I didn't post yesterday because I didn't want to go online and find out that Massachusetts voters had spit on Ted Kennedy's grave... which I heard on the radio this morning had indeed happened.
Seriously, Bay Staters, what the hell?
Consider this a new entry in my "Glad I'm Not in the US" series....
Showing posts with label the end of america. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the end of america. Show all posts
20 January 2010
07 January 2009
This Can't Be Good
Headline in today's NYT:
State’s Unemployment System Buckles Under Surging Demand
I guess the good news is that at least a couple of programmers' jobs are secure for however long it takes to boost the system capacity.
In other news,
Hundreds of Coal Ash Dumps Lack Regulation
It's okay, though, because we all know that business will self-regulate for the common good.[/snark]
State’s Unemployment System Buckles Under Surging Demand
Swamped by a post-holiday surge of claims from laid-off workers, New York State’s computerized unemployment insurance system shut down briefly Monday afternoon and then again for several hours on Tuesday, according to the state Department of Labor.
The system, which serves as the gateway to unemployment benefits for New York residents, could not handle the volume of calls and online inquiries it was receiving, said Leo Rosales, a spokesman for the department. As many as 10,000 people an hour tried to log into the system to file new unemployment claims or to check on existing claims, Mr. Rosales said.(Emphasis mine)
I guess the good news is that at least a couple of programmers' jobs are secure for however long it takes to boost the system capacity.
In other news,
Hundreds of Coal Ash Dumps Lack Regulation
The coal ash pond that ruptured and sent a billion gallons of toxic sludge across 300 acres of East Tennessee last month was only one of more than 1,300 similar dumps across the United States — most of them unregulated and unmonitored — that contain billions more gallons of fly ash and other byproducts of burning coal.
[snip]
...Yet they are not subject to any federal regulation, which experts say could have prevented the spill, and there is little monitoring of their effects on the surrounding environment.
It's okay, though, because we all know that business will self-regulate for the common good.[/snark]
26 June 2008
Should We Just Go Ahead And Cancel July 4th Celebrations?
Read this now.
Ancestors of mine fought and died in the American Revolution, and, according to my cousin's research, one of them was a signatory of the Declaration of Independence.
Sorry, guys, that we couldn't hold on to that which you believed, even to the point of death.
Ancestors of mine fought and died in the American Revolution, and, according to my cousin's research, one of them was a signatory of the Declaration of Independence.
Sorry, guys, that we couldn't hold on to that which you believed, even to the point of death.
24 June 2008
Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?
My parents grew up during the Great Depression. They never were part of the images above or below, mainly because they were from poor families to begin with, and had gardens and livestock. But they were aware of what was going on in the country, and I know that they hoped that their children would never have to experience the like. It appears that their hope may not be successful.
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal:
The chaos that erupted outside Milwaukee County's main welfare office Monday over disaster-related food aid had more to do with a weak economy and crushing poverty in parts of this community than the devastating floods that swept through the state earlier this month, local government and food relief officials said.
...
"We expect long lines for free food in Third World countries," Hines said. "We don't expect a line of 2,500 people waiting for food vouchers" in Milwaukee.
Let's keep turning food into fuel, okay? Because having corn-based biofuel in your tank is much more important than something silly like, oh, I don't know ... allowing other people to be able to feed their kids.
Oh, and what were those profits for
05 October 2007
Freedom TM
My Dad, who, for those who don't already know, is a retired Methodist minister, sends out a daily "devotional" email to the whole family. In today's missive he included the following:
Unfortunately, in today's world that last bit needs to be altered to read "ask not what America will do to you, but what we will do to the freedom of man."Kahlil Gibran was a Christian poet, philosopher, artist, prophet and writer from Lebanon who lived and did much of his writing in America.. You may be familiar with his book, The PROPHET. The following quotation is one which would-be candidates of today could do well to emulate.
“Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you or a Zealous one asking what you can do for your country?”--Kahlil Gibran, 1883-1931, from The New Frontier, an article by Gibran.
