patrick wrote on November 28, 2009 01:08 PM: Dave:

Here's a good book for you to review before you make your next mistake:

"Nonetheless, contemporary readers were captivated by his effort. Stephen Stigler wrote in his 1986 book The History of Statistics about the impact of Quetelet’s study: “The average man was a fictional being in his creator’s eye, but such was his appeal that he underwent a transformation, like Pinocchio or Pygmalion’s statue, so that he still lives in headlines of our daily newspapers.

Nonetheless, contemporary readers were captivated by his effort. Stephen Stigler wrote in his 1986 book The History of Statistics about the impact of Quetelet’s study: “The average man was a fictional being in his creator’s eye, but such was his appeal that he underwent a transformation, like Pinocchio or Pygmalion’s statue, so that he still lives in headlines of our daily newspapers.”
Today’s headlines often characterize the average American not as great, good, or beautiful, but as fat, dumb, and ugly. However, the majority of Americans are of healthy weight, the nation’s average intelligence score has continued to rise about four points every decade since nationwide IQ testing began in the 1920s..."

Note particularly the last part about IQ testing, but please take a look at the rest of the book and " Quetelet’s" book; it will maybe inform your opinion regarding some of the nonsense you apparently "believe" about some of the trash you have written here.

But then again...maybe not, since you seem to be the type of braying donkey who will not believe what is obvious to the most disinterested observer.

patrick wrote on November 28, 2009 11:04 AM: Dave:

You pretend to believe that you think you understand what the Constitution says, but you don't.

The Constitution SAYS neither one thing more or less than the 9 justices of the Supreme Court says it says, and for over a century they say it says just what I told you it says; the federal government has the authority, pursuant to the Constitution, to involve itself in education.

Whatever YOU "think" the Constitution says holds as much sway in the world today as what I say, which is to say, not much.

And Dave, you said American, I said athlete meaning American. I was less than precise.

The average American today, is bigger, faster stronger, healthier, more literate, and lives longer than their predecessors from 200 years ago.

The average American today can run faster, jump higher, lift more, carry more, for longer, than their predecessors from 200 years ago and it isn't even close.

For proof look no farther than the differences between top ATHLETES today and the abilities of average AMERICANS today. While the gap between the athletes of today and average Americans today will likely exceed the differences between the top ATHLETES and average Americans 200 years ago, the increased physical prowess demonstrated by todays ATHLETES is instructive because it shows how athletes today and athletes from yesterday compare. THEN by taking the differences between those groups, and using the differences between athletes today, and average Americans today, you can infer how much improvement has occurred in comparison to average Americans from 200 years ago.

The average American from many years ago DIED before they were 50; if that doesn't tell you something about their physical abilities nothing will. They were weaker, much weaker than today.

Dave Lincoln wrote on November 28, 2009 07:17 AM: Oops!


WAS: "...your going to have more ..."
S/B "...you're going to have more ..."

WAS: "...to spend to much time training."
S/B: "...to spend too much time training."

Dave Lincoln wrote on November 28, 2009 06:56 AM: "And, if you had ANY reading abilities, or reasoning abilities, you would deduce that since the top performing athletes during the last 200 years or more have consistently outperformed their predecessors, the "average" athletes during each of those periods have performed consistently with the average athletes during each respective period.

In other words, the fact is that each year in history has seen an increase in the athletic abilities of ALL people, exemplified and recorded typically only for the best, but nevertheless exhibited by each level of athlete; get it?"

I do get that you refuse to read a complete sentence. I did not say ATHLETE, I said MALE AMERICAN. That covers you, Patrick, and your fat cousins, too.

Of course, with 300 million people (not counting 20 million illegal aliens, who are in decent shape) versus, say 20 million to 50 million in those old days, your going to have more skill at the top. Also, the money was not there back then to allow someone to spend to much time training.

I am talking about the average male American, who was in far better physical shape (not to mention more literate) than the average male American of today. Can you read that last sentence thoroughly before you reply? Thank you much.

Dave Lincoln wrote on November 28, 2009 06:52 AM: Patrick, it is nice that you have become a defender of the US Constitution now!! What next, dogs and cats living together? I just explained to you that Amendments 9 and 10, ratified and signed along with rest of the Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government (newly formed at the time of signing). If you think it's redundant, fine with me. The problem is that you can't be a socialist (in this country) if you agree our Fed government should abide by the LAW OF THE LAND (aka US Constitution).

"... the general welfare clause does in fact permit the federal government to involve itself in lots of areas." No, seems you really didn't read, Patrick. All other powers are delegated to the states and the people (as in it limits Fedzilla to the powers already described above - common defense). The thing isn't but a few pages, Patrick; it's not like you have to read through a whole mandatory gov't healthcare bill (2000 pages, at last count).

