[News] Maturity By Eating Poop

A young child, like a baby, might try to eat poop, because it doesn't know any better.

You're not going to give a child like that a gun are you?  Are you going to let a child drive?

Now, I am pro individual Gun rights, and hope to educate my children on how to handle a fire arm early...but not if they eat poop.  In fact, if they're eating mud or dirt, that means they're probably not old enough to handle important responsibility.

Now, metaphorically, Germany used to eat poop.  In WWII, they pretty much happily slammed the stuff into their mouth like it was candy.  And then, after WWII, they grew up.

But the South?  The South is Peter Pan.  The South didn't just eat more poop after the civil war, it held out a plate Oliver Twist Style and said, "Please Sir, may I have some more?"

For a hundred years they ate poop with legalized lynchings and murder and terrorism.

Then, finally, FINALLY the Civil Rights movement happened.

Now, the south likes to pretend it doesn't eat poop any more.  But how big a battle was it to remove the confederate flag?  Why is the south trying to suppress voting rights?  Why is the South denying that it has a problem? It's like an alcoholic and an eater of poop all in one.

Self Governance requires a basic level of ethical understanding.  If you can't understand that owning people as property is wrong, you can't be a state.  If you can't understand that denying the vote to citizens is wrong, you can't be a state.

Germany learned from Nazism.

The South hasn't learned from Confedercyism.

Until they stop eating poop, I think we might need to suspend the constitution in Red States.

It's not like it really worth anything but toilet paper right now thanks to the Bush Patriot Act and the Obama Collaboration.

Let's stop eating poop or having adult conversations with people who think eating poop is OK.  It is not OK.

[News] We All Agree There is a Problem...BUT

For those living under a rock, or reading this 20 years from now (in whatever obscure archive or rubbish bin to which it might be relegated) the news have been awash with Snowden, a former NSA employee who has brought to light what we suspected all along....that they have been listening in to our all phone calls.  All of them.  Guilty or Innocent.  We are all made equal by the intrusion in our lives.

Unlike a lot of the frankly ridiculous things that have come up lately against the President, this has serious weight.  It started during Bush, but Obama consciously chose to continue it.  People believe it.  Snowden's proof is conclusive.  While there are potentially questionable elements of Snowden, we must remember what happened to Manning and Assange....so any charges that come out against him have a very high burden of proof.

Regardless of the messenger, the message is quite alarming.  Many, if not most, on the left and the right who aren't asleep, finally agree that this is unacceptable, and that something must be done.

Right...so...alone, those on the right and left are not going to make a difference.  We need to join forces.  And the conservatives need to be the one to initiate action.

Ever hear the phrase 'only Nixon could go to China?'  It came from the view that a liberal or democratic president could not go to China without being painted as a 'weak commie loving liberal' thanks to the images painted on democrats by the GOP during the cold war.  Mainly thanks to McCarthy.  Thanks McCarthy.

Now a democratic president has to act tough.  Probably some of the reason Obama is going to war in Syria...he can't appear weak.  Democrats must not appear weak.

When Republicans begin attacking the president as incompotent, and that government can't work....and everything else that liberals do...and lie...and attack over and over again, no democrat who has any credibility can be seen working with dirty disgusting conservatives.  They can initiate bills, but finding bipartisian support is not a priority.  Republicans need to quit talking about Benghazi and Obamacare and the lies of the IRS "scandal" and focus on what is really important....

Like an intelligence community and the DHS and TSA gone frankenstein.  THEY are the real threat to our liberties....and yet....

And yet they are incapable of doing this.  Republicans not only can't apologize, they can't work and reach out to democrats for the good of the country.  Republicans have attacked Democrats to the point that democrats can't do the same because to give an inch to insane Republicans is to allow them to put more insane things like birth control or the like.

I'm sure conservatives don't see it that way.  They expect democrats to just do what they want.

It isn't going to happen.  Democrats are cowardly, but they're not cowardly against the democrat in charge...they won't revolt against Obama in a case like this.

[Link] Is The United States the Dumbest Country in the World?

I didn't write it but it's a legitimate question.

After Sandyhook, we need to ask ourselves if Conservatism is even a philosophy that can be maintained in civilization, and the continued willingness of moderates to play with it as if they were somehow acting rationally means we should probably rethink how we interact with them.

The questions are asked here, and I think the thing I like the most are the questions he asks about the ruthless government crushing of Occupy as compared to the whining we're seeing about the IRS actually daring to question if the Billionaire Front Groups were somehow actually unfairly targeted.

ACORN?  Yeah.  Conservatives don't care about that.  To them it was all real, just like Benghazi.

And many many moderates agree.

[Link] Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

The Filibuster is Unconstitutional

[Cons] Article 1 - Section 5

The biggest problem with this article is that it allows a legislature to determine its own membership, answer disputes in its election of its own members and set their own rules.  It also states that the two houses can't disband without the permission of the other houses.

What this does is create the worst of all possible worlds, where you have the senate which can create its own arcane and highly stupid rules, while at the same time, can't disband to allow recess appointments when those same rules are used to stymie executive appointments.

