Post Race!

I'm not sure that I agree with that. The issues they deal with are complex and longer lived than just four years (two terms). The major result of such a thing is that everybody would be new all the time, which would mean that there would be a high likelihood of staff running the show. Essentially, nobody would ever be up to speed on more than one or two issues, at best, so they'd end up being nearly dependent on the people who had been there a long time, which is how they start out now, as well. The difference would be that the people who had been there a long time wouldn't have been elected.

I feel that term limits are mostly a visceral reaction to the dysfunction in congress. We are talking about running the largest economy in history, though, and doing that where all the decisions are made by neophytes just seems like a recipe for something bad. It works for the president, but that seems a bit different, since the president brings an entire team with him. Congressmen won't be able to do that unless we change some other things around.

I favor getting rid of gerrymandering. There is surely a mathematical way to divide up a population into equal size groups by number (not area). This may not be so easy, though, as I think it ends up in some pretty exotic math. The goal would be to have every district be a convex shape, which may not be entirely possible, but should be pretty close. It would be something of a 2D soap bubble problem.

The reason I'm for term limits on congressmen is because of people like John Dingell or Orrin Hatch. After 40/50 years of service, you're not a public servant.

As for the term themselves, I think both the senate and the house should have 6 year terms then impose the term limits of 2 terms. This grants them a maximum service of 12 years at any given time and a maximum waiting period of 12 years.

Ok, that would work, but doesn't that take a constitutional amendment to change length of service for the house? Longer term limits for the house, but the same terms, would be easier if I'm right about that (which I may or may not be).

One thing to note is that those changes are pretty nearly hopeless. Changing one state isn't so hard, changing all of them is tough. Getting Congress to pass a law limiting itself isn't going to happen lightly. We'd need a crisis, which we don't have, yet. However, some states have been able to do a variety of things. One of the results that I like is that in CA (and perhaps OR, but I might have that second state wrong) where the two primary candidates who get the most votes are the nominees for the general election regardless of party.

Quote:

---

Getting Congress to pass a law limiting itself isn't going to happen lightly.

---

That's very true. Mark Levin proposes that we exercise the second part of Article 5 of the Constitution. That basically says that constitutional amendments may be proposed by a convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures.

The first part of Article 5 is the well known way of getting two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress to amend the constitution that many people think is the only way.

While I think that it's great in theory, it would be much tougher to do that then to get two-thirds majority of both houses. Butcha never know!

Not to derail your most excellent political discussion, but here are the rough plans to build the queen size giant bed.
Hopefully a PDF file is okay.

Odd, just noticed that the PDF conversion removed some characters from the text.

X and Q for sure.

I don't know, I'll have to report this to a moderator for being too accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dday9

That's very true. Mark Levin proposes that we exercise the second part of Article 5 of the Constitution. That basically says that constitutional amendments may be proposed by a convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures.

The first part of Article 5 is the well known way of getting two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress to amend the constitution that many people think is the only way.

While I think that it's great in theory, it would be much tougher to do that then to get two-thirds majority of both houses. Butcha never know!

---

Actually, that would be a total disaster. If you convene a constitutional convention, you open the ENTIRE constitution to changes. There's no other way to do it. Just saying that you'll play in just one corner of the yard won't matter. Do you think that with the constitution open for whatever people would confine themselves to term limits? It would be a free for all for every change any group could push for. No matter which side of the fence you are on there would be a bunch of proposals you would absolutely hate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gruff

Not to derail your most excellent political discussion, but here are the rough plans to build the queen size giant bed.
Hopefully a PDF file is okay.

Odd, just noticed that the PDF conversion removed some characters from the text.

X and Q for sure.

---

Does your bed have rails? If so, we could derail your bed.

As for the characters being removed, I'm surprised at the X, but not the Q. I've heard of people minding their P's and Q's, but not their X's and Q's.

Quote:

---

If you convene a constitutional convention, you open the ENTIRE constitution to changes.

---

The same thing applies to how congress works right now. The house and the senate approve an amendment and then it gets sent to the president for him to do his thing. This applies to the entire constitution.

