America
So, I was thinking a lot about America today over my breakfast of Hawaiian rolls and ham. Well, I was mostly thinking about how America has become very fascist.
I read an article on GrannyD.com in 2002, in which she accused the United States government as turning towards fascism.
I had never heard this connection before, but it has most certainly gotten me thinking. Where is our government going?
Why are they trying to control our children so much? Why is there such an outcry to “Save the Children!” and “Think of the Children!”? Why did that senator accuse the Supreme Court of backing “pedophiles” over “the children” in a case about mandatory filters in public libraries? A case which was trying to prevent porn (not pedophilia) from reaching “innocent” children’s eyes on public computers.
There is a huge movement to get mothers into the workforce as soon as possible, and to provide as excellent daycare programs to them as possible, and to create quality TV programs (the in-house daycare program) for children.
The utopian ideal of this system is that all parents will work 3 to 6 months after the birth of a child, and the child will be raised from 8am to 8pm every day by a quality, government approved daycare personal.
The utopian ideal of this system means that all children will be raised with government ideals, and that every child will virtually have the same parentage!
We all know that children are influenced by those who raise them. Many choose the religion of those who raise them, the prejudices of those who raise them, and the humor, quirks and general outlook on life of those who raise them (or the rebellion there of, depending on personality of the child and/or over bearing attitude of those that raise them). These are all even influenced by the community the child is raised in.
So… if every child is raised the same way, every non-rebeller will believe in all the same things. Be the same “ideal” person.
THAT is fascism. If anyone remembered Mussolini, he abolished any sort of birth control, and encouraged everyone to have many children and education for all! Why? Because he knew that if he could raise a generation of children, they would all be obedient to him and his goals. Opposition would be nearly erased.
So why such an opposition to abortion? Because only those with unplanned pregnancies would have abortions! Only those who have unplanned children would depend crucially on daycare, and government assistance. Hail the government for helping me in my time of great need! Hail the government for taking the burden of responsibility of my child off my shoulders!
If the government is so good and gracious, then people may be more willing to over look what other things the government may be doing, things that not everyone would be so willing to agree with. And then, their children are blindly raised with government ideals.
And without abortion, even more children will be raised by the government.
Conspiracy theory? Sure. But the more blind followers to the government, the easier it is for the government to go to war with another country for monetary (special interest) reasons. Notice how Bush built his backing before going to war with Iraq...
Children aren’t as delicate as the government and parents make them out to be. They are actually quite intelligent beings, and just because one turns 18 doesn’t mean he suddenly understands everything much more clearly and won’t be harmed as easily anymore.
Why do we need special laws to protect them? Isn’t a sexual crime against them just as devastating as a sexual crime against someone over 18? Do you really think children in 3rd grade don’t know about sex yet? Do you really think a child who had not learned from their parents or school about sex won’t start having sexual urges at around 12 years old?
If you do, frankly, you’re an idiot. Sheltering a child for so long, and then letting them lose at 18 is MORE devastating than them gaining the knowledge and understanding of “the bad things in the world” at a younger age. Hell, I lost my viriginity when I was 12, and it's not like I'm a sex-craving maniac. (I understand that some of you would contest that statement.)
But enough about children, this is an article about the American government. The government’s intense interest of children is just one section of the whole.
There is also the problem of corporations becoming a puppeteer to the government.
Lets go back and learn from history, again. Farther back than Mussolini, lets go to early 1400’s Florence. The Medici family, who after only 100 years became the grand dukes of Tuscany - under the rouse that the region was a free republic.
The first Medici, Cosimo, had a lot of money - The corporations of America have a lot of money.
Cosimo wanted things done his way - The corporations of America want to make sure they can do what they need to earn more money.
Cosimo paid off the tax debts of politicians so they could be elected into the government - The corporations of America give money to politicians so they can campaign to get elected into the government (more money, more campaigning, more exposure than rivals, more votes).
Cosimo made the politicians he helped agree to vote the way Cosimo wanted - Have the corporations of America caused the same sort of corruption?
Why not!? Everyone talks about it… “Soft Money” they say. The reformers are trying to take corporation money out of the campaigns so they stop bribing people into voting the way the corporations demand. In 2002, the new minority leader was praised for being a woman, and then questioned because she may be too influenced by money!
What happened with the Medici’s? They were finally elected the Grand Dukes of Tuscany, and became rulers! Hell, even one became a Pope! (The debate about the legitimacy of the Pope and Christianity is another story…)
If the Medici’s could go so far, what is stopping the corporations of America? Honesty? Credibility?
Keep dreaming, kids.
Nothing is stopping them. This whole thing scared Abraham Lincoln, and Roosevelt. And it should most certainly scare you.
What could the corporations be doing that may be harming us? Environment. A new car has been developed that runs solely off hydrogen (essentially… water - hydrogen can easily be made from water) which has an exhaust of water! But, it will be too difficult to get into the market. Don’t imagine you’ll see this baby in decades. Sure, they have electric cars, but they still produce byproducts that aren't 100% good for the environment. (Battery acid is one hell of a toxin.)
