Something made me turn my attention to this song once again. Yes, I've posted a few times about this song by the rock group Rush.
This time, I thought I might dig a little deeper into the song.
It appears to be about atheism. You can certainly take it that way. However, you can take it another way as well.
Life is a mystery. "Why does it happen?". A question that cannot be answered. "Why are we here?" Same thing. You can take the stand based upon faith, which he criticizes. Or you can take the stand that life is just a random thing with no meaning, nor order. The author seems to take the latter rather than the former. If he were to be brutally honest, he cannot answer so convincingly as he seems to here. How would you know that there's a meaning, or no meaning, simply because you do not understand "why it happens"? The author recognizes some of his limitations, but then tramples right over his own conclusions by saying that he knows.
May I offer a theory on why he does that? To sell records! Nobody wants disorder. To claim order in the midst of chaos that one claims exists is a contradiction. Therefore, he takes a stand. If he were to be honest, he could only express doubt. But if he did that, he would not sell any of his records. People like certainty, and hate doubt. That's my theory, anyhow.
The only advice offered is to get busy. Life is to be lived, not understood. The deeper meanings may well be beyond our comprehension. But that doesn't sell very well.
Here's the lyrics:
Well, you can stake that claim
Good work is the key to good fortune
Winners take that praise
Losers seldom take that blame [comment: how true ]
If they don't take that game
And sometimes the winner takes nothing
We draw our own designs
But fortune has to make that frame [comment: best laid plans can go awry]
We go out in the world and take our chances
Fate is just the weight of circumstances
That's the way that Lady Luck dances
Roll the bones
Why are we here?
Because we're here
Roll the bones [ comment: atheism ]
Why does it happen?
Because it happens
Roll the bones
Faith is cold as ice
Why are little ones born only to suffer
For the want of immunity
Or a bowl of rice? [comment: cannot explain the why's of existence]
Well, who would hold a price
On the heads of the innocent children
If there's some immortal power
To control the dice? [comment: doubts that any omnipotent being controls destinies]
We come into the world and take our chances
Fate is just the weight of circumstances
That's the way that lady luck dances
Roll the bones
Jack, relax
Get busy with the facts
No zodiacs or almanacs
No maniacs in polyester slacks
Just the facts
Gonna kick some Gluteus max
It's a parallax, you dig?
You move around
The small gets big, it's a rig
It's action, reaction
Random interaction
So who's afraid
Of a little abstraction?
Can't get no satisfaction
From the facts?
You better run, homeboy
A fact's a fact
From Nome to Rome, boy
What's the deal, spin the wheel
If the dice are hot, take a shot
Play your cards, show us what you got
What you're holding
If the cards are cold
Don't go folding
Lady Luck is golden
She favors the bold, that's cold
Stop throwing stones
The night has a thousand saxophones
So get out there and rock
And roll the bones
Get busy
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, April 6, 2019
'ol bug eyes
Actually, she sounds like a 12 year old. Good reason for that, she has the mentality of a 12 year old.
Liberals used to be funny, but the cuteness has worn off.
Liberals used to be funny, but the cuteness has worn off.
Ocasio-Cortez slams critics for mocking her voice https://t.co/UrEbIMMdkN via @nypost— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) April 6, 2019
Friday, April 5, 2019
The end of Western Civilization, or the end of an era?
I make a lot of comparisons of America with Rome. Rome was a republic. America is still mostly a republic.
As Rome moved forward in time, it became an empire, with an emperor. Is that in America's future?
It does appear that way. The trend is toward more and more centralized government dominated by Washington DC. The federal republic is being slowly degraded over time, as the government in that quasi city-state continues to amass power unto itself.
The framers of the Constitution were right about not trusting politicians. The checks and balances were written into the document because of this basic distrust. If "we the people" could trust politicians, then why have any checks and balances at all?
These checks and balances are still there, but there doesn't seem to be the will to use those powers. If those powers aren't going to be used, then they will be lost. An end to the Republican era, but what about the civilization that remains?
It seems that the military is still in good shape. It would be difficult to beat the United States in a war. Even if that happened, it would be a Pyrrhic Victory. As long as this holds, and nobody can really win a war, the United States will still exist as an civilization. But what it will be like is another matter altogether.
Republic or empire?
As Rome moved forward in time, it became an empire, with an emperor. Is that in America's future?
It does appear that way. The trend is toward more and more centralized government dominated by Washington DC. The federal republic is being slowly degraded over time, as the government in that quasi city-state continues to amass power unto itself.
