Quote of the day–Chairman Mao Tse-Tung

Communism is at once a complete system of proletarian ideology and a new social system. It is different from any other ideological and social system, and is the most complete, progressive, revolutionary and rational system in human history. The ideological and social system of feudalism has a place only in the museum of history. The ideological and social system of capitalism has also become a museum piece in one part of the world (in the Soviet Union), while in other countries it resembles “a dying person who is sinking fast, like the sun setting beyond the western hills”, and will soon be relegated to the museum. The communist ideological and social system alone is full of youth and vitality, sweeping the world with the momentum of an avalanche and the force of a thunderbolt.

Chairman Mao Tse-Tung
Little Red Book
“On New Democracy” (January 1940), Selected Works,  Vol. II, pp. 360-61.
[I ran across this book in the Paper Source store in Bellevue, Washington yesterday. A very weird place to find it. I was interested in reading it but didn’t want to spend money that would benefit some communist so I found the book on-line. I need to read the Communist Manifesto sometime too. So much of Marx and other communist philosophy infiltrates our politics and even everyday thinking it would help to be able to identify it and point out the errors more readily. As you can see from the quote above their predictions and proclamations have less that stellar accuracy.–Joe]

Obama and Hillary

Both SayUncle and Sebastian are feeling happy to see “Obama Slaps Hillary Silly in VA” but note that rationally that feeling doesn’t make much sense.

Admittedly, even if you drop the title of “The First Woman President of the United States of America” this image is pretty frightening:

But which would you rather have in office? Someone who 40% of the population thought was a power mad megalomaniac without morals or someone who would attempt to implement the same laws and tyranny but 80% of the population thought was, deep down, a “nice guy”?

If those were the only two choices I had I would vote for the megalomaniac because it would be easier to motivate the opposition and throw them and their collaborators out the next election. And if the next elections “didn’t happen” a lot more people would have been preparing for the revolution.

Basically its a choice between being forced to distribute either a poison that tastes sweet or one that tastes extremely bitter. Go with the bitter tasting because fewer people will take a lethal dose.

And it may not come to one of them being elected. As some have said, we want Hillary to win the nomination because she has less chance of being elected than Obama. Go Hillary! Then get lost.

We got their attention

Mike Brown and I have been talking about this bill for months. He wrote it and I helped with the website and blog. Last week it was introduced. It appears we have got someone’s attention.

From the University of Idaho:


From: asui@uidaho.edu
To: students-list@uidaho.edu
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:24:23 -0800
Subject: Senate Bill 1381 Allowing students with concealed weapons permits to campus

Dear Vandal,

In case you have not heard, the Idaho State Senate is considering Senate
Bill 1381.  If this bill passes, it will allow individuals with concealed
weapons permits to carry their firearms on campus after notifying proper
university authorities.  Because this bill has the potential to affect every
student at the university the ASUI has decided to put together a discussion
panel where students can learn more, ask questions, and state their stance
on this piece of legislation.  This is a great opportunity to engage in the
political process.  After the panel, you will have an opportunity to write
letters to state legislators supporting or opposing SB 1381.

Here is a link to the actual bill text:
http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/S1381.html

What: Senate Bill 1381 Allowing students with concealed weapons permits to
carry firearms on campus
Where: Renfrew Hall Room 111
When: Wed. Feb 13th, 2008 from 4:00-5:30 PM

 

 

ASUI and the ASUI Center for Volunteerism and Social Action

Quote of the day–Benjamin Franklin

Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed.

Benjamin Franklin

Unintended consequences strike again

From the Washington Post, Studies Say Clearing Land for Biofuels Will Aid Warming:

One study — written by a group of researchers from Princeton University, Woods Hole Research Center and Iowa State University along with an agriculture consultant — concluded that over 30 years, use of traditional corn-based ethanol would produce twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as regular gasoline. Another analysis, written by a Nature Conservancy scientist along with University of Minnesota researchers, found that converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas or grasslands in Southeast Asia and Latin America to produce biofuels will increase global warming pollution for decades, if not centuries.

Also in the same article:

There is an urgent need for policy that ensures biofuels are not produced on productive forest, grassland or cropland.

Oh, so you expect you can just start growing corn or some other high energy crop on a bare, wind swept rock?