ANYTHING that has to do with oil won’t be solved. Oil rakes in A LOT of money. Cars and heating are the biggest expenditure of oil based products, and it produces a lot of environmentally harmful wastes. If you don’t give a damn about the environment, you should still give a damn about oil. Oil is also the only way plastic is made. Plastic is vital not just for your plastic bags, but also for a plethora of necessary medical devices. Next time you go to the hospital, count how many plastic things are helping you or a loved one.
We need our plastic, and at the current consumption rate, we are losing our oil at such a fast rate that we will be completely out of oil in a few decades. Not to mention, we’d then start going into nature reserves to grab that oil, too. Cause more extinction or fewer numbers, which will disrupt the life balance, and probably cause either a minor, or severe problem in a seemingly unrelated place. All of which could be preventable if we would just start using that new car (but it’s too “difficult” they say) and instead, we are using more SUVs (which I have noticed have been hyped in the media for their “coolness” while their gas muzzling problems are barely touched upon).
Oil is also theorized to be the cause of the current “war” against Iraq. Not to mention how strangely this war popped up, when I thought we were in a war against terrorism, the Al-Queda and Osama bin Laden. Now, I expected the American people to suddenly forget Osama’s last name, but I never expected the government to lose sight of it’s goal, leave an unfinished job, and move on to another, seemly random location.
SO WHAT if Saddam Hussein should be put in his place. SO WHAT if he’s a horrible dictator. SO WHAT?
Why am I so pissed off? Because we have other, more important matters to attend to! We need to squash the Al-Queda and Osama bin Laden. We need to make sure nothing like what happened to the WTC happens again. OK, I know that in the past I've said that we deserved the WTC, in terms of what we've done to other countries (karma, if you will), and I still maintain that, but I said that shit about making sure it never happens again solely because that was the underlying cause in Bush's original "let's get 'em" reasoning. Osama bin Laden disappeared, and thought to be dead. Al-Queda seemly lost its integrity, and the Taliban regime was finally put to rest, just as all the people of the Afghanistan petition strove for. We had a lot of loose ends to clean up - you know… the boring job, but important job so that things won’t get recollected!
But… it was all done too quickly, and election time was coming, and corporations were whining about oil. It was all too easy to redirect this war passion towards Iraq. The war against terrorism targeted Saddam Hussein, with promises that it would help against further terrorist attacks. A war elected more republicans into office, which makes it easier for more fascist type rules and regulations be imposed. And a take over of Iraq will give virtually free oil to the corporations.
Way too easy. And the consequences of these actions mean that the Al-Queda has grown strength in becoming numerous individual entities, as opposed to one whole. Osama bin Laden has come out of hiding and announced his praise for the new power of Al-Queda. Millions of people, and many countries are now confused and distrustful of America for its erratic and seemly random outbursts.
And the American government is doing nothing to help these matters. Osama bin Laden and the Al-Queda are virtually forgotten, and resources to fight them are taken away for this war against Iraq. A war which seemly has no current credential. It is suspected that all information supporting a war against Iraq is based on 1991 reports, and a weapons inspector for Iraq even questions the validity of supporting information for a war against Iraq.
Iraq is not a problem for us right now. But it’s a solution for the corporations of America to get more money.
Remember the days when gas used to be under $1? It wasn’t too long ago. Hell, even when I got my license, I wasn't paying more than $1.49 for gas. What happened to raise the price of gas? There wasn’t a war. There wasn’t a shortage. In fact, it was a chain of events that started from a mistake. It was perpetuated and continued out of greed. The corporations are now making even more of a profit because they now know that we will spend this kind of money for our SUVs and cars. They have every ability to lower the price of gas back to the good ‘ole days. Instead, they will lower it 10 cents, and we kiss their feet for their graciousness.
Not only do corporations have their puppets, but the rich also have their significant voice. Why did they get a tax cut? Why does the middle class have their taxes raised? Why can’t the rich handle higher taxes? How good a life do people actually need? If you have shelter, transportation, clothes, food, and a little bit of spending money for fun activities, why do you need so much more?? Why do they need a tax break?!
Why can’t my poor grandmother who has lived on the same piece of land for 20 years get tax relief? It’s not her fault the property value sky rocketed, while her income plummeted!
If environment, war, economics and national relations isn’t vulnerable enough due to the puppeteering of American corporations of the “American Government,” they have even directly risked the safety of the American people!
After September 11th, we did all we could to prevent such a thing from happening again. We banned box cutters, knitting needles, crochet hooks, files, nail clippers and a plethora of other directly, and indirectly probable weapons to risk the safety of an airplane from being within the cabin. What wasn’t banned was lighters and matches. Just three months later, a man almost succeeded in blowing up a plane from lighting plastic explosives on fire.
You can’t say that the FAA had over looked the possible harm that a lighter could cause if they could imagine a hostage scenario using nail clippers. In fact, the FAA didn’t over look lighters and matches. In fact, they had it on their list of things to ban, and the white house told them to take it off.
All because Tobacco companies’ were afraid of a loss of sales if customers couldn’t get their cig fix after a long journey on an airplane that is completely smoke free.
Yes… if it weren’t for the wit and bravery of several occupants on that plane, 200 lost lives would have been put SQUARELY and heavily on the shoulders of the tobacco companies.