President Jon F. Kennedy adapted the quotation as the conclusion of his “Inaugural Address”, January 20. 1961. “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
02 September 2007
A Link-Laden Diatribe
A quick note to those not associated with the Occupying Regime here in the United States of America:
Please remember, as the bombs and missiles strike targets in Iran, that the vast majority of people in the US - including members of the military[dead link edited - see update below] - view this attack as immoral (not to mention illegal).
I'm afraid the above mentioned scenario is no longer a product of tin-foil hat delusion, but is a nearly unavoidable occurrence. As a nation, however, we are too distracted by the beginning of college and professional football, pennant races in baseball, the latest installment of Big Brother, and whatever other distractions the MSM can come up with, to be bothered to give a shit.
As long as corporate CEO's continue to get nine-figure salaries and cheap, lead filled toys are available at Wal-Mart, and pop singers are walking around with their privates exposed, we are content.
Your suffering - at our hands - and hatred of us do not matter.
We are the "shining city on the hill" - chosen by God, no less - and we can do whatever the fuck we want.
While the turrists may be able to cross the Atlantic and Pacific with impunity, we know that the great oceans protect us from attack by any nation-state (Canada and Mexico are mere puppets, having been lured by the promise of corporate largesse - so we have no need to fear them).
In closing, I'd just like to say how I look forward to forming an escape committee with my fellow inmates at the Blackwater-run Interment Camps that are being set up around the country to deal with us librul malcontents. You can't miss me; I'm over six feet tall, weigh close to 300#, and have a big gray beard.
If I'm not just shot outright, that is.
And my own pre-emptive strike on non-literate writers: it's "Martial Law", not "Marshall Law", you dumb shits.
UPDATE: As Brian from Incertus points out in comments, the DailyKos diary referencing the military has been deleted. A "rebuttal" of said post can be found here.
Please remember, as the bombs and missiles strike targets in Iran, that the vast majority of people in the US - including members of the military[dead link edited - see update below] - view this attack as immoral (not to mention illegal).
I'm afraid the above mentioned scenario is no longer a product of tin-foil hat delusion, but is a nearly unavoidable occurrence. As a nation, however, we are too distracted by the beginning of college and professional football, pennant races in baseball, the latest installment of Big Brother, and whatever other distractions the MSM can come up with, to be bothered to give a shit.
As long as corporate CEO's continue to get nine-figure salaries and cheap, lead filled toys are available at Wal-Mart, and pop singers are walking around with their privates exposed, we are content.
Your suffering - at our hands - and hatred of us do not matter.
We are the "shining city on the hill" - chosen by God, no less - and we can do whatever the fuck we want.
While the turrists may be able to cross the Atlantic and Pacific with impunity, we know that the great oceans protect us from attack by any nation-state (Canada and Mexico are mere puppets, having been lured by the promise of corporate largesse - so we have no need to fear them).
In closing, I'd just like to say how I look forward to forming an escape committee with my fellow inmates at the Blackwater-run Interment Camps that are being set up around the country to deal with us librul malcontents. You can't miss me; I'm over six feet tall, weigh close to 300#, and have a big gray beard.
If I'm not just shot outright, that is.
And my own pre-emptive strike on non-literate writers: it's "Martial Law", not "Marshall Law", you dumb shits.
UPDATE: As Brian from Incertus points out in comments, the DailyKos diary referencing the military has been deleted. A "rebuttal" of said post can be found here.
24 August 2007
Lamp Induced Wanderings
There was a time, not so long ago, when all a person had for light at night was a few candles, a lamp if he were lucky, and the light from the fire on the hearth. Back in those days, people rose early and retired to bed not long after the sun set in the west - not because they had worked hard all day on the farm, which they most assuredly did - but rather because there is not much one can do in the semi-darkness of lamplight (and most of those things take place in bed anyway - wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?).
These words which you are reading have been transcribed from paper and were written - late at night - by lamplight. For over three hours now I have been sitting in the semi-darkness our ancestors experienced every night of their lives. A storm blew through these hills - a primeval force of wind, rain and lightning - and the electricity that we all take for granted vanished in a flash. [Transcribing note: I understand that thousands of folk in the Chicago area are currently without power due to a similar storm]
As I sit in the lamplight, I stare at the darkened screen of my monitor and - as often happens when the unexpected occurs - I am forced to see things in a different... well, light.
