As a kid, my all time favorite no-holds barred show was Star Trek: The Next Generation, where the cast flew around the galaxy in the Starship Enterprise.

However, as a younger kid, my favorite show was not set in deep space, but rather the deep south, and rather than flying around in a starship, the cast drove around in a garishly painted ‘69 Dodge Charger. That’s right!!: I was a proud young fan of The Dukes of Hazzard.

This weekend, CMT aired a Dukes marathon. Okay, look, I haven’t seen an episode of this show since I was like, I dunno, probably about the size of Supafine’s pooping machine.

(Actually, that’s not true, back in high school, a friend taped me three or four episodes — because my parents didn’t believe in cable tv, deprived I say — and I watched them and thought, “Oh my god this is bad, but in a good way.”)

Anyway, that opinion held true for the episode and a half I was able to watch Sunday evening before going to work. If I’d known about the marathon, I would have spent all day glued to the tv cheering on Luke, Bo, and The General Lee. I’m totally nowhere near where I was headed with this post last paragraph - I did just give into nostalgia and buy this - so I’ll just cut to the chase.

Did anyone notice that The General Lee has no headlights?

I mean, yeah, weird enough Bo & Luke paint the car bright orange and weld the doors shut (what Coy, what Vance, didn’t want to unweld the door?), but were they not planning on doing any after-hours driving?

Image (stolen) from CodeOneAuto.com.

UPDATE:

Hey, wait, are those the headlights under the bumper? Look like fog lights to me. But what do I know about cars? Nothin’.

UPDATE II:

Guess the General wasn’t the only Charger with the “no headlight” look. I like it, actually … spooky and mysterious.

Because Iraq was the most dangerous Axis-of-Evil nation, North Korea is now threatening to resume missile tests, in an attempt to convince the world to take the rogue nation seriously. Not going to happen, Kim!

About a year ago, Gary hired this shady kid (you know the type - lives in a million dollar house, dresses like he lives in the hood) to work as a dayshift driver. We nicknamed him “M&M.” The first two days he worked, Gary had him slaving inside over the subline and the front counter. Finally, Gary decided he was ready to start training as a driver.

Now, I’d already heard some stories about this kid, but there we are, driving up York Road on a delivery, and he takes some baggies out of his pocket. “Want anything?”

Okay, look, I smoked weed once, and that’s the hardest - and only - drug I’ve ever done (nevermindin’ alkiehol). And I’m looking at a bag of what I recognize is marijuana, some white powder that I was reasonably certain wasn’t sugar, and some little mint-looking things. The first thing to go through my mind: “Jesus Christ, if I get pulled over I’m going to be doing seventy years in prison!”

I pulled into the nearest gas station, handed him a dollar, and asked him to run in and get me a bottle of water. As soon as he was out of my car, I floored it out of the station and back onto York Road. He was fired shortly thereafter. Lesson: don’t try to sell the boss ’shrooms.

Anyway, the other day, I took a delivery to his house. “Hey man, remember me?” he asked.

“Sure, you tried to sell me crack,” I laughed.

His face paled and his went as large as a dinner plate. His mother was standing right behind him.

Whoooops.

Rick is:

a) Snarky
b) A Good Writer
c) Unspun
d) All of the Above

The correct answer is D. Now, now … keep reading.

The Constitution of the United States is an anti-majoritarian document. The very purpose of the Constitution is to protect unpopular minority views from the majority. If everyone would just “go with the flow” of the majority, there would be absolutely no need for the protections embodied in the Constitution. Unfortunately, Americans not only don’t understand this; they don’t understand why it’s important. Many have grown up to believe that the core requirement of a democracy is that “the majority rules.” The rationale for protecting unpopular ideas held by “fringe groups” is just not part of their mental repertoire.

When you think about it, that’s rather ironic. The group currently in power was once considered fringe. Christian fundamentalists have battled vociferously throughout our nation’s history — becoming shrilly vocal in the last few decades. If not for the Constitution, their hateful bigoted ideals would have been squelched long ago. Instead, they now have slavish adherents, or at least people willing to pander to them, in every major office of the U.S. government. What a change adherence to the Constitution hath wrought. Ironic that endorsement of the Constitution should eventually result in the destruction of the Constitution, isn’t it?