The framers of the Constitution were right about not trusting politicians. The checks and balances were written into the document because of this basic distrust. If "we the people" could trust politicians, then why have any checks and balances at all?
These checks and balances are still there, but there doesn't seem to be the will to use those powers. If those powers aren't going to be used, then they will be lost. An end to the Republican era, but what about the civilization that remains?
It seems that the military is still in good shape. It would be difficult to beat the United States in a war. Even if that happened, it would be a Pyrrhic Victory. As long as this holds, and nobody can really win a war, the United States will still exist as an civilization. But what it will be like is another matter altogether.
Republic or empire?
Thursday, April 4, 2019
Obligatory, 4.4.19
One news item that I didn't mention was the political outlook for Trump seems to be getting better all the time.
That might take the edge off the gloom and doom type stuff that I posted yesterday.
But it isn't going to change the fundamental trend unless the Trump presidency can become a movement that spans over time. If it doesn't, then we'll see a repeat of what happened after Reagan gave way to Bush. Bush managed to squander the GOP unity and success that followed the Reagan years. The Democrats were disarray, and were about to sink into oblivion until Bush rescued them.
The news item that I mentioned in the first sentence was that Trump's polling is finally all positive. What I mean by that is that he strong support v. strong opposition is now in plus territory. For the first two years, I don't think he has had that good of a Rasmussen poll number. I checked today's number, and it is back under water at -2. But that number may be trending up, as yesterday's was plus one.
That might take the edge off the gloom and doom type stuff that I posted yesterday.
But it isn't going to change the fundamental trend unless the Trump presidency can become a movement that spans over time. If it doesn't, then we'll see a repeat of what happened after Reagan gave way to Bush. Bush managed to squander the GOP unity and success that followed the Reagan years. The Democrats were disarray, and were about to sink into oblivion until Bush rescued them.
The news item that I mentioned in the first sentence was that Trump's polling is finally all positive. What I mean by that is that he strong support v. strong opposition is now in plus territory. For the first two years, I don't think he has had that good of a Rasmussen poll number. I checked today's number, and it is back under water at -2. But that number may be trending up, as yesterday's was plus one.
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Quick Review of Why Things Are Falling Apart
Originally posted 2.13.13, updated on,
4.3.19:
A second re-visit of this post.
In contrast with my original optimism, I am getting a bit pessimistic. What makes me more pessimistic is persistent lack of will in those who say that there are conservative. The left doesn't seem to lack will. Indeed, it seems to define them.
It isn't an economic cause. The economic situation is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is deeper. In fact, it could be a lot like the kind of conversation about the cause of the Roman Empire collapse. Even after all this time, does anyone know for sure why Rome collapsed?
If it is an organic phenomenon, it may well be unavoidable. Civilizations may roughly follow the same life cycle of an organism. It is born, it grows and becomes mature, and then it declines and dies.
It then becomes not a matter for optimism, nor pessimism. It becomes a matter of acceptance and preparation for when it isn't around any longer.
10.16.17:
A re-visit of this post, which is almost five years old. It impresses me with how good a job I did with the review. That is to say, after studying the book a bit more closely, I cannot say that my review changes much.
An addition that I want to make with respect to what to do about it: a lot of this right v. left stuff is what is holding us back. This is what the powers-that-be use to keep us in check.
The people need to wise up to the political class, and start demanding answers. But isn't that what this original post said? Isn't that what the book says ( if you read it)?
the original post follows
For one thing, it is a long title. I've been referring to this a "the book" in a series of blog posts thus far on this topic. Just suffice it to say that the book is mostly about why things are falling apart. The "what to do about it" is but one section out of six.
Most of the book is a hard read for me because I tend to want to remain optimistic about things as they are. The book's main message flies right into the face of that. According to this book, things are not going to stay as they are for much longer.
I began with the notion that I agreed that things are falling apart. The book confirms that and much more- which to my chagrin, is not necessarily what I really wanted to believe. What I wanted to believe, and still do, despite this book, is that we can work out our problems. The thing that is missing is the will to do so.
The book isn't really political, but there is some political stuff in it. Does it tend towards the right or towards the left? Actually, neither. However, those on the left may think the book is aimed directly at them. In a way, it is. That's because the dominant paradigm today is big government liberalism initiated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his New Deal. But it may be noted that a lot of so-called conservative Republicans tend to like their big government too, and are therefore wedded to this paradigm as well. The book also goes after capitalism, but does not extol socialism nor communism. To the contrary, it is critical of these systems as well.