Michael Moore would like to have you believe that the terrorist threat is not much of a threat if the white house could risk the safety of it’s citizens. He believes that Bush must have some compassion to save the lives of his citizens. But quite frankly, I’m beginning to doubt that. He believes that the only reason why Bush could have caved to the Tobacco companies’ wishes was because he knew there was no real terrorist threat. But just three months later, a terrorist tried to do the very thing the Tobacco companies’ allowed him to!
If our government can play deadly games with countries - fund Iraq to have a war with Iran, and then give Iran weapons for the war against Iraq - where innocent people from other countries are killed, and their life and liberty demolished by strange and absurd meddling in other countries’ affairs, why would our government care so much more about us? We’re just voters and buyers. Hell, most of the people who died on September 11th were probably non-republican anyway. No real threat.
September 11th then created a confused frenzy. It made Bush seem like a hero - because he did the things any normal human being would do. It created war, war creates national pride, national pride creates national protection, extreme national protection starts taking away from individual rights. If you keep that going long enough, no one will notice when too many individual rights are taken away on a permanent basis - lack of personal rights means the government has more control on it’s citizens, making everyone seem virtually the same.
Do we really want this to happen? It’s where it’s going. Why else would the government try to squash the weird homosexual, divorce, etc., etc. It’s like they are trying to impose a stringent, Taliban-like morality upon it’s people.
I thought we hated the Taliban. Then why are we heading in that direction?
If you read my journal way back when (on a different account) about September 11th, then you’ll see my argument about how non-politically oriented the American public is. We don’t listen to what’s going on, and we have a large amount of blind followers because they don’t have the time, resources, and sometimes brain power to do the research.
The political parties controlling our government have problems.
Those who support the republicans normally say so because the republican party strives to keep the government as distant from the public as possible, and keep its hands out of the public’s pocket. But, the republican politicians are the ones voting for fascist ideals, and trying to control the public and their children by creating more rules and regulations.
Those who support the democrats normally say so because the democratic party strives to oppose the republicans, raise taxes for more public resources and overall be more liberal and open to new ideas. But, the democratic politicians are the ones voting with the republicans, lowering taxes for the rich and are moving farther and farther away from the liberal angel.
In fact, Michael Moore had quite a good argument in his book, Stupid White Men, that democrats are becoming more and more republicans in disguise!
Blind followers of republicans keep repeatedly voting for republicans under the rouse of getting the government out of their faces, while blind followers of democrats keep repeatedly voting for democrats without noticing they are really voting for a republican in disguise!
Then, there are the people who really think about their actions. People who currently support the direction the republican party is actually going in, enforcing more rules and regulations, and they vote desperately for them and support them adamantly.
But, the people who really think about their actions who are on the liberal side have problems. Their votes are split in MANY different directions! You can vote for the democrats, the reform ticket, the independents or the greens!
When that happens, 30% could vote for the republicans, 29% could vote for the democrats, 15% independent, 10% reform ticket, 10% green and 6% other. Despite the fact that the majority voted for a liberal government, it would be the extreme-right (fascist) republicans that would win.
This is not representative of the people’s wishes, now is it?
You know the situation is bad when Ralph Nader, the Green candidate, was considering NOT running for presidency in 2004 because he doesn’t want Bush to be president again. He knew he was taking away votes from the democrats. He knew if he continued to do so, the above example would happen, and extreme-right republicans wouldd continue to get in office.
He was so concerned about the state of the American government, that instead of fighting more fiercely to get into the government, he considered stepping aside! He knew a green woul not get into congress or be president in any election in the near future, and knew the only one who had a chance was a democrat.
So I ask again, what is going on here? Is there corruption? Or is there perhaps corruption within the conspiracy theory of corruption?
Can we ever solve this problem?and about the "nuclear" option.
It’s been more than a quarter century since a simple majority of the U.S. Senate has employed a parliamentary procedure ominously known as the "nuclear option" to effect a change in the body’s Standing Rules. Back then, in 1975, it was a bare Democratic majority that mustered the will to force a change in Rule XXII, the "cloture rule," decreasing the number of votes required to break a filibuster from two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 votes, to the current level of three-fifths of the body, or 60 votes.
Now, 28 years later, it might be the Republican majority that exercises its constitutional prerogative to "determine the rules of [Senate] proceedings" by employing the "nuclear option" to remove the executive calendar - business sent to the Senate from the White House, such as treaties, executive nominees and judicial nominees - from the purview of Rule XXII, thus ending the ability of a Senate minority to indefinitely obstruct confirmation votes on judicial nominees who have secured the necessary majority support.
The basic problem is as follows. Standing Rule XXII provides for unlimited debate in the Senate until a cloture motion for ending debate is filed and the question is "decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn." Thus, proceeding to a final yea-or-nay floor vote on a piece of legislation, a nomination, or virtually any other question can be prevented whenever there are at least 41 Senators unwilling or unavailable to vote in favor of ending debate.