The light, in fact, of a hurricane lamp, which I keep at hand for just such occasions. When one lives out in the boonies, one has a recurring experience of being without power. Especially during a time of drought, when trees are weakened and the wind is more likely to topple one onto a power line.
Darrell King (Rev. Isaiah Sims), Wes Martin (Dan'l Boone) and Mark Woodard (Dr. Geoffrey Stuart) in Horn in the West
Some years ago I lived in Boone, NC and for several summers was a cast member of the outdoor drama Horn in the West. Horn tells the fictionalized story of the first European settlers (meaning, in actuality, invaders) in the mountains along what is now the North Carolina - Tennessee border, and how they joined the cause of Liberty against the tyranny and oppression of the British Crown - in the person of George III.
I wonder, do many people in America today ever think about how solitary the existence of these mountain folk was? And not just the people living in these ancient mountains, but the vast majority of the people on the continent?
Today, we think nothing of getting in our cars and driving to the next town for business (or pleasure). We travel at 65 (or more) miles per hour on the Interstate highways. For example, I have dear friends who live a little more than 40 miles from the Secret Lair (aka '73 Winnebago), and I try to visit them as often as I am able (and have the bucks for gas to get there and back). It takes about 45 minutes to get from here to there.
Back "in the day" it would have been a full day's travel - or more. And yet our forebears, despite the extreme isolation under which most lived, banded together and fought for freedom.
The settlers living in the High Country and the easternmost Cumberland plateau were relatively untouched by the war raging in the flatlands to the east until the British major Patrick Ferguson issued a statement that said, in part, "Therefore, if you do not desist in your opposition to the British arms, I will march my men over the mountains, hang your leaders, and lay waste to your country with fire and sword." Under the leadership of Col. John Sevier, they formed the Overmountain Men(wiki link, but it's accurate), marched across the mountains and were instrumental in the defeat of the British at the battle of King's Mountain ( a bit west of Charlotte).
Today, by contrast, we sit at our computers, log on to “friendly” blogs, and bitch and gripe about the oppressions and repressions of our current government - in the person of our very own George III.
The spirits of the Overmountain Men, and all others who have fought (and died) for the cause of Liberty, are angry at us for our relative complacency. What will it take for us to get off our McAsses and do something?
These words which you are reading have been transcribed from paper and were written - late at night - by lamplight. For over three hours now I have been sitting in the semi-darkness our ancestors experienced every night of their lives. A storm blew through these hills - a primeval force of wind, rain and lightning - and the electricity that we all take for granted vanished in a flash. [Transcribing note: I understand that thousands of folk in the Chicago area are currently without power due to a similar storm]
As I sit in the lamplight, I stare at the darkened screen of my monitor and - as often happens when the unexpected occurs - I am forced to see things in a different... well, light.
The light, in fact, of a hurricane lamp, which I keep at hand for just such occasions. When one lives out in the boonies, one has a recurring experience of being without power. Especially during a time of drought, when trees are weakened and the wind is more likely to topple one onto a power line.
Darrell King (Rev. Isaiah Sims), Wes Martin (Dan'l Boone) and Mark Woodard (Dr. Geoffrey Stuart) in Horn in the West
Some years ago I lived in Boone, NC and for several summers was a cast member of the outdoor drama Horn in the West. Horn tells the fictionalized story of the first European settlers (meaning, in actuality, invaders) in the mountains along what is now the North Carolina - Tennessee border, and how they joined the cause of Liberty against the tyranny and oppression of the British Crown - in the person of George III.
I wonder, do many people in America today ever think about how solitary the existence of these mountain folk was? And not just the people living in these ancient mountains, but the vast majority of the people on the continent?
Today, we think nothing of getting in our cars and driving to the next town for business (or pleasure). We travel at 65 (or more) miles per hour on the Interstate highways. For example, I have dear friends who live a little more than 40 miles from the Secret Lair (aka '73 Winnebago), and I try to visit them as often as I am able (and have the bucks for gas to get there and back). It takes about 45 minutes to get from here to there.
