retort here other than the usual nonsense that leftists don't understand the constitution because we don't think you should have a stockpile of mini guns.

Then it degenerates into a complete misunderstanding of the first amendment.

My point is that you are trumped by thinking you have standing to issue a definitive statement about the constitution. You aren't a trained constitutional lawyer and your dogma isn't truth.

12:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home