The hurdles for the majority don’t end there. Rule XXII also states that if the "measure or motion" being debated is "to amend the Senate rules," including the cloture rule, then "the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting." In other words, a bare majority wishing to end debate and proceed to a final up-or-down vote faces a Catch-22 under Rule XXII because, so long as a 41-member minority wishes to prevent such a final resolution, the majority can neither end debate and force a floor vote nor can the majority change the Rule to reduce the supermajority requirement.
This difficulty is only exacerbated by the fact that, under Rule V, the Senate deigns itself a continuing body and, as a result, does not offer an opportunity for the majority of each newly composed Senate to ratify, amend, or repeal the Standing Rules carried over from previous Congresses. Thus, Rule XXII presents a majoritarian conundrum: Not only do the anti-majoritarian rules enacted by a simple majority of a previous Senate bind the current Senate, but a current majority cannot even change those previously adopted rules without the consent of a supermajority.
Enter the U.S. Constitution.
It has long been a principle of Anglo-American constitutional law that a previous legislature cannot bind a subsequent legislature. Indeed, the maxim dates all the way back to Sir William Blackstone, who cited Cicero in his Commentaries on the Laws of England for the proposition that "Acts of parliament derogatory from the power of subsequent parliaments bind not. … Because the legislature, being in truth the sovereign power, is always of equal, always of absolute authority: it acknowledges no superior upon earth, which the prior legislature must have been, if its ordinances could bind the present parliament."
The U.S. Supreme Court, likewise, has held that legislative entrenchment constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of power in a long line of cases dating all the way back to the mid-19th Century. Specifically, the High Court has ruled that "[e]very succeeding Legislature possesses the same jurisdiction and power … as its predecessors. The latter must have the same power of repeal and modification which the former had of enactment, neither more nor less. All occupy, in this respect, a footing of perfect equality. … A different result is fraught with evil." Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U.S. 548, 559 (1880). Thus, it is far from surprising that, according to the Supreme Court, "the will of a particular Congress … does not impose itself upon those that follow in succeeding years." Reichelderfer v. Quinn, 287 U.S. 315, 318 (1932).
This constitutional principle against legislative entrenchment has both theoretical and practical implications for Standing Rule XXII.
On the theoretical level, the cloture rule is presumptively unconstitutional, as outlined in a Stanford Law Review article authored by Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk, of the University of Southern California and Loyola Law Schools, respectively. See Erwin Chemerinsky & Catherine Fisk, The Filibuster, 49 Stan. L. Rev. 181 (1997).
According to Professors Chemerinsky and Fisk, "The conclusion that emerges is clear: laws and rules that restrict changes by future legislatures are unconstitutional. This view has been followed by the Supreme Court throughout American history and it is supported by compelling arguments. As such, Rule XXII is unconstitutional in requiring that any revision be by a two-thirds margin."
Their conclusion is bolstered not only by the same long line of Supreme Court cases, but also by the text of the U.S. Constitution itself, which explicitly sets forth only seven instances in which supermajority votes are necessary for the federal legislature to act and states that the "Vice President of the United States" shall break ties in the Senate when "they be equally divided."
The clear import of these provisions is that Congressional action, in both the House and Senate, is to be by simple majority, except in the seven instances specifically listed in the Constitution. After all, according to the canon of construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius, or literally "inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others," the enumeration of one thing in the Constitution implies the exclusion of another.
On the practical front, the constitutional rule against legislative entrenchment means that it must be possible for the current Senate to amend, repeal, or ratify Standing Rule XXII by a simple majority vote of the body. According to Professors Chemerinsky and Fisk, "The effect of declaring [legislative entrenchment] unconstitutional is that the current Senate could change Rule XXII by majority vote. In other words, a majority of this Senate could eliminate the filibuster if a majority wished to do so."
This is the so-called "nuclear option."
The way this procedural maneuver would work - as it did in 1975 - would be that, at the time of a cloture vote to end debate, the Senate majority would secure a ruling from the chair that Standing Rule XXII does not apply. The chair, likely the Vice President, would probably agree and rule in favor of the majority. The issue would then be brought to a vote, and the minority, probably through the Minority Leader, would note that the issue is debatable and, hence, also subject to a filibuster.
The parliamentarian, relying on Senate precedent, would agree. The chair would then recognize a non-debatable motion to table. At this point, the majority could overrule the anti-majoritarian precedent, uphold the ruling of the chair, and proceed to a final yea-or-nay vote on the original question by securing a simple majority vote in favor of the motion to table.
If all that seems complex, it is. But the basic import of such procedural maneuvering is that a simple majority of the current Senate can force a change in Rule XXII to reduce the supermajoritarian cloture requirement, thus making it possible to end debate by simple majority vote.
With a Senate minority now obstructing up-or-down floor votes on several judicial nominations and other nominations languishing for hundreds of days under the threat of filibusters, all while there is a vacancy crisis plaguing the federal appellate bench, the time has certainly come for the Senate majority to seriously consider re-exercising the "nuclear option."
The irony is that the very majoritarian rule suggested by the text of the Constitution is deemed "nuclear" by those who have sworn an oath to uphold "the supreme Law of the Land."
Anyways, life a boring over here, but we're down to 49 days. That's right, a mere 7 weeks. I'm currently preparing myself ramen. It smells very yummy. I'm not in a great mood, but that's not really a surprise, all things considered. Anyways, peace out kids.