The book's solutions tend in the Club of Rome, Limits to Growth genre. That won't work with the modern day real conservatives who believe in limited government and economic growth. I count myself as one of these, but not whole-heartedly so. I would tend to agree that growth for growth's sake isn't the way to go. But to eschew all growth and accept sharp limits is not my cup of tea either.
Yet, some of his ideas are plain old common sense, which I've heard is not held in high esteem amongst some on the left or the elite in general. I agree, they don't seem to have much common sense. The difference is that they are actually proud of that, which shows all the more how cock-eyed they are. This book hits them squarely in the groin, but it also hits everybody else squarely in the groin.
He gives short shrift to technological solutions. He seems to deny that these will prove to be helpful in the long run. I disagree. I think there are technologies that could help but are being blocked by the same self-interested elite that he is so often critical of in this book.
On the whole, it is an excellent read. It will challenge you to the maximum. If you are one of those people who sneer at common sense or believe in your ideology like it is a religion or something, you will not like this book. You may even hate it. But that may be the crux of the problem. People have to realize that there's a problem here, and denying it won't help us solve it.
4.3.19:
A second re-visit of this post.
In contrast with my original optimism, I am getting a bit pessimistic. What makes me more pessimistic is persistent lack of will in those who say that there are conservative. The left doesn't seem to lack will. Indeed, it seems to define them.
It isn't an economic cause. The economic situation is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is deeper. In fact, it could be a lot like the kind of conversation about the cause of the Roman Empire collapse. Even after all this time, does anyone know for sure why Rome collapsed?
If it is an organic phenomenon, it may well be unavoidable. Civilizations may roughly follow the same life cycle of an organism. It is born, it grows and becomes mature, and then it declines and dies.
It then becomes not a matter for optimism, nor pessimism. It becomes a matter of acceptance and preparation for when it isn't around any longer.
10.16.17:
A re-visit of this post, which is almost five years old. It impresses me with how good a job I did with the review. That is to say, after studying the book a bit more closely, I cannot say that my review changes much.
An addition that I want to make with respect to what to do about it: a lot of this right v. left stuff is what is holding us back. This is what the powers-that-be use to keep us in check.
The people need to wise up to the political class, and start demanding answers. But isn't that what this original post said? Isn't that what the book says ( if you read it)?
the original post follows
For one thing, it is a long title. I've been referring to this a "the book" in a series of blog posts thus far on this topic. Just suffice it to say that the book is mostly about why things are falling apart. The "what to do about it" is but one section out of six.
Most of the book is a hard read for me because I tend to want to remain optimistic about things as they are. The book's main message flies right into the face of that. According to this book, things are not going to stay as they are for much longer.
I began with the notion that I agreed that things are falling apart. The book confirms that and much more- which to my chagrin, is not necessarily what I really wanted to believe. What I wanted to believe, and still do, despite this book, is that we can work out our problems. The thing that is missing is the will to do so.
The book isn't really political, but there is some political stuff in it. Does it tend towards the right or towards the left? Actually, neither. However, those on the left may think the book is aimed directly at them. In a way, it is. That's because the dominant paradigm today is big government liberalism initiated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his New Deal. But it may be noted that a lot of so-called conservative Republicans tend to like their big government too, and are therefore wedded to this paradigm as well. The book also goes after capitalism, but does not extol socialism nor communism. To the contrary, it is critical of these systems as well.
The book's solutions tend in the Club of Rome, Limits to Growth genre. That won't work with the modern day real conservatives who believe in limited government and economic growth. I count myself as one of these, but not whole-heartedly so. I would tend to agree that growth for growth's sake isn't the way to go. But to eschew all growth and accept sharp limits is not my cup of tea either.
Yet, some of his ideas are plain old common sense, which I've heard is not held in high esteem amongst some on the left or the elite in general. I agree, they don't seem to have much common sense. The difference is that they are actually proud of that, which shows all the more how cock-eyed they are. This book hits them squarely in the groin, but it also hits everybody else squarely in the groin.
He gives short shrift to technological solutions. He seems to deny that these will prove to be helpful in the long run. I disagree. I think there are technologies that could help but are being blocked by the same self-interested elite that he is so often critical of in this book.
On the whole, it is an excellent read. It will challenge you to the maximum. If you are one of those people who sneer at common sense or believe in your ideology like it is a religion or something, you will not like this book. You may even hate it. But that may be the crux of the problem. People have to realize that there's a problem here, and denying it won't help us solve it.
