This will just be a rambling blog where I post up what ever is on my mind. Similar to a status report. You know "the weather is terrible". Whatever is on my mind...
Last edited by Nakia the Rogue on Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:13 am; edited 2 times in total
The extreme Right and the Extreme Left will never agree on anything except that the other side is THE ENEMY and should be tossed in the nearest muck pit.
My problem that in dealing with the gun advocates I have met is they insist that the 2nd amendment and the Supreme Court support their desire to have just about ANY gun they want. They quibble over words like assault weapon vs assault rifles even when someone with legal training explains that assault weapon is a legal term used to cover other weapons than just assault rifles. The Supreme Court cases that were cited all dealt with the right to own a handgun in order to protect yourself and your family within your HOME.
The Sandy Hook commission investigating for the Governor of Connecticut has issued an interim report stating that assault weapons should be restricted. In fact the recommended that the guns be restricted to ten rounds.
Stricter gun control will not solve the problem but it will make it harder for some one to get his or her hands on such a weapon and may save a few lives. The Government regulates a lot of things in our lives including the cars we drive.
As for hunting that is another issue and it also gets complicated. That issue I do not touch. I am an omnivore and have eaten and enjoyed venison given to me. My grandfather slaughtered pigs and fowl for us to eat. There are some people who consider hunting immoral, I don't.
I think kick boxing or whatever it is called is probably the most violent sport. I have never watched not even a video but I have heard about it.
Mr. K, I have a feeling that our political view points are not that far apart. I believe in fiscal responsibility, small government, the right of the individual to make his or her own choices and succeed or fail on his own merits. I do advocate gay rights along with black, white, male, female and Martian. Children have rights too. Do you know that the Child Labor amendment has never been ratified?
What I find amusing is how much Americans dislike their government. I understand the reasons but I can't help thinking that there would be some major improvements if some things could be handled on a federal level (that's just my opinion).
Of course I'm French and as a result I suscribe to the motto that we (as citizens) are the state. I don't necessarily see the government as an alien entity out to get me and infringe on my "God-given" rights. It doesn't mean that I always agree with the government however as being French I'm prone to complaining and being contrary (why do you think we keep going on strikes and demonstrating all the time?) and I may not like paying so much money on taxes but I know that at least some of it will be put to good uses.
I think Americans can't give their guns away because they are afraid of the big bad federal government. I can't see how having a gun can possibly help coping with that but I think this is the real issue.
I think that part of it is the two party system. Especially on the Federal level, the Presidential level. One election I did vote for an independent candidate just as a protest vote.
Mr. K has made a more formal study of this than I have and for a longer period. We have political ideologies ranging from the Far Right to the Far Left. Most of us fall somewhere in between. The Great Depression also changed our politics. FDR put in government programs to try and help get us out of it. We became more socialized (is that the right term?). People became more dependent on the Government. Social Security was enacted in 1937.
I do think we have built into our culture a distrust of Big Government and at the same time have become dependent on Big Government. Because FDR was elected to four terms Congress passed a law (and amendment?) limiting the Presidency to two terms. There was fear that a popular President could end up being elected for a protracted period of time and gain too much power.
We are an evolved government with, in theory at least, the power coming from The People. Each state is free and independent, again at least in theory. Each state has its own agenda (Pork Barrels, anyone?P and at times even looks with hostility on other states. New York, New Jersey and Connecticut comprise the Tri State area, not a legal entity but still a very real one. We do cooperate with one another but we also have our differences. New Jersey got very upset when the hospitals from New York city dumped there medical waste in the nearby waters in inadequate containers and the New Jersey beaches were covered with it including used syringes. The beaches are an important part of NJ livelihood, plus it was not a pretty sight.
I am an advocate of states rights although I am not sure that is logical and not just a knee jerk reaction. I do think the states have a better idea of what their individual needs are than the Federal Government does.
The fact that the Founding Fathers built into our government three separate branches was because of fear of a tyrannical government. It has worked and we have had a stable government for two hundred years. We gripe and complain exercising our First Amendment rights but we like the way the government is laid out.