I read an article on GrannyD.com in 2002, in which she accused the United States government as turning towards fascism.
I had never heard this connection before, but it has most certainly gotten me thinking. Where is our government going?
Why are they trying to control our children so much? Why is there such an outcry to “Save the Children!” and “Think of the Children!”? Why did that senator accuse the Supreme Court of backing “pedophiles” over “the children” in a case about mandatory filters in public libraries? A case which was trying to prevent porn (not pedophilia) from reaching “innocent” children’s eyes on public computers.
There is a huge movement to get mothers into the workforce as soon as possible, and to provide as excellent daycare programs to them as possible, and to create quality TV programs (the in-house daycare program) for children.
The utopian ideal of this system is that all parents will work 3 to 6 months after the birth of a child, and the child will be raised from 8am to 8pm every day by a quality, government approved daycare personal.
The utopian ideal of this system means that all children will be raised with government ideals, and that every child will virtually have the same parentage!
We all know that children are influenced by those who raise them. Many choose the religion of those who raise them, the prejudices of those who raise them, and the humor, quirks and general outlook on life of those who raise them (or the rebellion there of, depending on personality of the child and/or over bearing attitude of those that raise them). These are all even influenced by the community the child is raised in.
So… if every child is raised the same way, every non-rebeller will believe in all the same things. Be the same “ideal” person.
THAT is fascism. If anyone remembered Mussolini, he abolished any sort of birth control, and encouraged everyone to have many children and education for all! Why? Because he knew that if he could raise a generation of children, they would all be obedient to him and his goals. Opposition would be nearly erased.
So why such an opposition to abortion? Because only those with unplanned pregnancies would have abortions! Only those who have unplanned children would depend crucially on daycare, and government assistance. Hail the government for helping me in my time of great need! Hail the government for taking the burden of responsibility of my child off my shoulders!
If the government is so good and gracious, then people may be more willing to over look what other things the government may be doing, things that not everyone would be so willing to agree with. And then, their children are blindly raised with government ideals.
And without abortion, even more children will be raised by the government.
Conspiracy theory? Sure. But the more blind followers to the government, the easier it is for the government to go to war with another country for monetary (special interest) reasons. Notice how Bush built his backing before going to war with Iraq...
Children aren’t as delicate as the government and parents make them out to be. They are actually quite intelligent beings, and just because one turns 18 doesn’t mean he suddenly understands everything much more clearly and won’t be harmed as easily anymore.
Why do we need special laws to protect them? Isn’t a sexual crime against them just as devastating as a sexual crime against someone over 18? Do you really think children in 3rd grade don’t know about sex yet? Do you really think a child who had not learned from their parents or school about sex won’t start having sexual urges at around 12 years old?
If you do, frankly, you’re an idiot. Sheltering a child for so long, and then letting them lose at 18 is MORE devastating than them gaining the knowledge and understanding of “the bad things in the world” at a younger age. Hell, I lost my viriginity when I was 12, and it's not like I'm a sex-craving maniac. (I understand that some of you would contest that statement.)
But enough about children, this is an article about the American government. The government’s intense interest of children is just one section of the whole.
There is also the problem of corporations becoming a puppeteer to the government.
Lets go back and learn from history, again. Farther back than Mussolini, lets go to early 1400’s Florence. The Medici family, who after only 100 years became the grand dukes of Tuscany - under the rouse that the region was a free republic.
The first Medici, Cosimo, had a lot of money - The corporations of America have a lot of money.
Cosimo wanted things done his way - The corporations of America want to make sure they can do what they need to earn more money.
Cosimo paid off the tax debts of politicians so they could be elected into the government - The corporations of America give money to politicians so they can campaign to get elected into the government (more money, more campaigning, more exposure than rivals, more votes).
Cosimo made the politicians he helped agree to vote the way Cosimo wanted - Have the corporations of America caused the same sort of corruption?
Why not!? Everyone talks about it… “Soft Money” they say. The reformers are trying to take corporation money out of the campaigns so they stop bribing people into voting the way the corporations demand. In 2002, the new minority leader was praised for being a woman, and then questioned because she may be too influenced by money!
What happened with the Medici’s? They were finally elected the Grand Dukes of Tuscany, and became rulers! Hell, even one became a Pope! (The debate about the legitimacy of the Pope and Christianity is another story…)
If the Medici’s could go so far, what is stopping the corporations of America? Honesty? Credibility?
Keep dreaming, kids.
Nothing is stopping them. This whole thing scared Abraham Lincoln, and Roosevelt. And it should most certainly scare you.
What could the corporations be doing that may be harming us? Environment. A new car has been developed that runs solely off hydrogen (essentially… water - hydrogen can easily be made from water) which has an exhaust of water! But, it will be too difficult to get into the market. Don’t imagine you’ll see this baby in decades. Sure, they have electric cars, but they still produce byproducts that aren't 100% good for the environment. (Battery acid is one hell of a toxin.)