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
What the new generations need
Back when I was a young whippersnapper, a friend of mine's dad said I should join the Corps of Cadets because it would "make a man out of you".
Well, that was then. I didn't join the Aggie Corp of Cadets back then. Should I have? Whatever the case, I didn't.
These days, girls are let into the Corps. Yep. The traditions are going by the wayside. We got a pajama boy culture now.
So, what do I think about my choices these days? I am a bit like my friend's Dad, or maybe even more so. Perhaps the younger generation needs Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann to tell the average Pyle character (we seem to be producing these days) this.
Some of those quotes are for the ages. What a character in a movie. What makes it so good is that it is so true.
Well, that was then. I didn't join the Aggie Corp of Cadets back then. Should I have? Whatever the case, I didn't.
These days, girls are let into the Corps. Yep. The traditions are going by the wayside. We got a pajama boy culture now.
So, what do I think about my choices these days? I am a bit like my friend's Dad, or maybe even more so. Perhaps the younger generation needs Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann to tell the average Pyle character (we seem to be producing these days) this.
Some of those quotes are for the ages. What a character in a movie. What makes it so good is that it is so true.
Matrix Reloaded 10.23.15 ( repost )
Updated,
4.2.19:
Red pill or blue pill? I consider this to be the red pilliest of the red pills. Russian collusion hoax is of the blue pill variety. You can swallow either one, and believe what you want to believe. Or we can see how far down into the rabbit hole we can go.
9.6.18:
This post has been reposted and updated several times. It is seemingly complex, but that is only because the target hasn't been fully acquired.
The most recent post about--- the media being foreign owned and/or influenced, is getting closer to ground zero.
Our politicians have sold out the country for money. The money is foreign owned and controlled. Why would they do this????
Does all this sound paranoid? It has been in the works since I was a kid ( or even sooner). It's globalism. New World Order. The Rockefellers. I heard that stuff when I was a kid.
The global has usurped the local. It is raising hell all over the world and is now raising hell with us.
This is the American Revolution all over again. We are literally fighting for our own independence.
Originally reposted on 5.14.17:
Note: This Russian business reminds me of this post, so I decided to repost it. You see, the Matrix is messaging us, telling us what to think about what is happening. But the truth of what is actually happening is being kept from us, just as in the movie. This is an artificial reality being imposed upon us. As for what's really happening, all I can do is guess. Since much of the real information is being kept from us, the only ones in the know are the ones doing the messaging. It is like the little man behind the screen in the Wizard of Oz, who is projecting a false image that is supposed to intimidate us into believing in him. Well, I choose not to. I am not buying into the bravo sierra out there.
The original post follows:
The thought amuses me. I can see Mr. Smith saying to Mr. Anderson: "Mr. Anderson! You disappoint me."
I've made the analogy before on this blog. Maybe we really are living in the Matrix. We are required to run on a treadmill in order to make money. The money is the "energy" that runs the Matrix machine. The Matrix machine generates for us a fantasy, a dream world, that is totally at odds with reality.
How do you unplug from the Matrix? It may be impossible. But there are those who have come pretty close. These people are called the Amish. Well, that's the impression I got from the movie Witness (1985).
What I'm getting at is that people would have to separate from the system somehow. In the movie, they gathered into a faith based community that gave up all of the modern day conveniences. There was a scene I remember where the community gathered together to build a barn in just one afternoon. What does this do? It is hard for me to see how the government can tax such an event. The Amish removed the need for money. Perhaps not the entire need, but much of it. An Amish person doesn't need to work at a job for money. They just run their farms and take care of each other.
That's what we lost when we "modernized". Instead of freedom, we got enslaved by the need to make money. The money is what runs the Matrix, and the Matrix controls us.
Mr. Anderson! You disappoint me! Indeed.
9:16:
Red pill or blue pill, decide now while you still can.
The red pill is for the reality of existence, the blue pill is for the fake existence the media and the political establishment has created for us in order to control us.
The choice is yours. I made mine a long time ago.
4.2.19:
Red pill or blue pill? I consider this to be the red pilliest of the red pills. Russian collusion hoax is of the blue pill variety. You can swallow either one, and believe what you want to believe. Or we can see how far down into the rabbit hole we can go.
9.6.18:
This post has been reposted and updated several times. It is seemingly complex, but that is only because the target hasn't been fully acquired.