Back "in the day" it would have been a full day's travel - or more. And yet our forebears, despite the extreme isolation under which most lived, banded together and fought for freedom.
The settlers living in the High Country and the easternmost Cumberland plateau were relatively untouched by the war raging in the flatlands to the east until the British major Patrick Ferguson issued a statement that said, in part, "Therefore, if you do not desist in your opposition to the British arms, I will march my men over the mountains, hang your leaders, and lay waste to your country with fire and sword." Under the leadership of Col. John Sevier, they formed the Overmountain Men(wiki link, but it's accurate), marched across the mountains and were instrumental in the defeat of the British at the battle of King's Mountain ( a bit west of Charlotte).
Today, by contrast, we sit at our computers, log on to “friendly” blogs, and bitch and gripe about the oppressions and repressions of our current government - in the person of our very own George III.
The spirits of the Overmountain Men, and all others who have fought (and died) for the cause of Liberty, are angry at us for our relative complacency. What will it take for us to get off our McAsses and do something?
10 August 2007
Constitutional Convention in the 21st Century
So I have decided to further develop my previous post, as I honestly believe that something must be done to correct the "ship of state" as it continues to wander off the course that the Founding Fathers intended. Freedom is being attacked from both outside and inside the country, and, while I don't have children of my own, I fear for the next generation (this, despite claims by the Christianists that agnostics have no morals).
An aside on "Christianists": why do they ignore or deny the words of Christ? As regular readers know, I do not ascribe to any religion and, as an agnostic, believe that one cannot know whether 'god' exists. I do, however, have a working knowledge of the teachings of JC - having been raised in the home of a Methodist minister, how could it be otherwise - and, to a lesser extent, knowledge of the teachings of non Judeo-Christian belief systems. As I have said before, one can believe the message without worshiping the messenger or subscribing to a set of religious rules. The Christianists (and all fundamental extremists) just don't get this....
Anyway, that is a topic for another post. I'm here today to expand on the possible topics for a new Constitutional Convention. First, let me restate the ideas that I put forth in the previous post:
Taking them one (or so) at a time, we have:
This nation was created out of a rebellion against the excesses of a king. 231 years ago, the majority of the colonies in North America rebelled against their oppressive ruler, King George III of Great Britain. In their Declaration of Independence, they compiled a long list of grievances to explain this action.
Today, we, the inheritors of that rebellion, suffer under the oppression of another George III. First, there was George Washington, then George H. W. Bush, and now George W. Bush. It is time to once again take up the banner of rebellion.
Just as in the first American Revolution, this rebellion must be initiated by those most effected by the excesses of the "monarch". The most wide reaching effect of the current morally bankrupt malAdministration is the attempt to establish a "unitary executive". This is an unconstitutional idea nurtured by
Dick Cheney ever since his old boss Richard Nixon overstepped the bounds and was cut off at the knees (politically speaking).
I can't say that I know Cheney's mind on this matter, but I believe he wishes to establish this precedent in order to further increase the profit margin of his cronies - and himself. And without the interference of those pesky little Congresscritters, the executive branch can award no-bid contracts and create signing statements to further fill the overflowing coffers of Halliburton, Exxon/Mobile, etc., etc..
How is this any different from a king granting charters or bestowing nobility (with the concomitant overlordship of the serfs in the Duchy) to his preferred pals?
Hand in hand with this goes the following proposal:
Most of the desecration of the Constitution that has occurred during the reign of the new George III is directly related to the attempt to establish the doctrine of the unitary executive. Even the implementation of the "Patriot" Act (and has ever there been a more oxymoronic name?) by the compliant - and cowed - 107th Congress was a bowing to the wishes of the Executive Branch (and Cheney).
Nearly every single thing that has followed that questionable decision (and the list is way too long and depressing for me to go into) has been a slap in the face of, if not a downright illegal attempt to subvert, the Constitution - up to, and including, the recent syncophantic update of the FISA laws. If these corruptions of the Constitution are not rectified, it will mean the end of the nation that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et. al established 231 years ago - even though the name, United States of America, will live on.