It also has to go to the states.

Still, one at a time isn't bad. Things rarely get passed through that process and only after considerable discussion. Whether it would be possible to convene a constitutional convention on a narrow subject is hard to say. It hasn't been tried as far as I am aware.

From what I understand, it's been tried a handful of times, but the convention has never convened. Either due to lack of support or lack of organization.

I believe it has been attempted a few times, that's where my position on the matter comes from. When I was younger, I heard about something like that for some amendment that I have long since forgotten. My mother explained why it would be a horrible idea, and she was generally right on these things, since it was what she was studying for her doctorate, effectively. I don't know all that much about constitutional conventions, since I grew up believing that they would open a door wide even if all you wanted was it open a crack.

In general, the US Constitution (as well as the USS Constitution, for that matter) has remained little changed for centuries. Additions and alterations are generally slow and ponderous, with few glaring mistakes (prohibition). Lots of other countries change their constitutions about as often as they change leaders, which has never worked well. The constitutions they have are rarely well thought out, and are often gamed for the advantage of one party or special interest. The closest we have to that is the Second Amendment, which didn't favor any viewpoint when it was included, but became more polarizing a couple centuries later, and could fade back to being non-polarizing at a later date.

I like the slow, ponderous, approach when it comes to those kinds of changes. As a general rule, states try out a variety of different positions on various topics. Some things get enough concensus to prompt a constitutional change, but most do not. I'd say that's a pretty moderate approach, and that seems like a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dday9

Big night for the GOP last night. Whenever I fell asleep it was net +7.

---

Yep. GOP now has control of both houses.

It can actually be nice to have a Republican Party-controlled Congress and a Democratic president. Two opposing agendas means both the President and Congress will have to compromise, thereby creating a favorable outcome for both parties.

Moonman! Where did you go?!

Last post I saw from you was from the last presidential elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

In general, the US Constitution (as well as the USS Constitution, for that matter) has remained little changed for centuries. Additions and alterations are generally slow and ponderous, with few glaring mistakes (prohibition). Lots of other countries change their constitutions about as often as they change leaders, which has never worked well. The constitutions they have are rarely well thought out, and are often gamed for the advantage of one party or special interest. The closest we have to that is the Second Amendment, which didn't favor any viewpoint when it was included, but became more polarizing a couple centuries later, and could fade back to being non-polarizing at a later date.

I like the slow, ponderous, approach when it comes to those kinds of changes. As a general rule, states try out a variety of different positions on various topics. Some things get enough concensus to prompt a constitutional change, but most do not. I'd say that's a pretty moderate approach, and that seems like a good thing.

---

You can thank the amendment process. If I recall correctly, an amendment has to be ratified by 2/3 of each house of Congress and by 3/4 of the states.

Fun fact: The last amendment to the Constitution was ratified about 22 years or so ago and was proposed by Congress in 1789. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-...s_Constitution)

That's as it should be. That shouldn't be an easy document to change.

I'm cautiously optimistic about seeing some postiive economic changes as a result of the split government, but not very optimistic. We could really stand to get some strong tax reform. I shouldn't advocate less deductions and other exemptions, since I don't get any anymore. That seems kind of self-serving, but I would have given up things like the mortgage interest deduction a long time back. If we closed a bunch of that stuff we could get the tax code back towards a more manageable size and reduce tax rates across the board.

That is probably asking too much, though. There are huge numbers advocating for pretty nearly every line in that tax code. I'm not one of them, but I can file the 1040-EZ each year (if it weren't for capital gains). My life and my income are too simple.

Failing that, I don't see much to be hopeful for. Everybody talks about reducing regulations, but that discussion is kind of like the VB6 people: They all want the concept, they just have different specific details, so no two want quite the same thing.

I suspect that this is kind of the issue with a responsive government: Everybody is tugging in slightly different directions and all kinds of things result from that. We end up with a whole lot of rules and laws. Most everybody agrees that there are too many, but when you get down to specifics, each rule seems to have a fair number of supporters.