The most recent post about--- the media being foreign owned and/or influenced, is getting closer to ground zero.
Our politicians have sold out the country for money. The money is foreign owned and controlled. Why would they do this????
Does all this sound paranoid? It has been in the works since I was a kid ( or even sooner). It's globalism. New World Order. The Rockefellers. I heard that stuff when I was a kid.
The global has usurped the local. It is raising hell all over the world and is now raising hell with us.
This is the American Revolution all over again. We are literally fighting for our own independence.
Originally reposted on 5.14.17:
Note: This Russian business reminds me of this post, so I decided to repost it. You see, the Matrix is messaging us, telling us what to think about what is happening. But the truth of what is actually happening is being kept from us, just as in the movie. This is an artificial reality being imposed upon us. As for what's really happening, all I can do is guess. Since much of the real information is being kept from us, the only ones in the know are the ones doing the messaging. It is like the little man behind the screen in the Wizard of Oz, who is projecting a false image that is supposed to intimidate us into believing in him. Well, I choose not to. I am not buying into the bravo sierra out there.
The original post follows:
The thought amuses me. I can see Mr. Smith saying to Mr. Anderson: "Mr. Anderson! You disappoint me."
I've made the analogy before on this blog. Maybe we really are living in the Matrix. We are required to run on a treadmill in order to make money. The money is the "energy" that runs the Matrix machine. The Matrix machine generates for us a fantasy, a dream world, that is totally at odds with reality.
How do you unplug from the Matrix? It may be impossible. But there are those who have come pretty close. These people are called the Amish. Well, that's the impression I got from the movie Witness (1985).
What I'm getting at is that people would have to separate from the system somehow. In the movie, they gathered into a faith based community that gave up all of the modern day conveniences. There was a scene I remember where the community gathered together to build a barn in just one afternoon. What does this do? It is hard for me to see how the government can tax such an event. The Amish removed the need for money. Perhaps not the entire need, but much of it. An Amish person doesn't need to work at a job for money. They just run their farms and take care of each other.
That's what we lost when we "modernized". Instead of freedom, we got enslaved by the need to make money. The money is what runs the Matrix, and the Matrix controls us.
Mr. Anderson! You disappoint me! Indeed.
9:16:
Red pill or blue pill, decide now while you still can.
The red pill is for the reality of existence, the blue pill is for the fake existence the media and the political establishment has created for us in order to control us.
The choice is yours. I made mine a long time ago.
Hoisted on their own petard?
A few tidbits to start the morning.
AOC has outdone herself this time. She says that the GOP forced FDR out of office with an amendment to the Constitution. Just when you thought she couldn't get any dumber. Reminds me of the joke that went like this: Question: how can you be so stupid? Ans. : Well, I got this fella helping me...
A second story has Joe Biden's spokesman saying that the metoo# movement is a bunch of liars. Hey, Joe! Who's the one who said that you gotta believe the women????
Unfortunately, people still vote for these buffoons. Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, it gets worse. Ohio may be joining the National Popular Vote Compact. They are going to have a referendum. Somehow, this does not reassure me very much.
AOC has outdone herself this time. She says that the GOP forced FDR out of office with an amendment to the Constitution. Just when you thought she couldn't get any dumber. Reminds me of the joke that went like this: Question: how can you be so stupid? Ans. : Well, I got this fella helping me...
A second story has Joe Biden's spokesman saying that the metoo# movement is a bunch of liars. Hey, Joe! Who's the one who said that you gotta believe the women????
Unfortunately, people still vote for these buffoons. Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, it gets worse. Ohio may be joining the National Popular Vote Compact. They are going to have a referendum. Somehow, this does not reassure me very much.
Monday, April 1, 2019
The Generations
This is a topic not discussed much here, if at all. It's a topic alluded to from time to time out there, but nothing much has been mentioned that grabbed my attention.
In a discussion about politics, it may be useful to study the ages of the populations as they move through time. Certainly, there was a lot of that when I was growing up. There was no doubt that I belonged to the baby boomer generation.
But that's where I got off. Maybe it would help in understanding politics if I got on the subject, and studied it more.
Do people in these age groups really act as a group? For definition purposes, the generations are listed as the Depression/War generation of my parents, their children ( which includes the baby boomers ), and the generations following them--- Gen X ( millenials ) , and Gen Y. There is also a Gen Z, but that would be the ones still growing up.