This one is, I believe, a no-brainer - especially in light of the Great 2000 Election Month Debacle. For those of you who may have forgotten, more people voted for Al Gore than for Dumbya. The Constitution, as it stands, grants the "several states" the ability to allocate electoral votes as they wish, and 48 of the 50 have gone with a "winner take all" system. This has had the effect of disenfranchising a huge minority of voters in those states.
As a personal example, my (blue) vote for President has never really counted - simply because I live in a red state. And it wouldn't count even if 49.999% of the population of North Carolina voted for the Democrat - the Republican candidate would still get all fifteen electoral votes.
There are those who criticize this idea because it would mean that the mega blocks of California (which, pet peeve, is not the "largest state" - that would be Alaska - but rather the most populous one) and New York electoral votes would no longer be cast for the Democrat. Tough shit, I say. If the majority of the country votes for a specific candidate, that candidate wins!
The reformation/elimination of the Electoral College also ties into this proposal:
As I said in this post, the two-party paradigm has got to go. The George Washington farewell address linked in that post is very informative with respect to the desire of the man who some people view as the Founding Father of the country.
If anyone objects to this idea, simply point them to Washington's own words.
The "money" quote from Washington's speech is:
An objection I foresee to the implementation of these two alterations to the political process would be that no candidate would ever receive a majority of votes in a Presidential election. My response is: So what? In today's political landscape, less than half of the potential voters even bother to go to the polls, so the President is elected by a portion of a portion of the population of the United States.
What would be more accurately representative of the desires of the nation as a whole would be a Parliamentary setup, such as Great Britain, Ireland, Israel, and India, etc. have. We could either go with the option of coalitions (as those nations do) in order to choose the next head of state, or simply say that a plurality "wins" the election. Personally, I would prefer the former to the latter.
This idea would do as much, I believe, towards eliminating the corrupt nature of politics as any other one thing that could be done. By implementing draconian term limits, we would tend to get candidates that have the interests of the people as a whole - rather than the promotion of ideology or corporate profits, which is what we have today. In other words, we would have a Congress made up of servants of the country rather than servants of personal power or industry.
An obvious objection to this idea would come from people who have long serving Representatives or Senators. Again, a personal anecdote. You may remember Jesse Helms, who was a Senator from North Carolina for... well, it seemed like forever, but was "only" 30 years - and he's probably no longer a Senator only because he suffers from debilitating disease and chose not to run in 2002. During an argument with a dear friend of mine, who was a Helms supporter, I asked how said friend could continue to vote for a man who represented an ideology that was anathema to the friend's personal beliefs. The friend responded by saying, "Helms has influence that benefits the state."
Basically, my friend was willing to see other friends vilified and "othered" in exchange for pork barrel benefits. To quote the Bible, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Matthew 16:26)"
In the comment thread to my earlier post, sbgypsy said (I believe in response to this topic):
I agree with everything except term limits set in stone. If we'd had them then, FDR would never have been able to give us what he did. I think that recall ability - grassroots recall ability - would be sufficient, without term limits.
I suppose I didn't make myself clear in the statement (or else I'm misinterpreting her comment). I am not proposing limiting the President to one term, but saying that the length of each single term be redefined as no longer than four years. The inability of the current Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against Dumbya is all the argument I need in favor of the concept of "no confidence" and, as she said, recall.
If, on the other hand, her comment is referring to term limits on congresscritters, I still stick with my belief that we need citizen legislators rather than professional politicians. As I said in a comment thread somewhere out there on the Interwebs, there is a plethora of good people in this country who would put the needs of the many over the wants of the few.
(If sbgypsy should return and wish to further discuss this, I would be more than happy to do so - as the (fictional representation of) Stephen Hopkins - Rhode Island delegate to the Second Continental Congress - said "I've never seen, heard, nor smelled an idea that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about" [from the movie 1776])
These three ideas all go hand in hand to reform the election process. Also from the previous post's comment thread, Lynn said:
I dont think in a general way, looking over your list, that extreme regulation is the answer to all. I dont think for example that restricting the length of time that people can campaign makes sense. Seems like it would, but a shorter campaign time benefits the rich and hurts people who need to work a long time to raise money and gain notoriety. Your idea hurts the poor and the obscure.