ANYTHING that has to do with oil won’t be solved. Oil rakes in A LOT of money. Cars and heating are the biggest expenditure of oil based products, and it produces a lot of environmentally harmful wastes. If you don’t give a damn about the environment, you should still give a damn about oil. Oil is also the only way plastic is made. Plastic is vital not just for your plastic bags, but also for a plethora of necessary medical devices. Next time you go to the hospital, count how many plastic things are helping you or a loved one.
We need our plastic, and at the current consumption rate, we are losing our oil at such a fast rate that we will be completely out of oil in a few decades. Not to mention, we’d then start going into nature reserves to grab that oil, too. Cause more extinction or fewer numbers, which will disrupt the life balance, and probably cause either a minor, or severe problem in a seemingly unrelated place. All of which could be preventable if we would just start using that new car (but it’s too “difficult” they say) and instead, we are using more SUVs (which I have noticed have been hyped in the media for their “coolness” while their gas muzzling problems are barely touched upon).
Oil is also theorized to be the cause of the current “war” against Iraq. Not to mention how strangely this war popped up, when I thought we were in a war against terrorism, the Al-Queda and Osama bin Laden. Now, I expected the American people to suddenly forget Osama’s last name, but I never expected the government to lose sight of it’s goal, leave an unfinished job, and move on to another, seemly random location.
SO WHAT if Saddam Hussein should be put in his place. SO WHAT if he’s a horrible dictator. SO WHAT?
Why am I so pissed off? Because we have other, more important matters to attend to! We need to squash the Al-Queda and Osama bin Laden. We need to make sure nothing like what happened to the WTC happens again. OK, I know that in the past I've said that we deserved the WTC, in terms of what we've done to other countries (karma, if you will), and I still maintain that, but I said that shit about making sure it never happens again solely because that was the underlying cause in Bush's original "let's get 'em" reasoning. Osama bin Laden disappeared, and thought to be dead. Al-Queda seemly lost its integrity, and the Taliban regime was finally put to rest, just as all the people of the Afghanistan petition strove for. We had a lot of loose ends to clean up - you know… the boring job, but important job so that things won’t get recollected!
But… it was all done too quickly, and election time was coming, and corporations were whining about oil. It was all too easy to redirect this war passion towards Iraq. The war against terrorism targeted Saddam Hussein, with promises that it would help against further terrorist attacks. A war elected more republicans into office, which makes it easier for more fascist type rules and regulations be imposed. And a take over of Iraq will give virtually free oil to the corporations.
Way too easy. And the consequences of these actions mean that the Al-Queda has grown strength in becoming numerous individual entities, as opposed to one whole. Osama bin Laden has come out of hiding and announced his praise for the new power of Al-Queda. Millions of people, and many countries are now confused and distrustful of America for its erratic and seemly random outbursts.
And the American government is doing nothing to help these matters. Osama bin Laden and the Al-Queda are virtually forgotten, and resources to fight them are taken away for this war against Iraq. A war which seemly has no current credential. It is suspected that all information supporting a war against Iraq is based on 1991 reports, and a weapons inspector for Iraq even questions the validity of supporting information for a war against Iraq.
Iraq is not a problem for us right now. But it’s a solution for the corporations of America to get more money.
Remember the days when gas used to be under $1? It wasn’t too long ago. Hell, even when I got my license, I wasn't paying more than $1.49 for gas. What happened to raise the price of gas? There wasn’t a war. There wasn’t a shortage. In fact, it was a chain of events that started from a mistake. It was perpetuated and continued out of greed. The corporations are now making even more of a profit because they now know that we will spend this kind of money for our SUVs and cars. They have every ability to lower the price of gas back to the good ‘ole days. Instead, they will lower it 10 cents, and we kiss their feet for their graciousness.
Not only do corporations have their puppets, but the rich also have their significant voice. Why did they get a tax cut? Why does the middle class have their taxes raised? Why can’t the rich handle higher taxes? How good a life do people actually need? If you have shelter, transportation, clothes, food, and a little bit of spending money for fun activities, why do you need so much more?? Why do they need a tax break?!
Why can’t my poor grandmother who has lived on the same piece of land for 20 years get tax relief? It’s not her fault the property value sky rocketed, while her income plummeted!
If environment, war, economics and national relations isn’t vulnerable enough due to the puppeteering of American corporations of the “American Government,” they have even directly risked the safety of the American people!
After September 11th, we did all we could to prevent such a thing from happening again. We banned box cutters, knitting needles, crochet hooks, files, nail clippers and a plethora of other directly, and indirectly probable weapons to risk the safety of an airplane from being within the cabin. What wasn’t banned was lighters and matches. Just three months later, a man almost succeeded in blowing up a plane from lighting plastic explosives on fire.
You can’t say that the FAA had over looked the possible harm that a lighter could cause if they could imagine a hostage scenario using nail clippers. In fact, the FAA didn’t over look lighters and matches. In fact, they had it on their list of things to ban, and the white house told them to take it off.
All because Tobacco companies’ were afraid of a loss of sales if customers couldn’t get their cig fix after a long journey on an airplane that is completely smoke free.
Yes… if it weren’t for the wit and bravery of several occupants on that plane, 200 lost lives would have been put SQUARELY and heavily on the shoulders of the tobacco companies.
