1938 buick y-job concept car wallpaper, we’re all originalists now

1938 buick y-job concept car

There is no shortage of information about this car on the net. I was drawn to it because I like the way designers, engineers, architects and city planners of the past envisioned the future. A future that is here. A lot of their visions did not come to pass. Our cities do not look like those presented at the 1939 World’s Fair. A Fair whose look reflected the modern clean lines of the Y-Job Concept car. It was designed and  built by GM’s first chief of design Harley J. Earl and was his personal car up until the 1950s when he gave it to a museum. The Y designation is said to be inspired by the designation used by aviation firms who designated their new experimental planes with a Y rather than the X usually used by the auto industry for as yet named cars. The Buick Y incorporated cutting edge design. The use of concealed headlamps, electrically powered windows, recessed and thus stream line door handles and gasp…the absence of running broads. An electric powered convertible top rounded out the innovations.

Earl also had a little joke on the Germans in the years after WW II. In designing the badge for the new La Sabrer -Earl took the spinning rotor of the Mercedes Benz badge, tuned it upside down and placed it in the middle what two circles – kinda like a bullseye.

A handy graphic for some of you. It says how to debate a Christian. That’s an unfortunate generality, some Christians are fairly rational and are not head in the sand fundamentalists. That said a good job on how to have a rational debate if your opponent is willing to abide by the rules of logic.  H/T to Kos for the link.

I’m already tired of the subject but this silliness is going to be with us for a while – House GOP Humors the Tea Party with an Empty Constitutional Gesture

Reading the Constitution aloud is a prelude to a rule that requires every single piece of proposed legislation to have a statement at the bottom of the bill citing where in the Constitution Congress is empowered to enact such legislation. The new rule is sure to make Tea Party members happy, but will open up disputes regarding the interpretation and relevance of the 200-year-old document as it pertains to new legislation.

It seems more than a little strange that members of Congress swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, but need to read the document out loud after they have been sworn in. Republicans are under pressure from the Tea Party to return to the Founders’ original intent laid out in the Constitution, and teabag queen Michelle Bachmann has taken it upon herself to be the progenitor of all things Constitutional by holding instructional classes to teach the document to incoming representatives.

Bachmann thinks the November 2nd election was a mandate for Congress to return to the Founders’ idea of America and says, “Voters called for a renewed commitment to the Constitution,” and that, “These new rules show that Republicans are serious about respecting the Constitution.” Bachmann’s comprehension of the Constitution is tenuous at best, and her remarks this past summer that she wanted Minnesotan’s to be “armed and dangerous” in case the Federal government enforced federal laws were nothing short of treason and incitement to armed insurrection.

Yes by all means let us stop and ponder on how James Madison would have regulated air traffic. I can’t find any of his writings on air traffic control or whether airline passengers should have any rights pertaining to flying through the air. How would Benjamin Franklin have viewed stem cell research especially in light of the fact that he was oblivious to the fact that stem cells existed much less differentiated into organs and tissue. Would Thomas Jefferson approve of the Right’s unitary view of the executive which gave Bush 43 and VP Cheney king like powers. John Adams suggested presidents be elected for life so he would probably have loved John Yoo and David Addington. Would the Founders have approved of driving cars, being required to take a license exam and buy car insurance. It requires a migraine inducing headache for the likes of John Boehner(R-OH), Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and  Bachmann to interpret and apply the implicit principles in the constitution as they apply to car possession and travel. Because the Founders never mention automobiles in the Constitution, or the internet or toasters or iPads or radio or even the telegraph (the Constitution was ratified into law in 1788, but the electrical telegraph was not invented until 1804 .) Since there is no explicit Constitutional regulation of or even permission to use the telegraph, the phone or broadcast TV signals – and we’re all orginalists now – we must get rid of all those devices. Either that or we start interpreting the spirit of the Constitution. Something we have been doing at least since the Whiskey Rebellion and the creation of the first federal bank in 1791.