I disagree with that, because if all private money were banned from the system and only a set amount of government funds (from that box you may or may not check on your tax forms) were equally distributed among each of the candidates (both presidential and congressional - although I would give the presidential campaigns a much larger share, due to the national aspects of the campaign), and equal access to media provided - remember, the public owns the airwaves, after all - then the playing field would be leveled, not tilted toward the rich.
I think we're all already tired of the 2008 Presidential Campaign, and the election is still fifteen months away. Frankly, I'm surprised that someone hasn't already declared to be a candidate for the 2012 election. Or the 2016. That may sound ridiculous, but it's where things are heading. The way things are now, a five year old could declare her intentions to run for President in 2040 and begin campaigning. Imagine the name recognition she'd have by the time the election rolled around!
Keep in mind that all of this (with the exception of the reader comments quoted) is merely the ideas in the head of this old dog. What I would hope to see is a discussion among people - a trading of ideas and playing off each other's thoughts - in the hopes of actually doing something to change the corrupt and unfair system that we have now, rather than just bitching and moaning about it.
I now open myself to comments and criticisms from my adoring public (both of you).
ETA 12 August 2009: Since I originally posted this, I switched to a different commenting system. The original comments on this post are located here.
An aside on "Christianists": why do they ignore or deny the words of Christ? As regular readers know, I do not ascribe to any religion and, as an agnostic, believe that one cannot know whether 'god' exists. I do, however, have a working knowledge of the teachings of JC - having been raised in the home of a Methodist minister, how could it be otherwise - and, to a lesser extent, knowledge of the teachings of non Judeo-Christian belief systems. As I have said before, one can believe the message without worshiping the messenger or subscribing to a set of religious rules. The Christianists (and all fundamental extremists) just don't get this....
Anyway, that is a topic for another post. I'm here today to expand on the possible topics for a new Constitutional Convention. First, let me restate the ideas that I put forth in the previous post:
- Re-establish the limitations on the Executive Branch (meaning, destroy the idea of a unitary executive).
- Reform and, hopefully, eliminate the Electoral College (vote totals are no longer carried via horse courier to Washington).
- Codify term limits (a total of three for Representatives and two for Senators, thereby eliminating the "professional politician"). Jefferson, Adams, and other Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, not careerists.
- Re-establish pre-existing Constitutional guarantees that have been usurped by the Current Occupant and his malAdministration.
- Alter the term of office of the President to no longer than four years and establish the concept of "no confidence" votes.
- Ban all private (personal and corporate) donations to political campaigns. One person, one vote - no extra clout for being wealthy.
- Require that media outlets provide free, equal, and limited time to all candidates during the campaign cycle.
- Reform the party system to eliminate the built in safeguards against the formation of viable additional parties. Democracy is not binary!
- Shorten the length of the election cycle. No candidate may express an intention to run for office more than one year before the election date, and may not file for office more than six months before the primary; primaries are to be held no more than two months before the general election.
Taking them one (or so) at a time, we have:
Re-establish the limitations on the Executive Branch (meaning, destroy the idea of a unitary executive).
This nation was created out of a rebellion against the excesses of a king. 231 years ago, the majority of the colonies in North America rebelled against their oppressive ruler, King George III of Great Britain. In their Declaration of Independence, they compiled a long list of grievances to explain this action.
Today, we, the inheritors of that rebellion, suffer under the oppression of another George III. First, there was George Washington, then George H. W. Bush, and now George W. Bush. It is time to once again take up the banner of rebellion.
Just as in the first American Revolution, this rebellion must be initiated by those most effected by the excesses of the "monarch". The most wide reaching effect of the current morally bankrupt malAdministration is the attempt to establish a "unitary executive". This is an unconstitutional idea nurtured by
Dick Cheney ever since his old boss Richard Nixon overstepped the bounds and was cut off at the knees (politically speaking).
