"I'm sure we will have a lively and enlightening discussion where multiple new and logically sound theories based on solid economic and sociological data will be presented."
Even though I'm sure some Senator somewhere could make the case that a personal driveway is a road (and the bridge in question is not far removed), I'll ask this instead: All that is required is "federal allotment for X?" No requirement that federal spending "provide for the... general Welfare" rather than the "welfare" of a small handful of people with little connection to the rest of their own state, let alone the Union?
"If you want to make me really happy, then create Districts for the Senators, so we don't have the problem we have in Washinton state."
If you want your own Senators to represent your precious tracts of land, ask Olympia and DC to let you form your own state (e. g. Maine). But I suggest you consider that then you'd have to go through DC to get money from the Seattle you loathe so much.
Even the Senate wasn't intended to represent hectares, rather Senators represent sovereign republics. If you think eastern Washington can figure out a working state constitution, let alone fund the workings of the government it'd create, more power to you.
"Give me the above, and I'll let you kill off the Electoral College."
The Electoral College wasn't intended to represent parcels of land. A state's electors were supposed to form a deliberative body with each member having an independent vote. It's only with the introduction of political parties combined with the dinosaur of at-large elections (the kind that you complain about in your Senate elections) that have people such as yourself claiming the presidential election system was supposed to balance rural versus urban interests rather than the original federalism versus republicanism balance that was intended.
"And remember we are supposed to avoid a Tyranny of the Majority, which is what you get with pure majority rule."
And yet the only solutions you propose is re-drawing district lines to create your own majorities from smaller constituencies, favorable to your own opinions. What will be your solution once the "kinder, gentler" majority you've drawn for yourself starts to disagree with you, balkanize the district further?
Not all members of Congress are Senators. There is that other chamber, the one where spending bills are required to start in.
And one of the reasons that spending bills are required to start in the chamber designed to represent the people rather than the states is that is where the money both comes from and should be going. To argue that one should focus on money spent on hectares rather than persons is only a stone's throw away from talking about a landed gentry.
And I still haven't seen anything about why this should be paid for by the other 49 rather than tapping into the Permanent Fund other than "other red states do it too!" Or does the state you're so proud of that you put it in your handle lack even that much dignity and self-respect?
"The government (federal, state and local) own nearly everything. They won't sell any of it."
Your state's government, your state's problem.
"but that's how it is in most red states."
And this forgives things how?
"The low population density makes it look like Alaska is an offender if you look at per-capita, but look like they are getting screwed if you look per-area."
As numerous Supreme Court decisions have pointed out, we are supposed to be a government of people, not of parcels of land. It doesn't matter how much land is in question, there's no reason to look at things in any other light than in terms of per capita/voter/citizen. Or are you now going to argue that Alaska should have more members of Congress than California?
"I mean, it may be selective journalism (ya know, you only hear about the bad ones), but why do we have corrupt politicians?"
We get crooks because we want crooks. We consistently vote for politicians who promise and shamelessly deliver all the pork earmarks they can get their hands on. Our biggest question on election day is "How much money can you get me?"
When you get right down to it, it's not that Stevens took a kickback, it's that he didn't share this one with the rest of the district.
Not that I see how talking about members of the Other Beloved Party makes a story "balanced" (balance would be posting Stevens' point of view), but this is a sign of corruption from one of Net Neutrality's strongest opponents, and causes one to question why the Senator is committed to the cause of media moguls.
"The reason it does not have more is there is a land shortage."
We're talking about Alaska, right?
"There are many locations in many states where development could only take off once a bridge was built so people could drive around."
And this makes it a federal issue why? If Juneau paid back slightly less in their Permanent Fund, they could have paid for their own bridge themselves (maybe even two or three) without having to get a pork earmark in Washington.
"Some people probably couldn't make it through the original Mario Brothers without a strat guide."
When was the last time you cranked through the original Super Mario Bros. while pretending you didn't know about the Warp Zones?
"Some people can crank through the most complex game there is with no guide (especially those who have to WRITE those guides in the first place:))"
I presume you're referring to those guides that don't have access to the game publishers to find out where all the Easter Eggs are. Well, those gamers are certainly "hardcore..." in a sense.
"Despite news many months ago that they weren't going to be doing much in the way of updating anymore,"
Nice link there, Zonk.
Seriously, I've been here for "many months" and I don't recall seeing anything saying "no moar back compat!" If anything, I've seen Microsoft insisting the opposite, and I also remember people being surprised that Microsoft was still working on it when their last update came out a few months ago.
So I have to ask: where are you getting your information?
"In Japan, 95% of people in their 20s surf the web, but only a third of them bother to vote."
Here in the United States, we get all the fliers and websites and spam and junk mail and road signs and everything else you could want, and we still get a similar result.
It doesn't matter how you "reach out to the voters" if the voters still don't like you.
"The ONLY reason it is even on the list is it is on a hill which makes it stand out, and in a country of super-religious people who wanted it on the list."
The ol' vast right-wing conspiracy?
