Am slightly eclectic. I admit that.
Heinz 57 is a philosophical statement in a bottle.
Am a polyglot. Language = logic, and language allows differing thought without always being able to replicate the same thought with the same meaning in a different language.
I disagree with myself as much as I do with others sometimes. For example, I support universal health care but believe it is unconstitutional if mandated at the federal level. I believe that Social Security is unconstitutional, and may be determined to be so one day, but believe that it is an essential and important program. I believe jaywalking to be wrong but I do it.
I believe that buoys may appear to bob in the water too much for some but as long as they are firmly anchored they are always there when needed. They are needed.
Life can be strange. Thinking about it too much … doesn’t always produce answers.
Stay curious. Challenge authority. Be respectful and people will let you in and serve coffee even if they disagree with you.
Bill Golden's Bill4DogCatcher.com 
Why is Social Security unconstitutional? If you believe in universal health care but think it is wrong to mandate it at the federal level, how would you implement universal health care?
Am sure you are aware that while Medicare is not “mandated”; i.e., you don’t have to take Part B (that is the part with the monthly fee) but if you don’t take it when eligible (there are some exceptions) and later cange your mind, you will pay a penaltyof 10% of the monthly premium for each full year you did not enroll. There is a similar proviso for Part D, the Prescription Drug Program. You don’t HAVE to take it but if you don’t do so when first eligile (again with some exceptions) then you will pay a 1 % per month penatly for every month you don’t sign up–so could be 12% of the average national premium for each year you don’t sign up–and the penalty is forever. So equivocate if you must, but just keep these things in mind.
Social Security is unconstitutional because it is a form of mandatory federal insurance.
The Supreme Court shot down two other Roosevelt programs just prior to Social Security because the SCOTUS deemed it ‘insurance’.
So hasn’t the Supreme Court reviewed and given its approval to Social Security? No. When Roosevelt threatened to pack the court by adding six more justices of his picking the Supreme Court choose a rather unique way to sidestep determining if Social Security was constitutional: its opinion was ‘we need not determine the constitutionality at this time’.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) itself goes out of its way on its own webpage to reassure people about the history of the Social Security Act; see http://www.ssa.gov/history/supreme3.html … probably few government agencies, if any other at all, try so hard to qualify its existence.
Packing the Court — Even the SSA notes on its website in a history of Social Security that Roosevelt had to threaten the Supreme Court in order to influence it to go his way; there is little in the Constitution about the Supreme Court itself so a president + a compliant Congress could change the very nature of the Supreme Court if it wished. See the SSA’s history of the packing the court threat: http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html
As for Medicare, the lesson was learned: do not make it mandatory and avoid the constitutional challenge. Another reason for this was it could well call into review ‘we need not decide at this time’.
So, if you had your way, despite your comment above, you would do away with Social Security, knowing full well it has be a lifeline for many millions of people? And I am guessing you side with Sarah Palin about Paul Revere’s ride–it really was to warn the British–right? I continue to be amazed that you can be on both sides of an issue without any qualms. I know–devil’s advocate–right? I say buoy in a storm with a tenuous anchor–at best.
I clearly said that I believe Social Security to be essential. How much clearer can you get than that?
I also know that Paul Revere rode out to warn the British that he was having a sale on copper ware if they would just hold off entering the city for 24 hours more — unlike Sarah Palin who thought that he was warning the British about our Second Amendment rights, rights which we did not have yet for years to come.