The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Brownie]

An interesting, semi-optimistic look at whether or not America is F'd in the A.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/american-decline

When the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it's unchangeable. Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the "saucer" George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might "cool," into a deep freeze and a dead weight.

The Senate's then-famous "Gang of Six," which controlled crucial aspects of last year's proposed health-care legislation, came from states that together held about 3 percent of the total U.S. population; 97 percent of the public lives in states not included in that group. (Just to round this out, more than half of all Americans live in the 10 most populous states—which together account for 20 of the Senate's 100 votes.)

Ah, but that's the rub of a federal system. It's also a check that you don't have tyranny of the majority. The Senate is also supposed to speak for the rights of the states, while the House is supposed to speak for the rights of the people. That's why the State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Funny, but I don't remember a revolution occurring during the Taft and Wilson Administrations.

[CBStew]

An interesting, semi-optimistic look at whether or not America is F'd in the A.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/american-decline

When the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it's unchangeable. Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the "saucer" George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might "cool," into a deep freeze and a dead weight.

The Senate's then-famous "Gang of Six," which controlled crucial aspects of last year's proposed health-care legislation, came from states that together held about 3 percent of the total U.S. population; 97 percent of the public lives in states not included in that group. (Just to round this out, more than half of all Americans live in the 10 most populous states—which together account for 20 of the Senate's 100 votes.)

Ah, but that's the rub of a federal system. It's also a check that you don't have tyranny of the majority. The Senate is also supposed to speak for the rights of the states, while the House is supposed to speak for the rights of the people. That's why the State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Funny, but I don't remember a revolution occurring during the Taft and Wilson Administrations.

The alternative to a tyranny of the majority, therefore, is a tyranny of the minority.

[Brownie]

An interesting, semi-optimistic look at whether or not America is F'd in the A.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/american-decline

When the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it's unchangeable. Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the "saucer" George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might "cool," into a deep freeze and a dead weight.

The Senate's then-famous "Gang of Six," which controlled crucial aspects of last year's proposed health-care legislation, came from states that together held about 3 percent of the total U.S. population; 97 percent of the public lives in states not included in that group. (Just to round this out, more than half of all Americans live in the 10 most populous states—which together account for 20 of the Senate's 100 votes.)

Ah, but that's the rub of a federal system. It's also a check that you don't have tyranny of the majority. The Senate is also supposed to speak for the rights of the states, while the House is supposed to speak for the rights of the people. That's why the State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Funny, but I don't remember a revolution occurring during the Taft and Wilson Administrations.

The alternative to a tyranny of the majority, therefore, is a tyranny of the minority.

Nobody wants mob rule.

Perhaps a better solution would be to break California into three or four different states, New York into three, Texas into three, Pennsylavania into two and Florida into three. Combine the Dakotas. Add in P.R. statehood and capitol retrocession (give DC back to Maryland and Virginia, fully enfranchising its voters) and you have 65 states and 130 Senators and a little more balance.

If you want to further change the representation in this country, why not triple or quadruple the number of reps in the House? Right now, we're represented one for every, what, 800,0000?  Actually if we increase the total 10-fold, you'd have one rep for every 80,000 people, making your representatives a lot easier to reach. And you would see a lot more diversity in the reps' political beliefs, less gerrymandering, and again fewer disparities (Wyoming's rep represents far fewer people than any of Illinois' reps).

[R-V]

An interesting, semi-optimistic look at whether or not America is F'd in the A.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/american-decline

When the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it's unchangeable. Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the "saucer" George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might "cool," into a deep freeze and a dead weight.

The Senate's then-famous "Gang of Six," which controlled crucial aspects of last year's proposed health-care legislation, came from states that together held about 3 percent of the total U.S. population; 97 percent of the public lives in states not included in that group. (Just to round this out, more than half of all Americans live in the 10 most populous states—which together account for 20 of the Senate's 100 votes.)

Ah, but that's the rub of a federal system. It's also a check that you don't have tyranny of the majority. The Senate is also supposed to speak for the rights of the states, while the House is supposed to speak for the rights of the people. That's why the State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Funny, but I don't remember a revolution occurring during the Taft and Wilson Administrations.

The alternative to a tyranny of the majority, therefore, is a tyranny of the minority.

Nobody wants mob rule.

Perhaps a better solution would be to break California into three or four different states, New York into three, Texas into three, Pennsylavania into two and Florida into three. Combine the Dakotas. Add in P.R. statehood and capitol retrocession (give DC back to Maryland and Virginia, fully enfranchising its voters) and you have 65 states and 130 Senators and a little more balance.

If you want to further change the representation in this country, why not triple or quadruple the number of reps in the House? Right now, we're represented one for every, what, 800,0000?  Actually if we increase the total 10-fold, you'd have one rep for every 80,000 people, making your representatives a lot easier to reach. And you would see a lot more diversity in the reps' political beliefs, less gerrymandering, and again fewer disparities (Wyoming's rep represents far fewer people than any of Illinois' reps).

I approve of TJ's ideas. If we get 7 or 8 more Desipiots to sign on, that means it has to hai, right?

[Tony]

Combine the Dakotas.

I'm all for that. Combine the Carolinas and Virginias too. There's no reason to have two of them.