Brazil, especially the sun-drenched bacchanalia that the statue in question overlooks, is essentially "ethnically Catholic" in the same sense one can be "ethnically Jewish." If they were still half as devout as you and the original poster seem to believe, the sun-drenched bacchanalia the statue overlooks wouldn't be happening. What we instead have is the listing of the one and only man-made structure in Brazil that anybody outside the country might have heard of, being voted upon from SMS phones by young, hormonal kids living in a country so nationalistic that it makes Texas seem kinda laid back in between bouts of sending and receiving the Portuguese version of "a/s/l? lolol!"
But because the statue happens to be of a particular two-thousand year old guy from Judea, you claim that it must be because all those topless, thong-clad kids are "super-religious" and the parent feels the need to compare him to a fictional corporate symbol, apparently taking just about any opportunity to evangelize his own beliefs. If you and the AC was hocking Scientology instead of atheism, I wouldn't be the one marked as flamebait.
"I'd have voted for that before voting for that stupid Christ statue."
Yeah, let's bad-mouth the Jesus statue not because it is anything but an engineering marvel for its era, but because it's of Jesus. I still fail to see much difference between militant evangelical Christians and militant evangelical atheists.
"In fact, I think most constitutional experts will agree that just about everything Lincoln did once the Civil War started, including the Emancipation Proclamation, was in fact in technical violation of both word and spirit of the Constitution."
Except those that were grandfathered in, statehood is a matter decided upon by Congress and Congress alone. The Supremacy Clause as well as the granting of power to suppress insurrection seems to be enough to justify the use of force against states that try to secede unilaterally.
As for the Emancipation Proclamation specifically, it only (*cough*) divested the property of those in insurrection against the lawful authority of the federal government. It had no effect on the slaves in those states that did not attempt to secede unilaterally (e. g. Maryland, Missouri, etc.), who were not liberated until either unilateral state action or the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.
"has made us forget that the Constitution was pretty bent up in the act of ending slavery."
And it wasn't "bent up" in protecting it? If nothing else, the Dredd Scott decision flies in the face of Article IV with respect to the territories and Congress' ability to regulate them.
"Most of the original seven wonders are long gone. That's why this was needed."
Because nobody can appreciate the idea of building, say, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon or the Lighthouse at Alexandria using only ancient technology and materials without actually seeing them?
"Just a compilation from the Greco-Roman point of view."
The list itself was a Greek idea. Deal with it.
"This time this could have more international flavor."
If by "international" you mean "has access to SMS."
"This is also good exposure not just to the 7 winners, but to all the nominees."
Because it's possible to have heard of this cheesy marketing stunt but not to have heard of any of the ancient structures and modern tourist traps listed?
"Unless you think us Americans really ought to go to stay ignorant and go to Disneyland every year"
Oh, I'm sure if Disneyland needed any more marketing and appeared in the list offered, it would have made the finalists.
"(I give no money to that company)."
"I've never owned a Mickey Mouse watch" isn't enough to be able to safely claim that you've never patronized any business or subsidiary of the Disney corporation in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why not host your own blog on your own server?"
Knowing H. L. Mencken, he was being cynical when he made the statement "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one."
"Cutting you off the campus net is an entirely private decision"
By a public, state-funded institution?
Mozilla Thundermonkey!
"I'm sure we will have a lively and enlightening discussion where multiple new and logically sound theories based on solid economic and sociological data will be presented."
Your mother!
Even though I'm sure some Senator somewhere could make the case that a personal driveway is a road (and the bridge in question is not far removed), I'll ask this instead: All that is required is "federal allotment for X?" No requirement that federal spending "provide for the... general Welfare" rather than the "welfare" of a small handful of people with little connection to the rest of their own state, let alone the Union?
"Because there is a federal fund for roads, and these are roads."
Yeah, and my driveway needs repaving. Should DC pay for that as well?
"If you want to make me really happy, then create Districts for the Senators, so we don't have the problem we have in Washinton state."
If you want your own Senators to represent your precious tracts of land, ask Olympia and DC to let you form your own state (e. g. Maine). But I suggest you consider that then you'd have to go through DC to get money from the Seattle you loathe so much.
Even the Senate wasn't intended to represent hectares, rather Senators represent sovereign republics. If you think eastern Washington can figure out a working state constitution, let alone fund the workings of the government it'd create, more power to you.
"Give me the above, and I'll let you kill off the Electoral College."
The Electoral College wasn't intended to represent parcels of land. A state's electors were supposed to form a deliberative body with each member having an independent vote. It's only with the introduction of political parties combined with the dinosaur of at-large elections (the kind that you complain about in your Senate elections) that have people such as yourself claiming the presidential election system was supposed to balance rural versus urban interests rather than the original federalism versus republicanism balance that was intended.
"And remember we are supposed to avoid a Tyranny of the Majority, which is what you get with pure majority rule."
And yet the only solutions you propose is re-drawing district lines to create your own majorities from smaller constituencies, favorable to your own opinions. What will be your solution once the "kinder, gentler" majority you've drawn for yourself starts to disagree with you, balkanize the district further?
Not all members of Congress are Senators. There is that other chamber, the one where spending bills are required to start in.