I have studied the history of our 2 Party System, but I still don't know why it is just a 2 party system. There are a number of active Parties in the US, but the 2 that get more than a few Votes are the Democratic and the Republican Parties. Every now and then there is a Independent that gets enough Votes to get elected, or change the outcome of an election, anybody remember Ross Perot? A Parliamentary System with several active Parties, that join coalitions to work together, sounds like maybe a better way, but I would want some kind of Separation of Power. In reality, I don't know much about how the Parliamentary Systems work, but most Governments in the World use one form or another.
States Rights, the 10th Amendment is what this is all about: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This limits the Federal Government to just the things that are allowed by the US Constitution. This is the most ignored part of the Constitution.
For your info, FDR was working on becoming the President for Life, if it was not for a brave Supreme Court, and his poor health, he would have been President for many years. His programs to end the Depression, only made it last longer, much like what is happening today. The "Great Depression" ended with the start of the Arms build-up in Europe before WWII. If Bush and Obama had not done anything, the current Economic Recession would have been a little deeper, and some more Banks and a few more Corporations would have failed, but it would have been over in 2 or 3 Quarters, 5 or 6 at the most. It would be better to allow some Banks and Corporations to fail, to force more competition, and better business practices.
Social Security as originally enacted, was a good Idea, but it could have been done with a Law, that would have had individuals to invest a portion of their pay in some form of long term, and low risk investing private program, for retirement or for other special reasons. Lots of ideas for a Private Social Security Program. As it is now, and has been from the start, Social Security has been used for all kinds of Government spending, other than taking care of the people that put money in to the program.
OK, this is turning into an Economic explanation of how the Government effects the Economy in unintended ways. I may go into it in more details some time in my Blog. But for now, I have a wood working project I need to finish, and some yard work to do. I also want to play Planet Side 2. Politics and/or Economics is not what I want to do. If you have a question about, Politics or Economics, please ask me one thing at a time in my Blog Thing. 5 or 6 questions at the same time, can get confusing in how I answer them.
I am not, nor have I ever been any kind of debater, and I don't want to get into any Arguments with my Friends, but I can give opinions, and some deeper information about many topics, so just ask, in my Blog.
Ask me about Flying, or Kayaking, or Football, or Bonsai growing, or General History themes, or Teenagers, or Education, or Science Fiction, or even Voice Acting. Don't just ask about Politics all the time, I am much more than that. After living 57 years, I have had a lot of odd experiences, and done some interesting things, not nearly as much as Nakia, but I have done a few.
States Rights which is an essential and very important part of our government seems impossible to explain to others. I have tried and it seems such a foreign that people just ignore it. So far the only person is understands it is analog-relic and that is because he is from Australia which has a government that evolved from an agreement among the self-governing British Colonies. They still have the Queen as Head of State so are a Federal Constitutional Monarch. The correct name Is Commonwealth of Australia I think. I haven't research Canada's government but based on what my friend Splunge has said it sounds about as weird as ours with each province having its own laws.
Lets skip to education and why we rate somewhere around 24 among the more well educated countries. Mr. K and I both have backgrounds in education.
@Mr. K, we don't debate here we discuss. We don't always agree but we manage to keep it on a friendly basis. Don't remember who said that the truth comes from discussion among friends and I think RYUchan said that you can't have a discussion when everyone agrees. Not 100% true but I understand what he means.
Yep, Canada has the Queen as head of state, while we have a Prime minister who is the elected official. There is a central government, but the province also have their own laws, governments, budgets, ect. There is some issues that are 100% on province jurisdiction, like health and education, in which the federal government has absolutely no say.
I find it interesting that the colonists who took over places that no indigious natives that could compete with them set up evolved governments. I suppose that is natural. Countries such as England conquered other nations although Scotland I think officially became part of the United Kingdom by getting its King set up as England's King.
Lazy question: When did The United Kingdom actually become the United Kingdom?
Millions don't count anymore. Inflation has made that just upper middle class, Why you can't buy much with it anymore. No Picasso's, No Hope Diamonds, a really snazzy motorcycle costs costs 40,000/ Nope, a million Euros or USD just go as they did in the olden days.