And finally this:

This is a good way of showing where we are, not where we’re going to be,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who is chairman of a House global warming panel and who helped write the energy legislation. Noting that the measure set benchmarks requiring any new ethanol plants to produce a fuel that is 20 percent more efficient than gasoline, and even more stringent standards for advanced biofuels,

I have a sneaking suspicious they misspelled that guys name. I’m thinking it should be Malarkey.

Ethanol has less energy content that gasoline. Unless they can produce something other than ethanol from the biomass the end result is they are doing the equivalent of legislating PI is equal to 3.00.

I’m laughing all the way to the bank.

Quote of the day–James Russell Lowell

Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.

James Russell Lowell
[Which is why we were supposed to have a Republic with a constitution which enumerated limited powers to the government and with guaranteed rights to the people. Unfortunately people found out they could ignore the constitution without consequences and we now have something much closer to a democracy with all the adverse effects.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Karl Marx

The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.

Karl Marx
[Just because Marx happened to be right about this year’s election doesn’t mean he had even a glimmer of a solution to the problem. Super Tuesday wasn’t.–Joe]

Spectacle

I took notes during Bush’s Big Speech the other day, but I’m only now reporting on it. The wheelbarrows full of cash that I regularly get from the NRA for parroting their extremist (pro-Liberty) politics aren’t nearly enough to keep me interested in blogging on other subjects in a timely manner.

I did not count the number of applause lines (most of those clapping probably weren’t listening anyway. They only notice that the nodding drunk sitting next to them is clapping for something, so they follow along). I did count the number of times Dubya used certain terms. Thankfully, he went light on his usual equating of democracy with Liberty– that’s always bugged the hell out of me. Not that I think he’s figured anything out– he just had other things to say, namely that he buys fully into the man-made “Global Climate Change” racket. Smartly, he avoided using the term “Global Warming” favoring the more universal “Climate Change” instead.

He used the term “Liberty” eight times, which is eight times more than your average Democrat would use it in a whole career of public speaking. “Freedom” was used fully ten times, but then, a Marxist will speak of “freeing” us from corporate tyranny, and such. Bush used the term in the correct sense pretty much every time, which is odd considering that he was at the same time adamant in his assertion that the path to technological progress starts with government subsidy and proceeds from there to more government subsidy, where it finally arrives at a level that qualifies for a whole big bunch of more government subsidy.

“Bipartisan” was used twice, and in the Left-Speak sense only. He was referring to the “no child’s behind left alone” act and something thoroughly vague about “entitlement solutions”, which brought the most brilliantly unenthusiastic, apathetic, if not contemptuous, applause imaginable. Quite impressive. Throughout the speech, this wasn’t the sort of disingenuously enthusiastic applause you gave at the Kremlin, or during one of Saddam’s speeches in the hope that you wouldn’t be taken out and shot a moment later. No, this was true, unguided, unmotivated, wandering, bored, limp, listless, hollow, comfortable apathy, the depths of which are seldom seen in the faces of ordinary men– some of the scarce honesty seen that night.

The word “victory” was not used– too “divisive” to speak of American victory I suppose. He did mention “defeating” the enemy in the War On An Emotion 4 times, so there’s that.

One of his genuine moments was when he was honoring the servicemen and servicewomen, and their families. This is in sharp contrast to our last president, who saw these people as a means to his self aggrandizement. There was some genuine applause there too, and they deserved more.

“Purpose” was used twice, but without defining the particular “purpose” he had in mind, if any. It’s a potentially nice word. Marx and Lenin had a “purpose” though, too.

Bizarrely, he used the “O” bomb (Oath) once. That could come back to bite him– he indicated that he may have been aware of the meaning and purpose of the Oath of Office, so any violations must hereafter be considered willful, and any tolerance of the violations of others must be considered complicit.

“Unity” was never used. Good choice that. Who wants to be “unified” with one’s enemies? Likewise, he only said “change” once and in reference to his course in Iraq– not in the Change to More Socialism sense use by the Left. That was for us to infer from his many calls for subsidy and restriction.