Michael Moore would like to have you believe that the terrorist threat is not much of a threat if the white house could risk the safety of it’s citizens. He believes that Bush must have some compassion to save the lives of his citizens. But quite frankly, I’m beginning to doubt that. He believes that the only reason why Bush could have caved to the Tobacco companies’ wishes was because he knew there was no real terrorist threat. But just three months later, a terrorist tried to do the very thing the Tobacco companies’ allowed him to!
If our government can play deadly games with countries - fund Iraq to have a war with Iran, and then give Iran weapons for the war against Iraq - where innocent people from other countries are killed, and their life and liberty demolished by strange and absurd meddling in other countries’ affairs, why would our government care so much more about us? We’re just voters and buyers. Hell, most of the people who died on September 11th were probably non-republican anyway. No real threat.
September 11th then created a confused frenzy. It made Bush seem like a hero - because he did the things any normal human being would do. It created war, war creates national pride, national pride creates national protection, extreme national protection starts taking away from individual rights. If you keep that going long enough, no one will notice when too many individual rights are taken away on a permanent basis - lack of personal rights means the government has more control on it’s citizens, making everyone seem virtually the same.
Do we really want this to happen? It’s where it’s going. Why else would the government try to squash the weird homosexual, divorce, etc., etc. It’s like they are trying to impose a stringent, Taliban-like morality upon it’s people.
I thought we hated the Taliban. Then why are we heading in that direction?
If you read my journal way back when (on a different account) about September 11th, then you’ll see my argument about how non-politically oriented the American public is. We don’t listen to what’s going on, and we have a large amount of blind followers because they don’t have the time, resources, and sometimes brain power to do the research.
The political parties controlling our government have problems.
Those who support the republicans normally say so because the republican party strives to keep the government as distant from the public as possible, and keep its hands out of the public’s pocket. But, the republican politicians are the ones voting for fascist ideals, and trying to control the public and their children by creating more rules and regulations.
Those who support the democrats normally say so because the democratic party strives to oppose the republicans, raise taxes for more public resources and overall be more liberal and open to new ideas. But, the democratic politicians are the ones voting with the republicans, lowering taxes for the rich and are moving farther and farther away from the liberal angel.
In fact, Michael Moore had quite a good argument in his book, Stupid White Men, that democrats are becoming more and more republicans in disguise!
Blind followers of republicans keep repeatedly voting for republicans under the rouse of getting the government out of their faces, while blind followers of democrats keep repeatedly voting for democrats without noticing they are really voting for a republican in disguise!
Then, there are the people who really think about their actions. People who currently support the direction the republican party is actually going in, enforcing more rules and regulations, and they vote desperately for them and support them adamantly.
But, the people who really think about their actions who are on the liberal side have problems. Their votes are split in MANY different directions! You can vote for the democrats, the reform ticket, the independents or the greens!
When that happens, 30% could vote for the republicans, 29% could vote for the democrats, 15% independent, 10% reform ticket, 10% green and 6% other. Despite the fact that the majority voted for a liberal government, it would be the extreme-right (fascist) republicans that would win.
This is not representative of the people’s wishes, now is it?
You know the situation is bad when Ralph Nader, the Green candidate, was considering NOT running for presidency in 2004 because he doesn’t want Bush to be president again. He knew he was taking away votes from the democrats. He knew if he continued to do so, the above example would happen, and extreme-right republicans wouldd continue to get in office.
He was so concerned about the state of the American government, that instead of fighting more fiercely to get into the government, he considered stepping aside! He knew a green woul not get into congress or be president in any election in the near future, and knew the only one who had a chance was a democrat.
So I ask again, what is going on here? Is there corruption? Or is there perhaps corruption within the conspiracy theory of corruption?
Can we ever solve this problem?and about the "nuclear" option.
It’s been more than a quarter century since a simple majority of the U.S. Senate has employed a parliamentary procedure ominously known as the "nuclear option" to effect a change in the body’s Standing Rules. Back then, in 1975, it was a bare Democratic majority that mustered the will to force a change in Rule XXII, the "cloture rule," decreasing the number of votes required to break a filibuster from two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 votes, to the current level of three-fifths of the body, or 60 votes.
Now, 28 years later, it might be the Republican majority that exercises its constitutional prerogative to "determine the rules of [Senate] proceedings" by employing the "nuclear option" to remove the executive calendar - business sent to the Senate from the White House, such as treaties, executive nominees and judicial nominees - from the purview of Rule XXII, thus ending the ability of a Senate minority to indefinitely obstruct confirmation votes on judicial nominees who have secured the necessary majority support.
The basic problem is as follows. Standing Rule XXII provides for unlimited debate in the Senate until a cloture motion for ending debate is filed and the question is "decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn." Thus, proceeding to a final yea-or-nay floor vote on a piece of legislation, a nomination, or virtually any other question can be prevented whenever there are at least 41 Senators unwilling or unavailable to vote in favor of ending debate.
The hurdles for the majority don’t end there. Rule XXII also states that if the "measure or motion" being debated is "to amend the Senate rules," including the cloture rule, then "the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting." In other words, a bare majority wishing to end debate and proceed to a final up-or-down vote faces a Catch-22 under Rule XXII because, so long as a 41-member minority wishes to prevent such a final resolution, the majority can neither end debate and force a floor vote nor can the majority change the Rule to reduce the supermajority requirement.
