Harry P.

I like the Hornet, because that's a model you almost never see.

Good question, Jim. I think the answer is that I have lived in Illinois all my life... first in Springfield (as a baby), then in Chicago until I was 27... now in the NW suburbs. I guess the idea of pulling up stakes and moving sort of intimidates me. That, and the fact that moving a houseful of krap across country would probably cost me 10 grand or so. Then there's the hassle of selling the house and finding and buying a new one, etc. It all seems like a huge hassle to me, so basically inertia has kept me here. But you're right. I should just bite the bullet and get the heck outta Dodge. Sometimes I sit here and wonder to myself... why the hell do I stay?

Good quotes. I especially like what Coolidge said. But his line of thinking is long gone among the political class.

That's just about the widest range of subject matter built by the same guy that I've ever seen! Nice work.

Not enough of them, if you ask me.

Don't know how many of you guys know this, but those of us "lucky" enough to live in Crook County, Illinois (more crooked politicians per square mile than any other county!) pay the highest sales tax in the country. So what did they do? Why, of course, they raised it even higher, effective 1-1-16. I swear, between federal tax, Social Security tax, state income tax, sales tax, property tax, a tax on the phone bill, a tax on the gas bill, a tax on the electric bill, a tax on the cable bill, the highest gas taxes in the country (I think), etc., I have just about had it. Geez... how much more of my money are they going to take from me???

I agree that '63 Wagoneer would make for a cool kit. Add a nice set of realistic woodgrain decals for the sides, and I think you'd have a winner of a kit. I can picture one painted a medium blue, white roof, and the woodgrain sides.

I refuse to use a sniping site. To me it seems like cheating. Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't like the whole idea and I refuse to be a part of it.

I agree. They drove me to only buy BIN items. But don't blame ebay. They are all from other sources.

Exactly what I was thinking!

I'm impressed. Very sharp and clean. A great looking model!

Dave... well stated. You are absolutely correct, all powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution fall to the states. And for years now, the federal gov't has slowly but surely expanded its role and its presence in our lives in ways that are blatantly unconstitutional, IMO. Good analogy to the EU, too. That's a great example.

Uh oh... is that a "magic floating alternator" I see?

Matt, here's an interesting article regarding whether the legal definition of marriage falls under the federal government's jurisdiction... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-combs/marriage-equality-is-it-a-federal-issue-or-a-state-issue_b_2040588.html

I'm saying that many people believe it is a state/local issue, as it had always been. In exactly the same way they feel that education is a local/state issue, and not a function of the federal government.

Oh yeah! There it is!

If it's a federal school system... then technically, yes. If you grant the government free reign to create new laws or assign itself new powers at its discretion, then what's to stop the federal government from, for example, taking control of the media, ala North Korea? If the Constitution is deemed irrelevant, then there's nothing to stop the government from doing whatever it wants to do!

Matt... an example. Recently the US Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is legal. I am not taking sides on that issue, not saying whether I agree or disagree... but just want to point out that there is no mention whatsoever anywhere in the Constitution that grants the government the right to decide what "marriage" is. So many people believe, therefore, that the federal government has no standing to dictate what is and isn't a legal marriage; it's a local/state issue. Just one example. There are many others

It all depends on how strictly you want to look at things. A strict "Constitutionalist" would argue that the powers and functions of the Federal government are clearly enumerated and defined in the Constitution, and the gamut of what the feds are supposed to do ends there. If it's not clearly granted by the Constitution, the federal government has no Constitutional right or basis to do it. Then there are those who feel that the Constitution is a "living" document that can be fudged or changed–or ignored–to meet whatever ends they want to achieve. Like I said, it depends on how strictly one adheres to what the Constitution spells out and how faithful you are prepared to be to it.

Pretty slick. But you know what's missing...

The propaganda is equally simplistic on both sides. And human nature being what it is, people tend to believe whatever "propaganda" supports their already held opinions. Conservatives listen to the conservatives and liberals listen to the liberals. So all the noise coming from the left and the right doesn't do anything except further divide the left and the right. There is no one side guilty of it. It comes from both sides.

Ditto.

But the fact is, the Constitution is the basis of our government. Whatever it says, that's the law. And if it's not in the Constitution, well, that would make it by definition unconstitutional. If there are anachronisms in the Constitution (and obviously the founding fathers were pretty bright, but they were only human and couldn't look hundreds of years into the future and anticipate life as it is today), then the remedy is not to ignore or usurp the Constitution, but to amend the Constitution. That's the right way to do it. But unfortunately not the way it's done here.

Well, I can't speak for all of us, but my opinion is the "us vs them" feeling many Americans have regarding the feds, and the rather large amount of people who are "mad as hell" about business as usual regarding both major parties is that the feds don't act in our best interest, as they are supposed to do. After all, we the people send them to Washington to theoretically represent our interests, not their interests. But human nature being what it is, our politicians quickly become part of the "Washington bubble" and their entire lives and interactions take place within that political bubble they inhabit. That, plus the enormous financial power of political lobbies that pressure politicians to vote or legislate in the lobby's interest, not ours. Political interest groups donate huge sums to the politicians in order to pressure them and control their behavior, and the money is used to fund the politicians' re-elections–to hang on to power. It's all about power, money, influence, and holding on to the power you have. The last thing our national politicians worry about is what's best for the people. They're too busy worrying about, and acting on, what's best for their own self-interest. Hence, "we the people" feel taken advantage of, not listened to, and not looked out for. All "we the people" are to the feds is their source of revenue–ever increasing taxation funding ever-growing government. In Washington, Job 1 is figuring out how to squeeze another nickel out of the taxpayers to fund yet another bloated, inefficient, and useless federal bureaucracy. Is it any wonder it's an "us vs them" situation? It's a messed up system that would need a huge, thorough, and widespread overhaul, beginning with term limits for all elected officials and outlawing the practice of lobbying. But the people in power will never clean up the system when the system is rigged to their own benefit! It's a very different country today than it was when the colonies first became independent. Back then, political service was meant to be a temporary thing... something a citizen did out of a sense of service to their country. Serve your term, then go home back to your civilian life. Today, being a politician is a lifelong post, and that sense of "citizen government" is long gone. There are tons of people in Washington today that have literally never done anything other than be a politician. It's definitely an "us vs them" situation these days. And that's all I'll say, as politics is supposed to be off-limits here... (Maybe we should start a self-contained "Politics" section)?

If we shouldn't measure students' progress by testing them, how do you measure their progress? How do you determine whether of not they've grasped the basics of the subject? Seems to me that testing kids is the only way of determining what they do and don't know. Wouldn't a well-designed "standardized" test accurately measure a kid's grasp of the subject he's being tested on? If not, what is the alternative? What is the better way of doing things other than "teaching to the test?"