Our president promised one executive order– a requirement that all earmarks be debated in the open, and voted on, outside of committees. That’s a teeny weeny start– sort of like a starter’s pistol that was never loaded and just goes “click”. Congress is now spending three trillion of our dollars per year, as opposed to the 2.2 trillion they spent when Bush took office (That’s now a hair under 10 thousand dollars from every man, woman and child in this country, per year, or 40 thousand for a family of four, and rising fast. That’s more than the total incomes of most working people around the world). I’ll clap a few times when I see that total number drop for eight years in a row. Until then, republicans are to be seen as a slower path to pure socialism, compared to the faster path offered by Dems.

Watching Pelosi chewing something in the background was a little funny, and a little sickening (I felt I was back in jr. high school all over again, and I didn’t like it the first time). Watching the Congresscritters on the floor was amusing and instructive. When Bush said something about terrorist surveillance, the floor was split perfectly down the middle– Dems sitting and Repubs standing. Same when he mentioned tax relief– no Democrat would ever even USE the term, much less recognize it when a Republican uses it. If anything, “tax relief” to a democrat would be relieving people of their money by taxing them. Republicans recognize that when tax rates drop, we get more productive and they get more of our money to spend. Democrats hate productivity altogether.

I liked the part where he told anyone who thinks their taxes should be higher that the IRS accepts checks and money orders (maybe he never heard of cashier’s checks, which are good for much higher amounts). So send it in, bitches, and shut yer yaps!

When Bush called for up or down votes on court appointments, the Dems sat down. Yeah– screw the Constitution if it means we can’t have what we want. Who’s gonna do anything about it?

Probably the stupidest thing he said all night (and this is amazingly, stunningly, monumentally stupid, such that historians and psychoanalysts will marvel at this phenomenon for generations to come. It will be in textbooks as a demonstration of the lemming-like nature of human group-think) was that “We” need a “Lawful Way” for foreign workers to “come and support our economy”. Either Bush is a blithering idiot, he hopes we’re all blithering idiots, or I am wrong in believing that the U.S. has always had multiple “Lawful Ways” for foreign workers to come here and support themselves, which, in turn, helps to support the economy. Which is it? WTF? Hello? No one picked up on that, so I’ll have to allow that I may be wrong– maybe this country never has had any means by which people could come here legally to work. And maybe I’m a lemming. Apparently no one knows for sure. Apparently, no one in Congress has ever read one of their own bills– you know, the immigration bills they’ve been passing for the last, oh, 219 F>@*ing years and then forgetting– the ones they pass with zero expectation of enforcement. This is a stupid party wherein people have been overdosing on stupid for so long that they’re addicted to stupid and will apparently get the cold sweats and die if deprived of regular, heavy doses of stupid.

In the end, Bush had used many very nice terms and cute words and phrases (still can’t pronounce nuclear– hasn’t anyone told him? Dude, it’s NUKE, LEE, ERR, OK? Say it!) all carefully contrived to throw a little bone to this and to that disparate interest, as if to satisfy everyone. It didn’t work. It never works. It only shows that he is without solid principle– that every mutually exclusive interest to which he panders (thinking himself clever in the process) will see him correctly as a political push-over, lost, a fake, and a hypocrite, searching nervously for the next buzz-phrase to quell our suspicions– to find the dimmer switch for that light-bulb over our heads and turn it down. In other words, a typical, run-of-the-mill Republican.

But to be a part of the spectacle. That much they have.

Quote of the day–Winston Churchill

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Winston Churchill
[Applicable today because of the discussion over at Munchkin Wrangler. Via Tam.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Lily Tomlin

Ninety eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hardworking, honest Americans. It’s the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. But then, we elected them.

Lily Tomlin
[Politics can be pretty depressing at times.–Joe]

Conversions

Uncle discusses, “How do we win this political gun battle?”, asks for some help, and gets this suggestion. Then Sebastian offers this.

There is some good stuff there but there were a few items left out.