At any rate, what America needs right now is to regain an understanding of the importance of core constitutional principles. It’s vital to us that we remember why the Founders would have written a document that would tie their own hands — and ours — on certain issues. Why did they write things like “Congress shall make no law [none, nada, zip] respecting an establishment of religion”? Why did American legislators impair our ability to easily and quickly deal with the criminal element in our society with (at least) the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th — and later the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution?

If it’s right to say “majority rules,” why create a document that doesn’t allow that on every issue?

Unfortunately, these important questions almost never get discussed. When they do, it’s only in passing, by liberal fruitcakes like myself, to whom few (except those who already agree) ever listen. “We” liberals talk about such things only in attempting to push other important agendas, like stopping governmental funding of Christian proselytizing efforts, or trying to achieve equality for various minority groups (lately homosexuals).

While these are noble goals, they’re doomed to failure in a conservative society that is afraid that merely allowing people to choose whether or not — freely — to accept the promise of John 3:16 is insufficient. It will never work in a world where heterosexuals who want to marry other heterosexuals know that their entire world will collapse if a homosexual marries another homosexual and — damn the Constitution — G-d therefore says they cannot allow it. So long as “christians” believe that free will was a mistake and that they can correct it in G-d’s name (but, significantly, contrary to “his” stated will), the anti-majoritarianism of the Constitution is anathema.

You can read his full bit here.

Greg at Catscape wants to fight the partisanship of the Blogosphere.

Politically, I’m on the right. But sometimes I get tired of hearing the Right’s echo chamber repeating what I already think. It’s nice to read commentary from a different perspective, if it is well thought out and well written.

With that in mind, I would like to arrange a series of online discussions between two political opposites. I am hoping to generate enough interest that there will be enough discussion material to last a couple of months. Discussions will be posted once per week.

Interesting, but I can’t help but think its doomed to be the internet’s version of “Crossfire”. Still, it’s a good opportunity to showcase political bloggers who aren’t Instapundit, Kevin Drum, or Andy Sullivan, and maybe even crack these thick partisan hides we wear.

Well … maybe not.

Here’s a quick - and short - blogosphere roundup related to MADDatGM.

This is awesome. Finally, someone getting some ink and at the same time calling MADD out for what it is. Before you start in with the whole ‘It’s about the kids’ thing, think about it. I suspect that given the opportunity, MADD would have you arrested for even thinking about a beer. Hell, I’m thinking about one right now, and I’m only typing. Maybe, there’s some law against that. Maybe, there will be in the near future.

Turn the Screw

I understand that as a trade/lobbying group, your sole purpose is to advocate for the health of your chosen industry. However, when you equate the concept of a “designated driver” with a return to prohibition, your moral compass needs a tune-up.

Lousy Dog

Zoot-suit man who has watched Batman one too many times has his own blog.

HT: Fireman dude.

Mike & Colin have a pretty awesome joint/blog project, blog.fryballs.net, underway, and, uh, I’ve never seen a multiple author blog like that before. Worth a look, and make sure to check out Colin’s top post, which inspires him to write, “You may or may not be a terrorist, but your attitude is going to destroy everything even remotely similar to a civil liberty on this planet.”

Fuckin’ classic, baby!

Hat Tip: Timmy.

I adopted Guy and Tippy within a few weeks of each other. Guy wasn’t too happy when I brought Tippy home - it was one thing for him to allow some humans to roam his place, but another cat? Sacrilige!

The first night there was some hissing. By the next morning, they were both curled up together at the end of my bed.

Tippy took some liberties right away - notably regarding the food: she’d beat Guy into the kitchen and dig her nose into the dish before he had a chance.

Guy put up with this for a few weeks, but I think finally he’d had enough. I didn’t see what happened, but my roomate did. Tippy stuck her head in the bowl and was munching away. (You have to understand that Guy was already a full sized cat at this point, and Tippy was still small enough where she could curl up in the palm of my hand. Guy is still quite a bit larger than Tippy, so I don’t know if she’s just naturally a small animal, or he’s just fat and in need of a diet — like his owner.)

Right. So, Tippy sticks her head in the dish and munches away. And Guy raises his paw and smacks her head into the wet cat food. She jerks back - surprised, I take it - and he eats to his heart’s content. This went on for about a week. She’d get to the food dish, start eating, he’d get pissed, and smack!

Six years later, Tippy remembers her lesson.