As for your opinions on the fitness of the American people, why don't you tell me your time in the 100 yard dash. You will have to get off of your Mama's couch in order to do this, so I'll give you till the end of the week, mmmkay?

patrick wrote on November 27, 2009 09:15 PM: Paolo:

The problem is your "opinion" about the percentage of actions taken by the Federal Government is just that; an opinion.

Your opinion, although it is shared by a minority of people, just isn't "the law".

"The law", as it has been for a very long time, is that the necessary and proper clause, and the general welfare clause does in fact permit the federal government to involve itself in lots of areas.

I appreciate that you have a difference of opinion about it, and I also appreciate that you recognize that "my" side has won, at least it makes you more of a realist than say...Dave.

patrick wrote on November 27, 2009 09:10 PM: Dave:

For your history lesson, although I am certain that you will not be able to understand it coming from me; read Paolo's post. Perhaps coming from a fellow traveler, you might get it; the 10th Amendment is redundant BECAUSE the Constitution grants powers FROM the people TO the government. That is what it was all about from the beginning.

Repeating that in the 10th Amendment makes the 10th Amendment a redundancy; get it?

And, if you had ANY reading abilities, or reasoning abilities, you would deduce that since the top performing athletes during the last 200 years or more have consistently outperformed their predecessors, the "average" athletes during each of those periods have performed consistently with the average athletes during each respective period.

In other words, the fact is that each year in history has seen an increase in the athletic abilities of ALL people, exemplified and recorded typically only for the best, but nevertheless exhibited by each level of athlete; get it?

I didn't think so.

Dave Lincoln wrote on November 27, 2009 08:09 PM: Patrick, for your history lesson this post, I will simply tell you that the Bill of Rights, also known as Amendments 1 through 10, was written into the US Constitution when that document was originally ratified and signed.

As for your bet, I would be glad to win 100 dollars from you if:

1) I knew you were good for it.

2) you had the reading comprehension to undertand what I wrote, which was not about the sprinting, jumping (etc.) RECORDS, but about the AVERAGE MALE of the time. I doubt much of that was ever recorded and is not, in fact, not now either.

So that will probably remain a matter of opinion, but not the amount of literacy. That can be inferred from records and books from that time period. Of course, I'm assuming the "inferrer", ahem, is literate, so that rules you out.

Agreed about the 95%, Paolo.

Paolo wrote on November 27, 2009 06:52 PM: In case Dave doesn't answer, here is my answer the questions about the Tenth Amendment.

Strictly speaking, the Tenth IS redundant. However, states insisted on the Bill of Rights, and the Tenth, just to make it extra, extra clear that the Federal government was limited to only those powers specifically delegated to it.

Their fears were well-founded; the feds have gone ahead and usurped powers anyway, figuring (correctly) that they could get away with it.

There is no clause in the Constitution that grants the Federal government the power to legislate in the area of education. Since that power is not specifically delegated, it does not exist.

About 95 percent of what the Federal Government does these days is, strictly speaking, unconstitutional.

We've had this discussion before, I'm sure. No, the so-called "general welfare" clause does not grant the federal government the power to do anything, so long as it can justify it by saying it's in the "general welfare."

No, the "necessary and proper" clause does not grant the feds the power to do anything, so long as they deem it "necessary" or "proper." These are two examples of gross misreading of the clear prose of the Constitution.

But Patrick may claim victory in this regard: the feds have usurped these powers, because they knew they could get away with it. Our dumbed-down electorate, with most credit going to public schools, has absolutely no concept of what the Constitution actually says.

You may sleep well at night, Patrick, knowing that your side if definitely winning.

patrick wrote on November 26, 2009 10:05 PM: Dave:

Interesting; since I have read the entire Constitution, and have access to the decisions issued by the final arbiters of Constitutional Law and know from whence the Constitutional authority exists, perhaps you can point out to me what language it is within the redundancy known as the 10th Amendment which you believe precludes the federal government from involving themselves in schools?

Before you answer Dave, understand this, if you can, since you presume that the Constitution must specifically grant powers TO the Federal Government, and that it CANNOT act without that grant, and that all power therefore comes from the people, how can it be that an Amendment is needed which restates that all power not specifically granted to the federal government remains in the people?

Good luck with that Dave.

And Dave, I'll tell you what, I haven't check the record books, but now that you have challenged what I previously said, I will do some research about sprinting, long-distance, strength etc. times during the 1790's and today, and without knowing specifically I will bet you $100 cash money, that the times of the BEST sprinter, long-distance runners, and jumping records established then will be WORSE than an AVERAGE, athlete today.

Wanna bet?

Read All Comments