Now when I was a youngen (insert any tale of trudging miles through the snow and rain or whatever you want).
I agree with RYUchan. And if I thought that this discussion was not among Friends, and useful, I would not add to it.
About that Tax of 75% on the "Rich".
The Rich are the very people we want to be successful with their money, and the Government should not Tax them at a higher rate than the "Poor". Rich people use their money to help all kinds of people by spending, and investing their money in many things that put many people to work. They as individuals, give more of their own money to Charities, than most Poor people. The Government, any Government, is not as capable of helping people not be poor, as Rich people spending, and investing. The Economy, and the People, of any Nation, would be a lot better off if their Governments, just had a real "Fair" Tax. Why take the Economic Development Power that Rich Folks bring to the rest of us?
I think that everybody should pay their own share of Taxes, but many think that 50% of the Wage Earners, should get a free pass, and just the top 50% pay for everything. How is that a Fair way to fund a Government?
If everybody had a full share of the Tax Load, more people, even the Poor, would be more concerned with the efficiency of how the Government was run. As it is, the people that don't pay any Taxes, or not much Taxes, are asking for more and more, and some of our Political Leaders are using this side of Human Nature to gain and control a larger and larger share of the Political Power.
I have not seen this Idea from anybody else; My Tax Proposal would be to eliminate all Income Tax, and go to only Sales Tax. That's not new, the rest is my idea. On every receipt for any Sale, would be the current % of the Tax paid for that purchase that is going to pay off any Debt, and the % of the Tax going to pay for the Government. This % could change every day, to reflect the Debt Ratio of the Expenses of running the Government. Every person would have the up-to-date info for how we are doing in reducing the Debt, and if they wanted more info, about how each Department, and Program was doing, an independent Web Site would track it in real time, adjusting all the numbers in real time. With a Tax system that was fair to all people, more people would take Responsibility for the Running of the Government, and Vote the Bums out, and get a new set of Politicians that would work on making the Government more of an organization that would do what was needed, and not add a lot of added complexity, or expenses, that have more to do with Corrupt Politics, than running the Government in a way that helps us all to have a better life.
Yes, for your Edification; The more Complicated anything under Government control is, there is more room to hide Corruption, and Cronyism, that if where known by more of the population, there would be a cry for getting back to basics, and putting a lot more of our Fine Political Leaders in Jail.
I have studied the history of our 2 Party System, but I still don't know why it is just a 2 party system.
Political theorists believe this is a natural result of the way our electoral system works, namely that we use a plurality-based electoral system. We have small single-representative districts in which the winner is the person to get the largest number of votes, even if it is not a majority.
Suppose that there are three competitive parties in an election, and two of those candidates get 33% of the vote the third gets 34%. In a plurality-based system like ours, the third candidate would win the election, in spite of the fact that the vast majority voted against him. The more parties you introduce into the mix, the worse this phenomenon would become. This is called a "winner-takes-all" system.
This inhibits voters from voting for third parties, because the winner does indeed take all. Hence, they look at the two candidates they think are most likely to win, and vote for the one they prefer (or find least objectionable). Thus, winner-take-all systems usually result in only two competitive parties. This is known as "Duverger's Law".
One possible way to fix this would be to introduce instant-runnoff voting. With IRV, voters number the candidates in order of preference. So, for instance, I could vote for a third party candidate as my most preferable candidate, and one of the major party candidates as my second choice. When the votes are tallied, the candidate with the least votes will be eliminated, and his votes will be passed on to those voters second choice. This will continue until only two candidates remain.
IRV allows voters to vote their conscience first, while still having the "lesser evil" to fall back on.
The other option would be to totally restructure the districts to implement proportional representation. This involves having large multi-seat districts in which the seats are allotted proportionally to the number of votes each party received. Japan uses such a system. It would require a major overhaul in America, though.
