2010.01.02, or if you prefer, 01-02-2010. It’s one of only 331 palindronic dates in the YYYY-MM-DD (or MM-DD-YYYY) format. The next one will be on November 2, 2011; after that, there won’t be another until February 2, 2020. The next one to take place in January will take place a bit over a century from now.
Just mentioning. Consider this an open thread.
Thanks for the catch! And, I have no idea whatsoever what a rubric's cube would be or would do. But…
Much as I like the idea of a rubric's cube, it's spelled Rubik's cube. (Now what would a rubric's cube…
Great response to the Mace bill by AOC (video at link).
@bcb: Sometimes I think the whole election was an elaborate murder-suicide plot that the entire country is carrying out.
@Megalodon: They've made it clear that their first target is trans Americans. They'll get to that mass deportation stuff when…
The guy who goes from message board to message board posting identical comments about how awesome Sarah Palin is is a Palindrone. (Although there don’t seem to be many people doing that that I’ve seen, which is too bad, because ‘Palindrone’ is about a thousand times wittier than “Paulbot” or “Obamabot”.)
Character sequences that read the same backwards and forwards are palindromes.
Please make a note of it.
Heh. Correction made.
“Heh.”? Who are you, Glenn Reynolds? I spent literally seconds crafting that funny comment. I demand at least a LOL!
Freudian slip there, Amp? I do like it, though.
Also, sloppily titled. “Today” is not a palindrome (neither the word NOR the concept); the digits of today’s date are a palindrome.
Go back and do it again! I demand that my free entertainment be perfectly logically consistent.
Defined broadly enough, today is quite palindromic.
I got up
I had some food.
I did some stuff
I had more food.
Did more stuff
Had food.
Went to bed.
I mean, that’s the classic RACECAR pattern.
Hm. Perhaps the goal ought to be to make our days less palindromic.
—Myca
Deep. *Spaces out*
It seems pretty clear that a) someone, somewhere will challenge the Federal government’s Constitutional right to force people to buy health insurance whether they want to or not and b) that effort will be well funded. Whether or not State Attorney Generals have the standing to do so is of some interest, but if a State has no standing to do so some individual who wishes to opt out but cannot will have standing and will attract backing.
Anybody have any idea how this might turn out? I’m trying to think of anything else the government forces me to buy. I have to buy car insurance if I buy a car, but then I don’t have to buy a car and if I don’t I don’t have to buy car insurance. I’m trying to think of anything that the government forces me to buy purely for the privilege of living in the U.S. and I’m coming up short.
In many states, you don’t have to buy car insurance; you just have to establish financial responsibility to drive on state roads. You can do that by buying insurance or posting a bond.
Nor do you have to have insurance to own a car; it’s driving it on the public roads where the state gets to step in. You can drive an uninsured car around your own property all day long; you don’t even need a license.
As for how the court challenge will go – I’m inclined to think the courts will be fairly sympathetic to the individuals not wanting to make the payments. The other side’s interest amounts to “We really really want health care reform and making people buy insurance is the only way we could find to make the political deal work”. That’s good enough for legislation, but not good enough to override people’s rights.
(And to answer your question in advance, Amp, the right being overridden is the right to make our own economic decisions.)
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Yes, Health Care Is Constitutional.
Some guys on the job having guy fun