  • Join pro gun groups. The first group you should join is the NRA; even if you think they compromise too much. They are the 800 pound gorilla in the legislative kitchen and just the raw number of members causes the politicians to think twice before cooking up an anti-gun scheme. Other groups serve useful purposes and should be considered as well. Some of them are 501(c)(3) corporations and your donations are tax deductible.
  • Come out of the closet. In the early days of the gay rights movement there was a phrase, “Silence equals death!”. Getting people to come out in the open about being a gun owner helps the anti-gun people realize we aren’t red-necked, knuckle dragging, Neanderthals, who beat their wives, complain about the “coloreds” lusting after our women folk, and whose idea of a good time is shooting our empties while chugging beer from the tailgate of our pickups. It worked for the gays and it can work for us.
  • Closely related to the previous item is to speak up when someone says something hostile about gun ownership. Know your facts, know the anti-gun position fallacies, and don’t be afraid to share them when someone tries to push that failed agenda. Come up with sound-bites and don’t belabor things. People will “turn off” if your viewpoint takes more than about 30 seconds to explain. If you don’t have anything more directly to the point, ask Just One Question.
  • Invite the media to your pro-gun events and put announcements of your events in their “whats happening” section. Most media outlets are starved for material. If you are having a special event invite them to come, watch, and report on it. Write a decent news release (such that they can easily and quickly plagiarize it for their own use) and you increase the odds of attendance and positive coverage considerably. See, for example, Boomershoot coverage.
  • In the end game, which we may just be entering, we need to drive them to political extinction. You don’t get there by saying, “They have a valid point and everyone is entitled to their opinion.” We must make their position as socially uncomfortable as that of the KKK. See this post for how to do that.

Follow the money

I recently found out about the site http://green.msn.com/. It’s a site for environmentalists with a significant slant toward the viewpoint, “It doesn’t matter what the cost is if it’s for the environment”. What I found most interesting was the reason for the creation of the site. It wasn’t that MS management particularly shared that viewpoint. It was that there was a major sponsor willing to spend advertising dollars on such a site. MS threw the site up in record time and started collecting the dollars because the viewpoint all MS management does agree on is, “Don’t leave loose money on the table.”

Similar analysis of many of the anti-gun groups reveals money is the significant motivator for them too. For example GunGuys.com gets grants from the Joyce Foundation. The one guy that runs that family of sites gets hundreds of thousands of dollars plus all the donations he can get by dancing in the blood of victims whom most would have had better survival chances had they been armed.

There are no principles–it’s all about the money. Just look at me and all those wheelbarrows full of cash I get for accepting marching orders from the Apex of the Triangle of Death.

I blame global warming

Sunday night I drove from my home in Moscow, Idaho to my secret bunker in the Seattle area in preparation for another week of work for The Borg. The road was compact snow and ice from home to Vantage when I got on I-90. Most of that drive was across the desert of Eastern and Central Washington.

Yes, desert. Othello, Washington only gets about 8.4 inches of precipitation per year. A desert is defined as getting less than 10 inches per year. The picture below was taken a few miles east of Othello:

Quick! Tell Algore global warming is destroying our deserts!

Replication errors–how to prevent and correct them

I received the following story from an email list I subscribe to. It’s just a funny story but I do sometimes wonder if this sort of thing might have contributed to our current political mess. Politicians, and the people that elected them, ignore and deliberately bend the first principles of our Constitution and even the philosophical underpinning (yes, Ayn Rand’s book Philosophy: Who Needs It has made big impact on me) of how we determine truth from falsity and right from wrong. Little by little the nature of our government morphs into something completely unrecognizable and unrestrained by the founding document.

A new monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He notices, however, that they are copying from copies, not the original manuscripts. So, the new monk goes to the head monk to ask him about this. He points out that if there were an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies.

The head monk says, “We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son.” So, he goes down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original. Hours go by and nobody sees him. So, one of the monks goes downstairs to look for him. He hears sobbing coming from the back of the cellar, and finds the old monk leaning over one of the original books crying.

He asks the old monk what’s wrong, and in a choked voice comes the reply…”The word is ‘celebrate.'”

Even in the simple story above it would be tough to change. All those centuries of tradition and the hundreds of collaborating volumes by “great teachers” who based their scholarly works on simple clerical errors. Who would be willing to say their greatest leaders through the ages were mistaken and totally wrong?

So, what was the fatal error or errors of our founding documents that allowed the replication errors to be introduced and never corrected? It’s not as if we were actually making copies of the copies. The original documents are available and other than perhaps the question of a comma or two no one questions the integrity of copies.