This difficulty is only exacerbated by the fact that, under Rule V, the Senate deigns itself a continuing body and, as a result, does not offer an opportunity for the majority of each newly composed Senate to ratify, amend, or repeal the Standing Rules carried over from previous Congresses. Thus, Rule XXII presents a majoritarian conundrum: Not only do the anti-majoritarian rules enacted by a simple majority of a previous Senate bind the current Senate, but a current majority cannot even change those previously adopted rules without the consent of a supermajority.
Enter the U.S. Constitution.
It has long been a principle of Anglo-American constitutional law that a previous legislature cannot bind a subsequent legislature. Indeed, the maxim dates all the way back to Sir William Blackstone, who cited Cicero in his Commentaries on the Laws of England for the proposition that "Acts of parliament derogatory from the power of subsequent parliaments bind not. … Because the legislature, being in truth the sovereign power, is always of equal, always of absolute authority: it acknowledges no superior upon earth, which the prior legislature must have been, if its ordinances could bind the present parliament."
The U.S. Supreme Court, likewise, has held that legislative entrenchment constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of power in a long line of cases dating all the way back to the mid-19th Century. Specifically, the High Court has ruled that "[e]very succeeding Legislature possesses the same jurisdiction and power … as its predecessors. The latter must have the same power of repeal and modification which the former had of enactment, neither more nor less. All occupy, in this respect, a footing of perfect equality. … A different result is fraught with evil." Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U.S. 548, 559 (1880). Thus, it is far from surprising that, according to the Supreme Court, "the will of a particular Congress … does not impose itself upon those that follow in succeeding years." Reichelderfer v. Quinn, 287 U.S. 315, 318 (1932).
This constitutional principle against legislative entrenchment has both theoretical and practical implications for Standing Rule XXII.
On the theoretical level, the cloture rule is presumptively unconstitutional, as outlined in a Stanford Law Review article authored by Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk, of the University of Southern California and Loyola Law Schools, respectively. See Erwin Chemerinsky & Catherine Fisk, The Filibuster, 49 Stan. L. Rev. 181 (1997).
According to Professors Chemerinsky and Fisk, "The conclusion that emerges is clear: laws and rules that restrict changes by future legislatures are unconstitutional. This view has been followed by the Supreme Court throughout American history and it is supported by compelling arguments. As such, Rule XXII is unconstitutional in requiring that any revision be by a two-thirds margin."
Their conclusion is bolstered not only by the same long line of Supreme Court cases, but also by the text of the U.S. Constitution itself, which explicitly sets forth only seven instances in which supermajority votes are necessary for the federal legislature to act and states that the "Vice President of the United States" shall break ties in the Senate when "they be equally divided."
The clear import of these provisions is that Congressional action, in both the House and Senate, is to be by simple majority, except in the seven instances specifically listed in the Constitution. After all, according to the canon of construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius, or literally "inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others," the enumeration of one thing in the Constitution implies the exclusion of another.
On the practical front, the constitutional rule against legislative entrenchment means that it must be possible for the current Senate to amend, repeal, or ratify Standing Rule XXII by a simple majority vote of the body. According to Professors Chemerinsky and Fisk, "The effect of declaring [legislative entrenchment] unconstitutional is that the current Senate could change Rule XXII by majority vote. In other words, a majority of this Senate could eliminate the filibuster if a majority wished to do so."
This is the so-called "nuclear option."
The way this procedural maneuver would work - as it did in 1975 - would be that, at the time of a cloture vote to end debate, the Senate majority would secure a ruling from the chair that Standing Rule XXII does not apply. The chair, likely the Vice President, would probably agree and rule in favor of the majority. The issue would then be brought to a vote, and the minority, probably through the Minority Leader, would note that the issue is debatable and, hence, also subject to a filibuster.
The parliamentarian, relying on Senate precedent, would agree. The chair would then recognize a non-debatable motion to table. At this point, the majority could overrule the anti-majoritarian precedent, uphold the ruling of the chair, and proceed to a final yea-or-nay vote on the original question by securing a simple majority vote in favor of the motion to table.
If all that seems complex, it is. But the basic import of such procedural maneuvering is that a simple majority of the current Senate can force a change in Rule XXII to reduce the supermajoritarian cloture requirement, thus making it possible to end debate by simple majority vote.
With a Senate minority now obstructing up-or-down floor votes on several judicial nominations and other nominations languishing for hundreds of days under the threat of filibusters, all while there is a vacancy crisis plaguing the federal appellate bench, the time has certainly come for the Senate majority to seriously consider re-exercising the "nuclear option."
The irony is that the very majoritarian rule suggested by the text of the Constitution is deemed "nuclear" by those who have sworn an oath to uphold "the supreme Law of the Land."
Anyways, life a boring over here, but we're down to 49 days. That's right, a mere 7 weeks. I'm currently preparing myself ramen. It smells very yummy. I'm not in a great mood, but that's not really a surprise, all things considered. Anyways, peace out kids.