As the American system stands right now, third parties are essentially disenfranchised. They can still serve value as spoilers though. Party loyalists think spoilers are bad, but as I see it, when a party loses, it's that party's own fault. I voted in the last election for Gary Johnson. If Mitt Romney lost votes to Johnson, it's not Johnson's fault, but Romney's. (My vote, however, was never Romney's to lose.)
Sorry for dumping all this political stuff in your thread, Nakia, but Mr. K hit on a subject that interests me.
That explanation for our 2 Party system sounds about right.
And by the time the Primaries got to Texas, Huntsman was out, along with 2 or 3 others that would have made me a little happier than Romney. I like Romney, and I think he is a Great Man, but he is not a true Fiscal Conservative.
Hi Kana and Mr. K, It is alright, Kana, I don't mind. Today my head is not up to contributing anything. I do find it interesting and your explanation makes sense to me. I have lived places were locally third parties were quite viable. In fact Cincinnati that I lived near and then in for a short while was Conservative and Democrat rather than Republican/Democrat. That was local for Presidential elections they did go Republican/Democrat. The two major newspapers were split Republican-Conservative and Democrat. To actually get an idea of what was going on you had to read both papers. My grandmother worked for the Democrat one. I actually come from a very adamant Democratic family. I eventually formed my own opinions and I vote or at least try to vote for the individual.
As for Taxes on income I lean towards the flat tax. Do away with loop holes and just tax all income the same. Sales tax might be fair too. But from what I have seen of our government I am not at all sure they could come up with a fair system. Gas and oil are essential items but the taxes on them I consider outrageous.
Someone commented that I didn't like our Federal Government and it is true. I feel that it has become bloated, is no longer responsive to the people of the nation but to the lobbyists, Bib Business, Big Unions who are out strictly for their own agenda. We have a news media that is more an entertainment vehicle than a means of providing actual factual news. They often report breaking news inaccurately and go for the sound bites rather than facts.
When reporting on candidates they look for the scandal, The voters have become apathetic. The voice of reason is lost in the screaming of the extreme Left and Right. As far as I was concerned the last Presidential election was joke. The best man didn't win because the best man didn't run.
We have the two party system but how many independents are there? I am one even if I decided to join one of the parties in order to vote in a primary I would still be an independent.
The corruption uncovered in New Jersey was major and went right up to the Governor. We did elected a man I believe to be honest and who has gotten non-partisan cooperation as even managed to get some cooperation from the unions. He is a Republican. Politicians from both parties should take a cue from him. There was even talk of his running for President. Maybe some day he will and I will vote for him.
Tis your own fault, Mr. K. I'm here and on DC and on Steam. I see you on Steam but you are marked busy or are playing PS2. I haven't felt like playing any intense games and just started FNV up. Promised Scythe I would check out a mod he is working on so I need to clean up Skyrim and get it working. Also said I would write up my ideas about the Blades and get them to him.
Mark started his job with the Landscaper. 1/2 hr commute each way then a eight hr day doing heavy work. Got home tired, took a shower, ate did talk a little then went to bed. Seems to be sleeping pretty soundly for a change. Nothing like manual labor to tire one out. He said he was tired but looking forward to going back tomorrow. Ah, today actually. He has all kinds of ideas for the back yard. He likes plants and gardening.
Pip me on Steam if you see me on. I chatted with Sue and also Lndf a bit today/yesterday, the 4th.
So do I but Mark has a green thumb indoors and outdoors. I will get some pictures of the garden he is planting in the back. He is getting ideas from the landscaper he works for too.
I am at the top of a cul de sac that ends in a circle. My plot is pie shaped. Narrow in the front but spreading out at the back. No fences are allowed between yards so the area may look larger than it actually is but I do have a nice space. If I recall correctly the back of the pie shape is 100 feet. Not sure. I have allowed the forsythia and Rose of Sharon to go wild in order to give some privacy to the back area. It backs onto a common ground with houses on the other side of the commons.
There was too much sunlight I will try to get a better picture when there is not so much sun.
by Blood Red Eagle Sat Feb 03, 2024 6:24 am
Nakia's Babblings
Now when I was a youngen (insert any tale of trudging miles through the snow and rain or whatever you want).
[/img]
[/img]