I believe there is a single flaw that allowed this to happen. This fatal flaw permeates our state constitutions as well as our U.S. Constitution. That flaw is that there is no punishment for those that violate the Constitution. If a politician votes for a law, another signs the law, the judges, the police, and the prosecutors enforce the law. If it is later declared to be unconstitutional the very worst that happens to all of the people involved is they say, “Whoops.” Hence there is nothing to lose for them when they engage in illegal activities. How can you expect any other outcome than what we have today? Imagine how your children, your employees, employer, your local merchants, your banker, your neighbors, etc. would behave if they could cheat, steal, lie, and injury people and the worst that would happen to them is they had to say, “Whoops, I’m sorry.” That is what has happened to our governments.

I keep wondering how to restore our Constitutions (yes, I remember Jack Anderson’s quote–I deal with him in that post). There needs to be some punishment for those who violated the constitution. But the same judges, prosecutors, and police who violated the constitution would be reluctant to convict themselves. One thing that might work is a separate branch of government whose sole task is to prosecute violators of the constitution. But at this point I don’t think our government needs to get any bigger. I have a better plan. This plan will not only eliminate the problem of unconstitutional laws being passed and enforced it will also reduce the size of government.

Joe’s Enforcement of Enumerated Powers (JEEP) would be implemented as follows:

  • Whosoever shall identify a government employee who is acting under the color of law but outside constitutional boundaries shall post said transgression on a special Internet website.
  • The identified government employee will have seven days to constitutionally justify their actions on the same website, correct their error, or remove themselves from government employment for life.
  • If, after the seven days have elapsed, anyone who does not believe the constitutional justification or correction of the error was adequate may remove said government employee from the gene pool. This shall also apply to anyone that attempts to prevent him from said gene pool cleaning.
  • After successfully cleaning the gene pool the pool cleaner(s) must identify themselves and may post information on the same website to support their actions.
  • After successfully removing the pond scum from the gene pool said pool cleaner(s) will stand trial via a popular election in the jurisdiction of the government employee. Hence in the case of a city mayor being removed from the gene pool the pool cleaner(s) will be judged by the voters of the city. A U.S. Senator would require a state election. A President would require a national election.
  • The criteria for finding the pool cleaner(s) not guilty of murder will be that if 10% or more of the voters, having read the web postings and tested to make sure they actually did read the postings, believe the pool cleaners had probable cause to engage in said pool cleaning the pool cleaners will be declared to have engaged in praiseworthy homicide. Note that is “Probable Cause”, not “Preponderance of Evidence” or “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.
  • If the pool cleaner(s) are found NOT guilty of murder they will receive all of the material assets of the pond scum which they removed from the gene pool.
  • If the pool cleaner(s) are found guilty of murder they will be punished as any other murderer.

Expect a rapid and dramatic reduction in the size of government and strict adherence to the enumerated powers.

See, that wasn’t so tough was it?

Promote JEEP, it’s the for the good of our children.

Quote of the day–Ayn Rand

A perceptual consciousness is unable to believe that ideas can be of personal importance to anyone; it regards ideas as matter of arbitrary choice, as means to some immediate ends. On this view, a man does not seek to be elected to a public office in order to carry out certain policies–he advocates certain policies in order to be elected.

Ayn Rand
Philosophy: Who Needs It, page 49
[I don’t need to point out the application of this quote in the current space-time context.–Joe]

Why do they push irrelevance?

Sebastian asks, “Why is it that anti-gun folks love pushing bills in response to tragedy that would in no way shape or form have even remotely prevented it?”

It probably was a rhetorical question but it fit in so well with the book I’ve been listening to, Philosophy: Who Needs It by Ayn Rand, that I felt compelled to offer some answers.

There are several plausible answers to Sebastian’s question and they are not exclusive, it could be several of them are correct depending on the individual and the tribe they belong to. More on “the tribe” later but first a quote from Rand, page 9:

Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it–intellectually and physically. But it is not a mere political issue; politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas. It is not a communist conspiracy, though some communists may be involved–as maggots cashing in on a disaster they had no power to originate. The motive of the destroyers is not love for communism, but the hatred for America. Why hated? Because America is the living refutation of Kantian universe.