I can't say that I know Cheney's mind on this matter, but I believe he wishes to establish this precedent in order to further increase the profit margin of his cronies - and himself. And without the interference of those pesky little Congresscritters, the executive branch can award no-bid contracts and create signing statements to further fill the overflowing coffers of Halliburton, Exxon/Mobile, etc., etc..
How is this any different from a king granting charters or bestowing nobility (with the concomitant overlordship of the serfs in the Duchy) to his preferred pals?
Hand in hand with this goes the following proposal:
Re-establish pre-existing Constitutional guarantees that have been usurped by the Current Occupant and his malAdministration.
Most of the desecration of the Constitution that has occurred during the reign of the new George III is directly related to the attempt to establish the doctrine of the unitary executive. Even the implementation of the "Patriot" Act (and has ever there been a more oxymoronic name?) by the compliant - and cowed - 107th Congress was a bowing to the wishes of the Executive Branch (and Cheney).
Nearly every single thing that has followed that questionable decision (and the list is way too long and depressing for me to go into) has been a slap in the face of, if not a downright illegal attempt to subvert, the Constitution - up to, and including, the recent syncophantic update of the FISA laws. If these corruptions of the Constitution are not rectified, it will mean the end of the nation that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et. al established 231 years ago - even though the name, United States of America, will live on.
Reform and, hopefully, eliminate the Electoral College (vote totals are no longer carried via horse courier to Washington).
This one is, I believe, a no-brainer - especially in light of the Great 2000 Election Month Debacle. For those of you who may have forgotten, more people voted for Al Gore than for Dumbya. The Constitution, as it stands, grants the "several states" the ability to allocate electoral votes as they wish, and 48 of the 50 have gone with a "winner take all" system. This has had the effect of disenfranchising a huge minority of voters in those states.
As a personal example, my (blue) vote for President has never really counted - simply because I live in a red state. And it wouldn't count even if 49.999% of the population of North Carolina voted for the Democrat - the Republican candidate would still get all fifteen electoral votes.
There are those who criticize this idea because it would mean that the mega blocks of California (which, pet peeve, is not the "largest state" - that would be Alaska - but rather the most populous one) and New York electoral votes would no longer be cast for the Democrat. Tough shit, I say. If the majority of the country votes for a specific candidate, that candidate wins!
The reformation/elimination of the Electoral College also ties into this proposal:
Reform the party system to eliminate the built in safeguards against the formation of viable additional parties. Democracy is not binary!
As I said in this post, the two-party paradigm has got to go. The George Washington farewell address linked in that post is very informative with respect to the desire of the man who some people view as the Founding Father of the country.
If anyone objects to this idea, simply point them to Washington's own words.
The "money" quote from Washington's speech is:
However combinations or associations of the above description [of the rise of political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
An objection I foresee to the implementation of these two alterations to the political process would be that no candidate would ever receive a majority of votes in a Presidential election. My response is: So what? In today's political landscape, less than half of the potential voters even bother to go to the polls, so the President is elected by a portion of a portion of the population of the United States.
What would be more accurately representative of the desires of the nation as a whole would be a Parliamentary setup, such as Great Britain, Ireland, Israel, and India, etc. have. We could either go with the option of coalitions (as those nations do) in order to choose the next head of state, or simply say that a plurality "wins" the election. Personally, I would prefer the former to the latter.
Codify term limits (a total of three for Representatives and two for Senators, thereby eliminating the "professional politician"). Jefferson, Adams, and other Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, not careerists.
This idea would do as much, I believe, towards eliminating the corrupt nature of politics as any other one thing that could be done. By implementing draconian term limits, we would tend to get candidates that have the interests of the people as a whole - rather than the promotion of ideology or corporate profits, which is what we have today. In other words, we would have a Congress made up of servants of the country rather than servants of personal power or industry.
An obvious objection to this idea would come from people who have long serving Representatives or Senators. Again, a personal anecdote. You may remember Jesse Helms, who was a Senator from North Carolina for... well, it seemed like forever, but was "only" 30 years - and he's probably no longer a Senator only because he suffers from debilitating disease and chose not to run in 2002. During an argument with a dear friend of mine, who was a Helms supporter, I asked how said friend could continue to vote for a man who represented an ideology that was anathema to the friend's personal beliefs. The friend responded by saying, "Helms has influence that benefits the state."