But the alternatives can be abused as well.

There are no good solutions here, but at least with rules, you should require approval by the other legislature to prevent abuses like the filibuster.

If you do need both houses to pass legislation then I guess you also need to chain them together in approval of disbanding. 

That's about it for this section really.

[Cons] Article 1, Section 4 - Foxes and the HenHouse

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators."

So our holy holy holy constitution is supposed to be so awesome because it allows for a system of checks and balances, right?  So...how example is CONGRESS setting the law for elections and states for itself a check? I mean, think on this....if Congress passed a law that said, "and behold every election shall be held for one second in my house" how would that fly? Now, a law that did this is in theory reviewable by the courts and the executive, but the constitution doesn't actually give law interpretation to the court, just the implication, and if you had 2/3rds of the Reagan Reality in charge and they wanted to ensure that Democrats could never get control of the legislature again, why wouldn't they do this?

Also, the argument that someone would not do this is ludicrous.  Look at Reagan Party members who are seeking to rig the presidential election by splitting states with gerrymandered districts? As if people in Red States were more entitlted to federal voting power than the majority.

And if we must choose a minority to rule us, why would we want it to be red states?  People in red states think NOTHING is an acceptable medical alternative to help the poor.  I'm sorry 'emergency rooms'....because that's a great health care system.  This is the kind of country these people want.

Replacements:

1) Let the Executive Decide: The President sets the election by fiat. 

Strengths: Like any system, it works great.  So did the trains under Mousilini.

Weaknesses: The President gains tremendous power over the legislative branch.  He can make it effectively non existent, and even in other cases, he can leave a legislature he likes in power for nigh forever or tilt it in favor of his party.

2) Let the Judicial Decide: The judiciary either appoints someone, or simply makes rulings.

Strengths: In a flexible system the judiciary could be anything but by and large in a non dictatorship or Reagan Reality society, the judiciary tends to be the most fair of the three branches.  Fair means elections get set up to work for the people, rather than private interests.

Weaknesses: Less than letting the legislature or executive decide this.  However, in an electronic democracy, this would simply be another opportunity for corruption.  So in an old school Constitutional Republic, the judiciary is the best overseer for this, but it would be a nightmare for more advanced societies.

3) Independent - A totally independent branch of government does just elections with appointments done much like the federal reserve.

Strengths: Stability in the system.  It will be VERY stable.  While it works it will work VERY well with all of the strengths of both the Judicial and Executive options. 

Weaknesses: However, when it turns rancid it will be VERY rancid...a Bush or Palin style appointee in this system could reak much havok.

4) Verdict - I think the Judicial branch is the best place to put this most important of constitutional safegaurds.  Then in order of preference it is Independent, Executive and finally legislative. The only thing that would be better than all of this would be a legislative with a 10 year timelock to change things.

[News] Rising Powers and the end...or beginning of International Law

So this article about how the Falklands is the unhealthy obsession with slightly more than half of Argentianians and how the president of Argentina is willing to bring it up with the Pope, shows that international law as a norm might be under threat.  But let us be honest here, international law is really an agreed to hegemony between major world powers, which largely consisted of the United States and Europe, and most of the rising powers do not share that same geographical heritage. 

It does not speak well for the peace of nations...because the old guard all has nukes...and the new guard is getting them.  This has lead to some acceptable norms.  Granted, those norms blatantly favored the old regimes, but they more or less worked on a diplomatic front.  Imperialism was a thing of the past...but Argentina wants its own imperialism.  So does China.  Rising powers need military vindication to prove their status, they need a war victory. 

This is as old as human history.  The 20th century and institutions such as the United Nations and the League of Nations were supposed to change this pattern.  To some degree they did, but the United Nations was made largely unfunctional by design and certainly by execution through the veto power of the security council and its permanent members.  There is no provision in international law for rising powers....well, there is, but it seems to be not adding permanent security council members.  India is now far more a power than France, but it isn't on the board, nor is Brazil. 

This lack of respect by the international community is part of the reason all of South America is lining up behind the Argentinian Imperialism, and how many anti americans around the world are able to use the same kind of Pretzle Logic that American conservatives use to justify how Argentianian Imperialism now is any different than British Imperialism two centuries ago.

However this article gives me some hope.  First, that nations that have up to now been stomped by the old guard are fighting back, and are willing to challenge the status quo to do so, but they are also trying to use international institutions first, or at least international protocols.  India, at the least, seems to say it cares about international law.  Of course, so does China and so does Imperial Argentina, but they only care about international laws so far as they apply to them.

Then again, so does the old guard.  How will these protocols stand up to this conflict?  Will we survive? The next few decades...hell...the next decade, will prove rather interesting.

But if they are strengthened to allow diplomacy, rather than force of arms, a chance to succeed, does that mean that the Republican War Criminals of the United States...and perhaps even their Democratic Enablers will be held to an international tribunal? And if they are...will they be capable of discerning between covert strikes against a hostile power that harbors terrorists within its borders and someone who orders troops to instigate tortures against third party nationals?

We shall see.