Perhaps the thing to do would be to pass all laws with sunset clauses. Forget term limits on the legislators, put term limits on the legislation. That would make the system opt-in rather than opt-out. If people really care enough about some rule, then let them revisit it preriodically. Favored rules would be able to extend with no effort at all. Non-favored, or controversial, rules would result in a fight.

We kind of do that now, but in a twisted way. For example, W suggested shifting social security more into the market controlled by the individual. That went nowhere. The result was that the status quo remained in effect, but the subject was visited. Many of the rules on the books are now relics, and there they sit forever.

You know what you guys need?

A monarch.

Just sayin'

:)

Does the monarchy do anything in the UK?

I know that y'all have a parliament that seems to do most(if not all) of the law making and what have you.

I once read a SciFi short story about a society that sentenced convicted felons to n number of terms as a politicians.

They wore plastic explosive collars tied to voting booths. Too many negative votes... Boom!
voting was real time all the time.

They were let us say... motivated to do the will of the people.

That isn't always the right thing.

Quote:

---

I once read a SciFi short story about a society that sentenced convicted felons to n number of terms as a politicians.

---

That's non-fiction, the continent is called Australia.

I guess I have always been puzzled by what motivates a politician.

Is it about making the world a better safer place for our children, making cities, states more efficient and doing good public works. Listening to the people.

or

Lining their pockets for retirement, junkets and other forms of gratuities or climbing the ladder of power for its own sake. Photo opts, Etc...

I realize that one is not necessarily polarized to one side or the other, but the latter behavior is not difficult to spot.

Lastly I have a personal grudge against anyone who acts like they are entitled to positions of power. They could usually care less what is best for the public.

Quote:

---

Lastly I have a personal grudge against anyone who acts like they are entitled to positions of power. They could usually care less what is best for the public.

---

I go one step further and extended it from entitlement to positions of power to entitlement period.

I wouldn't. Anybody who doesn't feel at least SOME sense of entitlement seems like a pretty miserable person. Even if all you feel entitled to is life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and an occasional sushi dinner, that's still some sense of entitlement.

Motivations are all over the board, naturally. They also change over time. I would guess that relatively few people get into politics for power or money, but some will find those to be desirable perks of the job. Once in politics, there is also an expectation and opportunity for advancement. Just like in any other career, you can move up the ladder to higher and higher jobs. Generally speaking, either US senate or governorships are the pinnacle, with relatively few then considering running for president (a job that is universally recognized to be a mixed blessing, at best).

When my mother was in the state legislature, she was something of a rising start. People were shocked when she dropped out. I was even pretty surprised, but she felt that she knew too much about too many people and just didn't want to do that anymore. So, my parents joined the Peace Corps for a few years and went to Papua New Guinea. That's about as far from US politics as you can reasonably get. Still, she was in the game for 10 years, and I learned a whole lot about it during that time.

Politics is both dirtier and less dirty than people realize. It's a fascinating game for those involved, which includes close observers. For those looking on from outside, it can be frustrating, messy, corrupt, or all of the above, but from the inside, I would say it is made up of a bunch of people who generally liked debating in high school, and decided to make a career out of it.

Quote:

---

I wouldn't. Anybody who doesn't feel at least SOME sense of entitlement seems like a pretty miserable person. Even if all you feel entitled to is life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and an occasional sushi dinner, that's still some sense of entitlement.

---

I did forget about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are inalienable rights that every person in the world should be entitled to.

However, any other entitlements get under my skin. Even the well deserved sushi dinner. While you may or may not have worked hard towards that sushi dinner, nothing entitles you to get it.

My anger, or grudge as gruff put it, stems from welfare entitlement. There are many who genuinely believe that they are entitled to some form of welfare because they are poor(SNAP), mother(WIC), or disabled(SSI). And more so when they complain when the welfare does not fully replace their food/dairy/income. Those welfare items are suppose to be a supplement, not a replacement. Movements like http://www.foodstamped.com/ really get under my skin because of this.

That's a movement? It looks like a documentary aimed at increasing food stamps, but I didn't watch it.