Today’s mawkish concern with and compassion for the feeble, the flawed, the suffering, the guilty, is a cover for the profoundly Kantian hatred of the innocent, the strong, the able, the successful, the virtuous, the confident, the happy. A philosophy out to destroy man’s mind is necessarily a philosophy of hatred for man, for man’s life, and for every human value. Hatred of the good for being good, is the hallmark of the twentieth century. This is the enemy you are facing.

And from page 41, where the tribe reference originates in this post:

As an example of the principle that the rational is the moral, observe that the anti-conceptual is the profoundly anti-moral. The basic commandment of all such groups, which take precedence over any other rules, is: loyalty to the group–not to ideas, but to people; not to the group’s beliefs, which are minimal and chiefly ritualistic, but to the group’s members and leaders. Whether a given member is right or wrong, the others must protect him from outsiders; whether he is innocent or guilty, the others must stand by him against all outsiders; whether he is competent or not, the others must employ him or trade with him in preference to outsiders. Thus a physical qualification–the accident of birth in a given village or tribe–takes precedence over morality and justice. (But the physical is only the most frequent apparent and superficial qualification, since such groups reject the nonconforming children of their own members. The actual qualification is psycho-epistemological: men bound by the same concretes.)

With that background I offer several possible answers to Sebastian’s question. All come, perhaps in a somewhat obscure manner, from the first few chapters of Rand’s book.

  1. Because the gun is a means of individual power and threatens the power of the collective. The more power an individual has the less it needs the collective. They believe the collective is more important than any, and in fact all, individuals and therefore must be suppressed by any means possible to preserve the collective.
  2. The tribe of the people of the gun are outsiders to the tribe of the people of the non-gun. Anything that harms the outsider is good because outsiders are viewed as threats to the tribe.
  3. The question assumes facts not in evidence. In particular the question assumes the anti-gun mind is capable of understanding cause and effect. Therefore the question has little or no meaning within the context of the anti-gun tribe advocating restrictions on guns.
  4. Because they are incapable of distinguishing action from accomplishment. These are the same people that protest, demonstrate, and chant. Action for the sake of action is their “currency”.
  5. The leaders of the anti-gun movement know the truth but also know that the majority of people are so philosophical bankrupt they can be persuaded to use the force of government against innocents to further their own agenda.

Quote of the day–Ben Franklin

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

Ben Franklin
[And behold! There came upon the country the Democrats. Then the Republicans became tempted and they too became as like Democrats. And there was much wailing and sorrow for the righteous knew the end was near.–Joe]

Hitting on all cylinders

In the past there has been some criticism of the NRA’s response to the current administration’s brief in the Heller case. Some thought it was a bit tepid. The latest alerts from the Apex of the Triangle of Death will quiet most critics. Here are some of the points they make:

This post was brought to you by a wheelbarrow full of cash from the Apex of the Triangle of Death.

Quote of the day–Eric Steven Raymond

The U.S., fortunately, is still on a demographic expansion wave and will be till at least 2050. But if the Islamists achieve their dream of nuking “crusader” cities, they’ll make crusaders out of the U.S., too. And this time, a West with a chauvinized America at its head would smite the Saracen with weapons that would destroy entire populations and fuse Mecca into glass. The horror of our victory would echo for a thousand years.

I remain more optimistic than this. I think there is still an excellent chance that the West can recover from suicidalism without going through a fevered fascist episode and waging a genocidal war. But to do so, we have to do more than recognize Stalin’s memes; we have to reject them. We have to eject postmodern leftism from our universities, transnational progressivism from our politics, and volk-Marxism from our media.

Eric Steven Raymond
February 11th, 2006
Gramscian damage
[This quote is nearly two years old but with the current situation of having blantent communists having good chances of winning the White House this fall and Islamic extremists still wanting to nuke our cities Raymond’s excellent post deserves more attention.–Joe]

Quote of the day–geekWithA.45

They are Blue citadels and bastions of power, pure and simple, and the ultimate effect of this proposal is that it exploits the “states making side deals” blind spot in our constitution to implement a bald power grab on the part of the cities.

Having studied history carefully, I’ve got to say that this is the sort of thing that future historians may well file under chapters with grim titles.

geekWithA.45
Converting a Republic to A Mere Majoritarian Exercise…
[There are far to many history chapters with grim titles. Majority rule without “checks and balances” is responsible for a lot of them.–Joe]