[Oleg]

An interesting, semi-optimistic look at whether or not America is F'd in the A.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/american-decline

When the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it's unchangeable. Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the "saucer" George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might "cool," into a deep freeze and a dead weight.

The Senate's then-famous "Gang of Six," which controlled crucial aspects of last year's proposed health-care legislation, came from states that together held about 3 percent of the total U.S. population; 97 percent of the public lives in states not included in that group. (Just to round this out, more than half of all Americans live in the 10 most populous states—which together account for 20 of the Senate's 100 votes.)

Ah, but that's the rub of a federal system. It's also a check that you don't have tyranny of the majority. The Senate is also supposed to speak for the rights of the states, while the House is supposed to speak for the rights of the people. That's why the State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Funny, but I don't remember a revolution occurring during the Taft and Wilson Administrations.

The alternative to a tyranny of the majority, therefore, is a tyranny of the minority.

Nobody wants mob rule.

Perhaps a better solution would be to break California into three or four different states, New York into three, Texas into three, Pennsylavania into two and Florida into three. Combine the Dakotas. Add in P.R. statehood and capitol retrocession (give DC back to Maryland and Virginia, fully enfranchising its voters) and you have 65 states and 130 Senators and a little more balance.

If you want to further change the representation in this country, why not triple or quadruple the number of reps in the House? Right now, we're represented one for every, what, 800,0000?  Actually if we increase the total 10-fold, you'd have one rep for every 80,000 people, making your representatives a lot easier to reach. And you would see a lot more diversity in the reps' political beliefs, less gerrymandering, and again fewer disparities (Wyoming's rep represents far fewer people than any of Illinois' reps).

Or, we can add about a hlaf-deozen parties and make our democracy a truly representative one with a proportional representation.  Force coalitions and make people truly vote for what they believe in elections instead having to play devil's advocate on issues that one may not agree with.

TJ can have his non-religious conservatism, I can have my socilaism, and so on and so forth.  On some issues, it would make sense for our candidates to work together, on others, we can tell each other to fuck off.

This would drive the lobbyist nuts.

[CBStew]

I don't know how it happened that we have an institutionalized, but unofficial, two party system.  It goes back to the earliest days of the Republic.   However, it seems to work better than the system in a country like Israel, where the head of the party gathering the most votes must put together a coalition with other parties in order to form a government.  Described that way it sounds like what the Obama administration had to do in order to get a health care bill through the Senate.   Many times coaltion members have only one thing in common with each other and that is contempt for one or more of the non-coaltion parties.   Too often it results in having a government which takes actions based solely upon being the least offensive to the majority of the parties rather than reflecting that platform of the party receiving the most votes.  Maybe that is not so different from our system after all.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I don't know how it happened that we have an institutionalized, but unofficial, two party system. 

The Electoral College.

[ChuckD]

I don't know how it happened that we have an institutionalized, but unofficial, two party system. 

The Electoral College.

No.

[CBStew]

I don't know how it happened that we have an institutionalized, but unofficial, two party system. 

The Electoral College.

No.

All of a sudden this belongs in the "Only Site I'll Ever Need" thread.  Interesting.   

[Gil Gunderson]

TRUE TALES OF UNION THUGGERY!!!!

[fiveouts]

TRUE TALES OF UNION THUGGERY!!!!

Apparently he misunderstood the term "bagman."

[CBStew]

TRUE TALES OF UNION THUGGERY!!!!

Apparently he misunderstood the term "bagman."

His next stop was going to be Barney's to get shoes to match.

[MikeC]

That Massachusetts  race has heated up. Coakley has gone from a sure bet to a dead heat in a few short weeks. Brown is raising money hand over fist and Coakley, well she has the backup of SEIU. Really, SEIU is throwing its weight to another Democrat? I am shocked just shocked.

Not only that but Coakley has the support of the Health-Care industry, who say they are against Obama-Care but are desperatly trying to get Coakley elected. It must be a Democrat thing, say one thing, hope the public believes it while you do another.

As first reported by Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner, the host committee for the fundraiser at Pennsylvania Avenue's Sonoma Restaurant includes lobbyists for Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Novartis and sundry other drug companies that have been among the biggest of ObamaCare's corporate sponsors. Other hosts—who have raised at least $10,000 for Ms. Coakley—include representatives from UnitedHealthcare, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Humana and other insurers. As far as we can tell, the insurance industry claims to oppose ObamaCare's current incarnation.

Naturally, lobbyists from America's Health Insurance Plans and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the major trade groups, were on hand too. Money follows power in Washington, obviously, though this example seems especially inexplicable given that Ms. Coakley's GOP opponent, state senator Scott Brown, may be the last chance to defuse the health-care doomsday machine. But maybe someone in the press corps will bother to mention this episode the next time President Obama takes aim at the "special interests" he claims are opposing his agenda.

And if your into believing more Democrat bullshit the Stimulus package has now created or saved 1.7 to 2 million jobs. We still don't have a clue how you calculate a saved job. But if its a Democrat saying it, it must be true. They have been so honest with everything else so far. I am looking at you Nancy and Obama.

[fiveouts]

I am looking at you Nancy and Obama.

I'm sure they're fucking terrified.