Slashdot Mirror

You assume that the Founding Fathers intended for 90% of the government to come from local/state level, it might even be correct. However, the question is not what were their intentions but what is written in the constitution. By the way, they also intended for black people to be slaves and for women to have no vote, do you think anyone who think differently should not be entitled to vote? You might not say there is only one correct way to do things, but you definitly say there is a very small number of ways, and they can't be very different from yours.

I know of no writings left by the Founding Fathers where they stated that they believed slavery was right; I personally tend to believe that they realized they could not win that battle (look how long it took for the abolition movement to succeed) and focused pragmatically on what was within their power to achieve but I have not seen much evidence on this either way. Also, when it is studied objectively, it has been found that allowing women to vote may not be the best idea, because they tend to value security more than freedom and the type of security that government has to offer is a very dangerous thing. Please see the studies; there are very strong correlations between granting women suffrage and the expansion of the size and power of government. Some links: A brief summary that mentions this same belief, shared by a woman, a paper by John Lott on the subject (I believe this one is originally from here) and a general, light read on why big government is a bad idea here. You will find, however, that this is a subject where the facts tend not to reflect what people want to hear, and (because people often act like spoiled children when this is the case) it's hard to have a discussion about it in which people actually stick to facts and logic.

Regarding the "very small number of ways", I didn't just make this up in a vacuum, you know. Study a little history and you will find it plainly evident that every nation which has ever become a police state or a fascist dictatorship did so by allowing its government to become too large and too powerful and too involved in the everyday lives of its citizens and by considered myriad things other than defense, public works, and law enforcement to be its business. The idea is so simple. When an organ in the body carries out its function and serves the rest of the body (when the heart's only concern is pumping blood, when the lungs' only concern is respiration, etc.), that body is healthy; when an organ draws a disproportionate share of resources and multiplies its cells beyond what is necessary for its function, it grows out of control, concerns itself only with its own perpetuation, and becomes a cancer that threatens to kill the rest of the body. Likewise, government does the same and becomes a parasite feeding on its own people when it becomes the all-important solution to every problem and starts making decisions for its people when there is no legitimate public interest in doing so (although plenty of busybodies will invent such reasons to satisfy their need to control others), such as when it attempts to tell consenting adults what they may and may not do in their own homes.

As for income tax, it allows you a higher level of taxation over those who can handle it (that is, relatively rich people). This allows Capitalism to work, without an income tax, the ever-growing income differences will make one of the two systems collapse - the Democracy or the Capitalism. You could get the same effect from sales tax, but only if you make it progressive by different levels of taxation on different products, so basic products will be (at least, almost) tax free, and luxuries will be taxed heavily.

While you're over there, be sure to take their poll on exiling blacks. What a freakshow, how is this link to their adultery enforcement in any way authorative?

not one state has laws against adultery.

"About Zionist agendas in WWII and other weird stuff: http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righitpix.html [ku.edu] http://christianparty.net/hitlerfounderisrael.htm [christianparty.net] http://christianparty.net/nazi.htm [christianparty.net]"

You are most helpful. I really did want to know what the KKK had to say about it.

"About Zionist agendas in WWII and other weird stuff: http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righitpix.html [ku.edu] http://christianparty.net/hitlerfounderisrael.htm [christianparty.net] http://christianparty.net/nazi.htm [christianparty.net]"

You are most helpful. I really did want to know what the KKK had to say about it.

About Palestine: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eCL6WdnuNp4 http://youtube.com/watch?v=mo2HW4T7wK4&mode=relate d&search= About Jews against Zionism: http://www.amazon.com/Zionist-connection-What-pric e-peace/dp/0396075649 http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ People can be against Israel and extremo-zionism without being antisemetic, unless of course you somehow think jews against zionism are antisemetic? Your Godwin dogma doesn't work so well on jews, does it?

