Weekend Open Thread

… hoarding can be fatal? Just ask the brothers Homer (1881-1947) and Langley Collyer (1885-1947). The Collyer brothers were rather odd residents of New York City, and following the death of their mother they lived in seclusion in their family home. The two men obsessively collected books, furniture, musical instruments, and just about anything else. The collection became an obsession, and soon their three-story home was crammed from floors to ceilings with junk. Passages were carved through the stuff to enable the men to move around, and – fearing someone would break in and steal their possessions – the two created elaborate booby traps in the junk. After Homer went blind and became paralyzed, Langley dedicated himself to taking care of his older sibling. In late March of 1947, though, neighbors called Police to investigate a foul smell coming from the home. After finally breaking in through an upstairs window, Police found the body of Homer Collyer. He had died of starvation. But that wasn’t the source of the smell; further digging through the incredibly crammed interior of the house finally led to the origin of the aroma – the discovery of Langley Collyer’s body, about ten feet from where Homer had been discovered a few weeks before. Langley had been crushed by one of the booby traps set in the junk about three weeks before Homer died. He was unable to bring the paralyzed Homer any food, and Homer starved.

… tennis players are not allowed to swear if they’re playing at Wimbledon? The fact that many players come from countries where English is not the primary language isn’t an issue, either – line judges have to learn curse words in all of the languages spoken by the participants, so nobody can get away with breaking that rule. (Well, darn.)

… former President Jimmy Carter (1924-2024) was a speed reader? Carter could read at a rate of 2000 words per minute, and retained most of what he read. (That’s fast!)

… asteroids are presented in movies very differently than they exist in reality? If you remember the famous scene in The Empire Strikes Back, when Han Solo flew the Millennium Falcon through an asteroid field, he was able to dodge and swoop all around the space boulders with skillful piloting (and a little luck). In reality, though, asteroids have a lot of room between them – on average, some 400,000 square miles of space would have just one asteroid. The chances of a spacecraft actually colliding with an asteroid are about one in a billion, despite what the movies show you. (You need good piloting skills either way.)

… pole vaulting puts tremendous stress on the bones? When a pole vaulter lands, the tubular joints of his thigh bones absorb up to 20,000 pounds of pressure per square inch. (I knew there was a reason I never took up that sport.)

Now … you know!

Shel was pretty prolific. I don’t think we would’ve had Dr. Hook without him!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Songs_written_by_Shel_Silverstein

That got a laugh out of me.

Now you’re friends with an Objectivist/ Libertarian who can sometimes be socially liberal and still supports Trump.

It’s the end of week 1. Here they are:

There is much controversy currently in America about key constitutional precepts like the separation of powers and the established system of checks and balances, even though these are key components of the American federal system. What do these concepts mean to you, and are they important for both the government and the people? Why or why not?

If the President has too much power, that is an autocracy. If Congress has too much power, that is a pure democracy. If the Judiciary has too much power, that is a juristocracy. Neither of these are desirable forms of government. The Founders intended for the US Government to be a Polity, as described by Aristotle, and is a desirable and the most stable form of government. What the checks and balance do is prevent our government from sliding into one of these undesirable forms of government and they are important, not especially to the government (as power corrupts), but to the people. A polity serves the best interests of the people, not the state. The checks and balances prevent our people from living under the tyrannies I described: The tyranny of a autocrat, the tyranny of the majority, and the tyranny of unaccountable judges.

There were many arguments made against the Equal Rights Amendment, but what do you think were the real reasons it was ultimately not ratified? What are the consequences of women’s equality never being clearly protected in the constitution?

The most significant reason for ERA failing to get ratified is due to Phyllis Schlafly’s STOP ERA Campaign. She organized national, conservative women in opposition of the amendment and she was successful. Concerns the Mrs. Schlafly had were that the amendment attacked the privileges of conservative women and motherhood. The consequences of ERA not being ratified is the fear that civil right’s laws made to protect women’s rights are under threat of repeal due to the possibility of changing attitude in government. My personal take: Even though the current crop of conservatives are right now uninterested in repeal, I get where pro-ERA citizens are coming from. As such, I don’t have a problem with ERA being ratified and becoming an amendment. Other people will express opposition due to potential harm, as amendments are difficult to repeal, but that is a non-factor. It’s happened before with the 18th (prohibition). That proved that an amendment that is unpopular enough to be repealed isn’t set in stone.

Have a Great Weekend, you Gents!