The brief amount of reading that I have done is likely to put one in a gloomy mood due to the increasing liberalism of the youngsters. True, a person's views get more conservative as they grow older. Or do they? The trend is toward more and more liberalism. That trend is not healthy.
But I heard how the country was "going to hell in a handbasket" when I was growing up. Well, maybe they were right! The more things change, the more they stay the same. It fits in with the theory that Western Civ is on the decline, and the liberalism shows how that is happening.
Of course that may get an argument, but even the younger generation isn't all that optimistic about their job prospects. Socialism and communism tended to thrive in countries that were experiencing economic stress. Too bad the kids don't seem to understand that their gloomy prospects play right into the hands of those who are responsible for them.
The younger generation doesn't like Trump, but Trump's policies are giving them more opportunities than the left was giving them. The younger generation seems to like Obama better, but Obama wasn't doing them any favors. In fact, the left's policies are punishing them, and they are rewarding their tormentors for it. Go figure.
In a discussion about politics, it may be useful to study the ages of the populations as they move through time. Certainly, there was a lot of that when I was growing up. There was no doubt that I belonged to the baby boomer generation.
But that's where I got off. Maybe it would help in understanding politics if I got on the subject, and studied it more.
Do people in these age groups really act as a group? For definition purposes, the generations are listed as the Depression/War generation of my parents, their children ( which includes the baby boomers ), and the generations following them--- Gen X ( millenials ) , and Gen Y. There is also a Gen Z, but that would be the ones still growing up.
The brief amount of reading that I have done is likely to put one in a gloomy mood due to the increasing liberalism of the youngsters. True, a person's views get more conservative as they grow older. Or do they? The trend is toward more and more liberalism. That trend is not healthy.
But I heard how the country was "going to hell in a handbasket" when I was growing up. Well, maybe they were right! The more things change, the more they stay the same. It fits in with the theory that Western Civ is on the decline, and the liberalism shows how that is happening.
Of course that may get an argument, but even the younger generation isn't all that optimistic about their job prospects. Socialism and communism tended to thrive in countries that were experiencing economic stress. Too bad the kids don't seem to understand that their gloomy prospects play right into the hands of those who are responsible for them.
The younger generation doesn't like Trump, but Trump's policies are giving them more opportunities than the left was giving them. The younger generation seems to like Obama better, but Obama wasn't doing them any favors. In fact, the left's policies are punishing them, and they are rewarding their tormentors for it. Go figure.
A flaw in the compact amongst the states to elect the POTUS via popular vote
Updated:
Originally posted 2.3.19:
4.1.19:
At the risk of beating this thing to death, I include a link to another viewpoint that favors the compact.
The link is at Townhall, which tends toward the conservative viewpoint. However, the article is flawed in its efficacy at argumentation.
She does not go into why it is not a compact between states. If it is a compact between states, it must be approved by Congress. She does not say why this compact is not a compact, and therefore is constitutional.
Her reasoning for favoring the compact is better explained in a link she provided. I read that article too, and I am not persuaded.
She claims that it will benefit the GOP, but I don't know about that. Has she looked at county wide election results? Almost all the big cities in my state of Texas went for Hillary in the last election. She bases her reasoning on what is happening in Florida, and extrapolates that nationwide. Overall, she has some questionable things to say about how many people live outside the cities.
She claims that opponents of the pact have their facts wrong, but I am not so sure about hers. Whatever the case, for or against, it is still a compact, and must be approved by Congress; otherwise it is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Finally, I read through all the links. One of her arguments seems to be that those who oppose it haven't read the proposition. Interesting enough, she provides no link to the compact itself. How does anyone know what is in the compact anyway? There is nothing in the proposition that forces a state to adopt what she proposes. In order to make it legal, and uniform, the Congress must approve it.
3.31.19:
Here's another article about this movement. Why include it? What's new? Nothing in the article, I suppose. But here's another thought--- that Congress counts the Electoral Votes. Secondly, the Congress is not obligated to accept the Electoral Votes of any state, if there is any irregularity. Since the compact is not binding upon Congress, then why should Congress accept the votes that a state in the compact sends?
In other words, not all the dots are dotted, and not all the t's have been crossed. Before this can be legal, the Congress has to okay the Compact.
Anybody who loses in the Electoral College because of this Compact will have cause to challenge the outcome. When it gets to Congress, the Congress can overturn it even if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.