I'd have to say that I'm really reluctant to get too fired up about this. I have somebody who forwards on every right-wing, wackjob, chain email that comes her way. Naturally, that's not all she forwards, and I do like her sense of humor (though very few of those jokes and pictures would get by the AUP for this site). However, having now seen a goodly number of the right-wing stuff, I'm just not sure that I believe in the debate anymore. The one thing I am certain of is that there are lots of people who are abusing the system. There is also a considerable amount of right-wing stuff going around making this out to be a horrible crisis of lazy people (usually black, lazy people, too).

There are issues with the system we have, and there are people who fit whatever profile you choose to use. Whether it is the people who pull themselves up off of welfare who get the press, or those who don't, seems to depend more on the point of view of the people doing the writing.

The one thing that I do think is broken is the disability clause, which was partially a result of welfare reform in the 90s. The problem with that is that fraud is VERY hard to figure out in lots of those cases. However, once you are on it, you can't get off of it easily because to do so you would have to say a chronic condition suddenly isn't chronic anymore.

One point I would add is that every such system HAS to have fraud. That's simple economics coupled with game theory. For each individual, life is just a series of choices. I could be rich had I chosen differently, I could also be crippled and on the dole, had I chosen less wisely. We all get these choices, and none of us have all the information about how our choices will turn out. We do the best we can with what we have, which in some cases isn't much. Naturally, some people will try to advance their position through illegal means. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't really need laws.

If you have less enforcement, the benefits of illegal actions rise relative to the costs. If you have more enforcement, the costs rise against the benefits. Everybody will make their choices in life with whatever understanding of the cost/benefit they happen to have.

Furthermore, enforcement costs money. To root out every bit of fraud would cost so much that we couldn't afford it. So, there has to be a balance between the cost of the enforcement and the cost of the fraud. I would say that enforcement costs should be set at slightly above the losses to fraud. We are in that vicinity currently, but things are changing. The cost of enforcement may be dropping, which would mean that we could drive down more fraud for the same amount of money. That would be good.

A further point is that our anger over somebody else getting away with something is really primal. The same anger has been shown in chimps.

Suppose I decided to supplement my income by selling drugs. There would be a certain risk involved, both of losing my life early, as well as losing everything I have and ending up incarcerated. Being a cautious guy, I might do better than the average drug dealer, but the risk would still be higher than it is for my current profession. I haven't chosen to be a drug dealer, and I probably have less money for it

So, should I be angry at the drug dealer who flashes lots of cash, girls, etc., since he "got away with something."? Should I feel avenged if he gets shot down in some gang war? Well, I don't. I chose the life I lead and I'm pretty happy with it. They made other choices. I neither envy them their success, nor feel vindicated if they fail.

Similarly, how should I feel towards somebody who could work, but is on welfare instead? I've never met anybody on food stamps or welfare of any sort that I envied. Perhaps some of them were defrauding the government and leaching off of society. I've probably met some who were in that state. I still don't care, because I still haven't met even one where I thought their life to be enviable. It's not a matter of feeling superior, I just see other choices that others have made and they don't appear any better than the ones I made. Perhaps I should complain about the extra cost to me for supporting them, but I don't. Frankly, I don't pay all that much, and I'm well aware that the primary determinant of my personal wealth is not taxes, it's me and the choices I have made. I'm happy with those choices, so I'm content with the result.

People want to rile up the troops, but it's just speaking to that primitive part of our animal brain that feels aggrieved when anybody gets something that we think they didn't deserve. It's the old grade school complaint, "It's not fair!". In the end, we are all worm food. You can spend your life getting worked up over somebody else getting a perceived edge, you can spend your life trying to right that wrong, or you can do something else. They are all viable choices and you can move from one to the next. In the end, we're still just worm food.

Quote:

---

Does the monarchy do anything in the UK?

---

Shakes hands and waves. It's a very important function.

Quote:

---

Australia

---

You've spelt that wrong. It's spelt "Straiyah".

With a hard A...............................and a silent Q.

Impressive win by the Buckeyes last night. Too bad LSU couldn't put away Auburn when they had the chance...