Basically, my friend was willing to see other friends vilified and "othered" in exchange for pork barrel benefits. To quote the Bible, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Matthew 16:26)"
Alter the term of office of the President to no longer than four years and establish the concept of "no confidence" votes.
In the comment thread to my earlier post, sbgypsy said (I believe in response to this topic):
I agree with everything except term limits set in stone. If we'd had them then, FDR would never have been able to give us what he did. I think that recall ability - grassroots recall ability - would be sufficient, without term limits.
I suppose I didn't make myself clear in the statement (or else I'm misinterpreting her comment). I am not proposing limiting the President to one term, but saying that the length of each single term be redefined as no longer than four years. The inability of the current Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against Dumbya is all the argument I need in favor of the concept of "no confidence" and, as she said, recall.
If, on the other hand, her comment is referring to term limits on congresscritters, I still stick with my belief that we need citizen legislators rather than professional politicians. As I said in a comment thread somewhere out there on the Interwebs, there is a plethora of good people in this country who would put the needs of the many over the wants of the few.
(If sbgypsy should return and wish to further discuss this, I would be more than happy to do so - as the (fictional representation of) Stephen Hopkins - Rhode Island delegate to the Second Continental Congress - said "I've never seen, heard, nor smelled an idea that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about" [from the movie 1776])
Ban all private (personal and corporate) donations to political campaigns. One person, one vote - no extra clout for being wealthy.
Require that media outlets provide free, equal, and limited time to all candidates during the campaign cycle.
Shorten the length of the election cycle. No candidate may express an intention to run for office more than one year before the election date, and may not file for office more than six months before the primary; primaries are to be held no more than two months before the general election.
These three ideas all go hand in hand to reform the election process. Also from the previous post's comment thread, Lynn said:
I dont think in a general way, looking over your list, that extreme regulation is the answer to all. I dont think for example that restricting the length of time that people can campaign makes sense. Seems like it would, but a shorter campaign time benefits the rich and hurts people who need to work a long time to raise money and gain notoriety. Your idea hurts the poor and the obscure.
I disagree with that, because if all private money were banned from the system and only a set amount of government funds (from that box you may or may not check on your tax forms) were equally distributed among each of the candidates (both presidential and congressional - although I would give the presidential campaigns a much larger share, due to the national aspects of the campaign), and equal access to media provided - remember, the public owns the airwaves, after all - then the playing field would be leveled, not tilted toward the rich.
I think we're all already tired of the 2008 Presidential Campaign, and the election is still fifteen months away. Frankly, I'm surprised that someone hasn't already declared to be a candidate for the 2012 election. Or the 2016. That may sound ridiculous, but it's where things are heading. The way things are now, a five year old could declare her intentions to run for President in 2040 and begin campaigning. Imagine the name recognition she'd have by the time the election rolled around!
Keep in mind that all of this (with the exception of the reader comments quoted) is merely the ideas in the head of this old dog. What I would hope to see is a discussion among people - a trading of ideas and playing off each other's thoughts - in the hopes of actually doing something to change the corrupt and unfair system that we have now, rather than just bitching and moaning about it.
I now open myself to comments and criticisms from my adoring public (both of you).
ETA 12 August 2009: Since I originally posted this, I switched to a different commenting system. The original comments on this post are located here.
05 August 2007
Let's Hear it For "the Man"!
(Photo gleefully stolen from The Asheville Disclaimer, click on pic to embiggen)
The Asheville couple who were recently arrested for "flag desecration" (Petulant has the initial news report) have had all charges dropped.
For a full on write up and rant, go see Dr. Monkey's post.
19 July 2007
Do We at Least Get to Pick the Prison?
.
READ THIS NOW!! (at Shakesville)
Time to learn this:
and pack up and head north....
.
READ THIS NOW!! (at Shakesville)
Time to learn this:
Official Lyrics of O Canada!
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
and pack up and head north....
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)