There is a long tradition that the Electoral College elects the President. However, procedures must be followed. This procedure is incomplete without Congressional approval. Congress must approve the pact, or it is non-binding. Relevant part of US Constitution--- Art I, Section 10, paragraph 3, to wit:
3.30.19:
Let's all get worried about this now. ( not ) Actually, I see Morris' point: a lot of squishes could join up with this. In that case, it is almost sure to create chaos. Besides, as I have mentioned, it is not enforceable.
3.29.19:
Delaware governor signs bill to join compact. Now up to 13 states, it says. Someone asks what happens if Trump wins the popular vote in 2020?
That would be interesting. He wouldn't win by a large margin, but if you were to add 184 votes to his electoral margin, he would nearly have all of the electoral votes.
I cannot imagine these states keeping their agreement in such a case. The compact is unenforceable.
3.26.19:
Another state has joined this compact, or so I have read. Eventually, they may have enough states to rig the next election in favor of the Democrats.
However, fairly recently, there were as many as 31 GOP governors. Not to mention, nearly as many of the state legislatures were controlled by the GOP. If this releases the respective legislatures from any obligation to honor the vote in their own state, what prevents them from voting any way they choose, regardless of the popular vote? Why have the people vote at all?
In other words, this can backfire on the Democrats, as well not actually solving the problem that they claim they want to solve.
The compact isn't enforceable. There is no way to take this up in a court of law because the US Constitution forbids any compact between the states. If the states attempt to enforce it, the SCOTUS can slap it down.
But of course, the SCOTUS can slap down anything it wants. Rule of law? Democracy? What rule of law? What democracy?
This has the potential of making the 2000 election look orderly by comparison. Chaos could be around the corner.
2.3.19:
There is a threat to remove Trump from the ballot in New Jersey.
How can Trump or any GOP candidate have a chance to win the popular vote if millions of votes are denied to him? What's to prevent other states from refusing to allow a candidate to be on the ballot of their state, if that candidate is of an opposing party? In other words, they can cheat.
A national popular vote compact between the states won't resolve the issue that they claim to be interested in. It would only give them the opportunity to rig an outcome in their favor.
Originally posted 2.3.19:
4.1.19:
At the risk of beating this thing to death, I include a link to another viewpoint that favors the compact.
The link is at Townhall, which tends toward the conservative viewpoint. However, the article is flawed in its efficacy at argumentation.
She does not go into why it is not a compact between states. If it is a compact between states, it must be approved by Congress. She does not say why this compact is not a compact, and therefore is constitutional.
Her reasoning for favoring the compact is better explained in a link she provided. I read that article too, and I am not persuaded.
She claims that it will benefit the GOP, but I don't know about that. Has she looked at county wide election results? Almost all the big cities in my state of Texas went for Hillary in the last election. She bases her reasoning on what is happening in Florida, and extrapolates that nationwide. Overall, she has some questionable things to say about how many people live outside the cities.
She claims that opponents of the pact have their facts wrong, but I am not so sure about hers. Whatever the case, for or against, it is still a compact, and must be approved by Congress; otherwise it is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Finally, I read through all the links. One of her arguments seems to be that those who oppose it haven't read the proposition. Interesting enough, she provides no link to the compact itself. How does anyone know what is in the compact anyway? There is nothing in the proposition that forces a state to adopt what she proposes. In order to make it legal, and uniform, the Congress must approve it.
3.31.19:
Here's another article about this movement. Why include it? What's new? Nothing in the article, I suppose. But here's another thought--- that Congress counts the Electoral Votes. Secondly, the Congress is not obligated to accept the Electoral Votes of any state, if there is any irregularity. Since the compact is not binding upon Congress, then why should Congress accept the votes that a state in the compact sends?
In other words, not all the dots are dotted, and not all the t's have been crossed. Before this can be legal, the Congress has to okay the Compact.
Anybody who loses in the Electoral College because of this Compact will have cause to challenge the outcome. When it gets to Congress, the Congress can overturn it even if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.
There is a long tradition that the Electoral College elects the President. However, procedures must be followed. This procedure is incomplete without Congressional approval. Congress must approve the pact, or it is non-binding. Relevant part of US Constitution--- Art I, Section 10, paragraph 3, to wit:
In short, neither the Congress, nor the Supreme Court has to be bound by what a few states may say about their electoral votes.No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State [ emphasis added ]
3.30.19:
Let's all get worried about this now. ( not ) Actually, I see Morris' point: a lot of squishes could join up with this. In that case, it is almost sure to create chaos. Besides, as I have mentioned, it is not enforceable.