About Zionist agendas in WWII and other weird stuff: http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righitpix.html http://christianparty.net/hitlerfounderisrael.htm http://christianparty.net/nazi.htm

About Palestine: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eCL6WdnuNp4 http://youtube.com/watch?v=mo2HW4T7wK4&mode=relate d&search= About Jews against Zionism: http://www.amazon.com/Zionist-connection-What-pric e-peace/dp/0396075649 http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ People can be against Israel and extremo-zionism without being antisemetic, unless of course you somehow think jews against zionism are antisemetic? Your Godwin dogma doesn't work so well on jews, does it?

About Zionist agendas in WWII and other weird stuff: http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righitpix.html http://christianparty.net/hitlerfounderisrael.htm http://christianparty.net/nazi.htm

The linked article states,

"Recently, for example, I was trying to track the changes in California's spending on its schools. In the 1960's, when I was in public school there, the legend was that only Connecticut spent more per student than California did. Now, the legend is that only the likes of Louisiana and Mississippi spend less. Was either belief true? When I finally called an education expert on a Monday morning, she gave me the answer off the top of her head. (Answer: right in spirit, exaggerated in detail.) But that was only after I'd wasted what seemed like hours over the weekend with normal search tools. If it sounds easy, try using keyword searches to find consistent state-by-state data covering the last 40 years."

I know from my own similar searches that finding answers on a Web search engine is not the easiest type of search. One problem is that a Web search engine can only find information that has been prepared and posted (usually on the Web) by someone. I have come to the conclusion that most of the specific information that people want (at least, that I and James Fallows want) is not posted on the Web.

It is possible that no one has ever compiled a list that compares school funding across states for the last 40 years and posted that list to the Web. But, sometimes searching for that information could take a person close to finding the answer. By using Mr. Fallows' hypothetical search question (minor modifications to make it more general), I quickly arrived at "The National Center for Educational Statistics," which devotes itself to answering questions like that asked by Mr. Fallows. My link wasn't direct; I first was taken to an old paper, titled, "Education policy a complete failure: Report: Pumping more federal money into system won't help." http://christianparty.net/juliefoster.htm The article also mentions the National Taxpayers Union, which might be another source of the desired information.

The federal government claims Kentucky was the second state to ratify the 16th Amendment, on Feb. 8, 1910. However, the records of the State of Kentucky show that after the Kentucky House proposed a resolution to adopt the amendment and sent it to the Senate, on Feb. 8, 1910 the Kentucky Senate voted upon that resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed. [...]

In Oklahoma, the proposed amendment was passed by the Oklahoma House and the language of the resolution perfectly matched the one passed by Congress. However, the Oklahoma Senate obviously disliked what Congress had proposed, so it amended the language of the 16th Amendment in such a fashion as to have a precisely opposite meaning.

The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt
the 16th Amendment. [...]

Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington, but this did not deter
Philander Knox from claiming that Minnesota ratified the amendment, regardless of the
absence of any documentation from the State of Minnesota.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution controls the amending process, which requires that
three-fourths of the states ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. In 1913, there were
48 States in the American union, so to adopt any amendment required the affirmative act of
36 states. In February 1913, Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had
ratified the amendment -- including Kentucky, California and Oklahoma. But since Kentucky
had rejected the amendment, California had not voted on it, and Oklahoma wanted something
entirely different, the amendment was not legally adopted, the number of ratifying States
being only 35. Then again, a total of 11 states failed to vote on the amendment, 33
changed the language of the amendment and Minnesota sent in nothing. In the final
analysis, if the process of the adoption of the 16th Amendment is subjected to strict
legal scrutiny, the amendment was never adopted.

That may be a disgustingly racist and idiotic website, but his "woman english"/"man english" comparison at the end of this page was pretty amusing.

There are a lot of problems with the economy in Japan, not the least of which is that there is simply no savings. Every sen that is earned is almost immediately spent, and even at that rate of consumption the economy is maxed out with no room to grow.

Sorry, what did you just say? This is the same Japan that has a gross savings rate of over 25%?

I call bullshit.