Whenever I hear the word 'Buckeyes' I think of this.

Attachment 120683

That's an odd thing to think of.

This coming from a talking fern in a pot. Or are those fish?

A fine bouquet of fish, Rocket.

Out of curiosity where does the image come from?
Is it biblical as in: Loaves and Fishes?

39 years ago today a Great Lakes ore freighter sank in Lake Superior so some Canadian guy could write a hit song about it.

Attachment 120719

6 days ago a guy named Ed Fitzgerald suffered a historic defeat in his run for governor of Ohio. Coincidence?

Quote:

---

6 days ago a guy named Ed Fitzgerald suffered a historic defeat in his run for governor of Ohio. Coincidence?

---

This picture sums up everything:
Attachment 120721

As far as I know Fitz was added to a father's first name to produce a surname.
It simply means "Son of". Allen son of Robert would take the name Allen FitzRobert.

I find it odd a ship would be named Edmund son of Gerald.
As if one could give birth to something made of steel.

Unless of course your a son of a gun. :)

Speaking of aliens, there's a phrase being uttered around town today that is completely alien to me. I know I've heard these words before, but it's been so long they just don't seem to make any sense in a modern context. It's like we're in a dream and we're all just waiting to wake up and confront reality. But it's not a dream. It is reality:

"The Cleveland Browns are in first place"

Yeah, I know... weird, isn't it?

Somehow the Saints are 1 in our division, even though we lost last night's game AND we're 4 and 5!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gruff

Out of curiosity where does the image come from?
Is it biblical as in: Loaves and Fishes?

---

The inspiration came from a 70's or 80's issue of Mad Magazine. I was working on a program that dealt with fish data and wanted a logo for it. My conclusion was that I suck at art, which I knew ahead of time, so it wasn't much of a conclusion. Still, I liked the idea, and the image is good enough for an avatar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

Speaking of aliens, there's a phrase being uttered around town today that is completely alien to me. I know I've heard these words before, but it's been so long they just don't seem to make any sense in a modern context. It's like we're in a dream and we're all just waiting to wake up and confront reality. But it's not a dream. It is reality:

"The Cleveland Browns are in first place"

Yeah, I know... weird, isn't it?

---

It's hard to comprehend, but not much harder to comprehend than that whole division. The NFC South is easier to comprehend: They all suck, so SOMEBODY has to be in first place.

Quote:

---

The NFC South is easier to comprehend: They all suck, so SOMEBODY has to be in first place.

---

What's crazy is that a lot of people were projecting the Saints to get to at least the semi-finals this year even after our first two losses.

They still might, but they tend to lose on the road. Since they are sure to be no better than the third seed in the conference, they'll be playing at home in the wild card round, so they could win the first one then go on the road and lose.

What I'm most surprised at is to see how much of a bust Atlanta is. They started off their season with a solid 2-0, but since then they've only one game.

I'm a bit surprised at just how bad all of those teams other than Jacksonville is. I expected the other three to be much more competitive than they are. NO has had issues on the road, but they have enough offensive weapons to do well on any given week, and the defense wasnt' terrible last year. This year, they are mediocre in all aspects of the game, it seems, despite having a fair number of weapons.

Tampa lacked a reliable quarterback and had a few other holes, but I didn't think they'd be THIS bad. As for Atlanta, they tend to fall short every year. Stinking up the place is new, though.

I don't follow them, but the biggest surprise to me is Oakland. No wins so far is surprising.

I like the post race.

I need this:
Attachment 120761

Sorry I guess my eyes are so poor or I am not dweeb enough to get the joke.
What is the device?

It's a pc disguised as an N64

That makes me realize that I may never have even seen an N64.

Old farts :D

Hmm I wonder how smilies appear on VBForums

������������������������������

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dday9

Old farts :D

---

This was the one game I always kicked ass... but not enough to fork out $1200 to relive it all again:

Very Nice Original Galaga Arcade game

Attachment 120771

I was pretty good at Galaga. We actually had an "Arcade" N64 game which had Galaga, Galaxy, Dig Dug, Pole Position, and Pac-Man.