Dick Morris: Electoral College in Jeopardy https://t.co/yr8puKcBwY— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 30, 2019
3.29.19:
Delaware governor signs bill to join compact. Now up to 13 states, it says. Someone asks what happens if Trump wins the popular vote in 2020?
That would be interesting. He wouldn't win by a large margin, but if you were to add 184 votes to his electoral margin, he would nearly have all of the electoral votes.
I cannot imagine these states keeping their agreement in such a case. The compact is unenforceable.
3.26.19:
Another state has joined this compact, or so I have read. Eventually, they may have enough states to rig the next election in favor of the Democrats.
However, fairly recently, there were as many as 31 GOP governors. Not to mention, nearly as many of the state legislatures were controlled by the GOP. If this releases the respective legislatures from any obligation to honor the vote in their own state, what prevents them from voting any way they choose, regardless of the popular vote? Why have the people vote at all?
In other words, this can backfire on the Democrats, as well not actually solving the problem that they claim they want to solve.
The compact isn't enforceable. There is no way to take this up in a court of law because the US Constitution forbids any compact between the states. If the states attempt to enforce it, the SCOTUS can slap it down.
But of course, the SCOTUS can slap down anything it wants. Rule of law? Democracy? What rule of law? What democracy?
This has the potential of making the 2000 election look orderly by comparison. Chaos could be around the corner.
2.3.19:
There is a threat to remove Trump from the ballot in New Jersey.
How can Trump or any GOP candidate have a chance to win the popular vote if millions of votes are denied to him? What's to prevent other states from refusing to allow a candidate to be on the ballot of their state, if that candidate is of an opposing party? In other words, they can cheat.
A national popular vote compact between the states won't resolve the issue that they claim to be interested in. It would only give them the opportunity to rig an outcome in their favor.
Sunday, March 31, 2019
Pew Science Quiz
You can take the test, if you think it will tell you much. It won't tell you much about yourself, but it may reveal a few things about the population who took the test. After all, that is why the test was created.
I read the comments, and one thing I noted was how many people reported acing the test. That leads to the question--- would those people have reported a poor score? Would you report a less than perfect score? Would you report a score that is the lowest of the reported scores?
As an exercise, I will leave those to guess what my score was. I'm not going to tell.
I read the comments, and one thing I noted was how many people reported acing the test. That leads to the question--- would those people have reported a poor score? Would you report a less than perfect score? Would you report a score that is the lowest of the reported scores?
As an exercise, I will leave those to guess what my score was. I'm not going to tell.
Fall of Western Civ
Comment:
Yep, another one of these.
Generally speaking, the fall of a civilization occurs when it no longer can exert itself. For example, the official fall of the Roman Empire is listed as the same time when the last emperor was deposed. If there is no emperor, there is no empire. If there is no empire, how can it exert itself? In the Empire, the sovereign authority was the emperor.
Another way of putting it is when a nation no longer has an identity. If there is no Roman emperor, then there is no Roman Empire.
In our own time, and in the United States, if there is no controlling legal authority, then there can be no United States. If there is no border, how can there be a country? If the laws are no longer enforceable, or are not enforced, how can there be a controlling legal authority?
When the political left attempts to go around the law, it is actually responsible for the downfall of the nation. You cannot have "rule of law" in a nation defined by rule of law, then dishonor that very law. The act of dishonoring the law upon which the nation is based is an act of national suicide.
The sovereign authority in the United States is the US Constitution. All officers of the United States must swear an oath to it. If that oath is disregarded, how can the nation continue?
Yep, another one of these.
Generally speaking, the fall of a civilization occurs when it no longer can exert itself. For example, the official fall of the Roman Empire is listed as the same time when the last emperor was deposed. If there is no emperor, there is no empire. If there is no empire, how can it exert itself? In the Empire, the sovereign authority was the emperor.
Another way of putting it is when a nation no longer has an identity. If there is no Roman emperor, then there is no Roman Empire.
In our own time, and in the United States, if there is no controlling legal authority, then there can be no United States. If there is no border, how can there be a country? If the laws are no longer enforceable, or are not enforced, how can there be a controlling legal authority?
When the political left attempts to go around the law, it is actually responsible for the downfall of the nation. You cannot have "rule of law" in a nation defined by rule of law, then dishonor that very law. The act of dishonoring the law upon which the nation is based is an act of national suicide.
The sovereign authority in the United States is the US Constitution. All officers of the United States must swear an oath to it. If that oath is disregarded, how can the nation continue?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)