And one of the reasons that spending bills are required to start in the chamber designed to represent the people rather than the states is that is where the money both comes from and should be going. To argue that one should focus on money spent on hectares rather than persons is only a stone's throw away from talking about a landed gentry.
And I still haven't seen anything about why this should be paid for by the other 49 rather than tapping into the Permanent Fund other than "other red states do it too!" Or does the state you're so proud of that you put it in your handle lack even that much dignity and self-respect?
"The government (federal, state and local) own nearly everything. They won't sell any of it."
Your state's government, your state's problem.
"but that's how it is in most red states."
And this forgives things how?
"The low population density makes it look like Alaska is an offender if you look at per-capita, but look like they are getting screwed if you look per-area."
As numerous Supreme Court decisions have pointed out, we are supposed to be a government of people, not of parcels of land. It doesn't matter how much land is in question, there's no reason to look at things in any other light than in terms of per capita/voter/citizen. Or are you now going to argue that Alaska should have more members of Congress than California?
"I mean, it may be selective journalism (ya know, you only hear about the bad ones), but why do we have corrupt politicians?"
We get crooks because we want crooks. We consistently vote for politicians who promise and shamelessly deliver all the pork earmarks they can get their hands on. Our biggest question on election day is "How much money can you get me?"
When you get right down to it, it's not that Stevens took a kickback, it's that he didn't share this one with the rest of the district.
Not that I see how talking about members of the Other Beloved Party makes a story "balanced" (balance would be posting Stevens' point of view), but this is a sign of corruption from one of Net Neutrality's strongest opponents, and causes one to question why the Senator is committed to the cause of media moguls.
"The reason it does not have more is there is a land shortage."
We're talking about Alaska, right?
"There are many locations in many states where development could only take off once a bridge was built so people could drive around."
And this makes it a federal issue why? If Juneau paid back slightly less in their Permanent Fund, they could have paid for their own bridge themselves (maybe even two or three) without having to get a pork earmark in Washington.
When was the last time you cranked through the original Super Mario Bros. while pretending you didn't know about the Warp Zones?
"Some people can crank through the most complex game there is with no guide (especially those who have to WRITE those guides in the first place
I presume you're referring to those guides that don't have access to the game publishers to find out where all the Easter Eggs are. Well, those gamers are certainly "hardcore..." in a sense.
"Despite news many months ago that they weren't going to be doing much in the way of updating anymore,"
Nice link there, Zonk.
Seriously, I've been here for "many months" and I don't recall seeing anything saying "no moar back compat!" If anything, I've seen Microsoft insisting the opposite, and I also remember people being surprised that Microsoft was still working on it when their last update came out a few months ago.
So I have to ask: where are you getting your information?
"In Japan, 95% of people in their 20s surf the web, but only a third of them bother to vote."
Here in the United States, we get all the fliers and websites and spam and junk mail and road signs and everything else you could want, and we still get a similar result.
It doesn't matter how you "reach out to the voters" if the voters still don't like you.
"Because nothing makes a fight game realistic like a vibrator in your hand."
You mean on top of the bouncing breasts and areal moves that'd require a wire rig to pull off?
If it "just worked" there'd be no need to say that.
"As a Ubuntu user since 6.05, I have to say that for me it does 'just work'."
"Worked on, got any more?"
Way to completely miss the point. If the parent has a grocery list of problems that need to be "worked on," it's obviously "just not working."
I'll be sure to tell Sir Isaac when next I see him.
"The ONLY reason it is even on the list is it is on a hill which makes it stand out, and in a country of super-religious people who wanted it on the list."
The ol' vast right-wing conspiracy?
Brazil, especially the sun-drenched bacchanalia that the statue in question overlooks, is essentially "ethnically Catholic" in the same sense one can be "ethnically Jewish." If they were still half as devout as you and the original poster seem to believe, the sun-drenched bacchanalia the statue overlooks wouldn't be happening. What we instead have is the listing of the one and only man-made structure in Brazil that anybody outside the country might have heard of, being voted upon from SMS phones by young, hormonal kids living in a country so nationalistic that it makes Texas seem kinda laid back in between bouts of sending and receiving the Portuguese version of "a/s/l? lolol!"
But because the statue happens to be of a particular two-thousand year old guy from Judea, you claim that it must be because all those topless, thong-clad kids are "super-religious" and the parent feels the need to compare him to a fictional corporate symbol, apparently taking just about any opportunity to evangelize his own beliefs. If you and the AC was hocking Scientology instead of atheism, I wouldn't be the one marked as flamebait.
"I'd have voted for that before voting for that stupid Christ statue."
Yeah, let's bad-mouth the Jesus statue not because it is anything but an engineering marvel for its era, but because it's of Jesus. I still fail to see much difference between militant evangelical Christians and militant evangelical atheists.
- Statehood is a Congressional matter (IV, 3)
- The state legislatures are bound by the federal constitution and Congress (VI), therefore
- The states have no authority to unilaterally secede
"nor did he seem to care so much about slavery anywhere else in the world."Oh, yeah, Congressman Lincoln was a big fan of the Mexican War and the extension of slavery into formerly Mexican lands.
"In fact, I think most constitutional experts will agree that just about everything Lincoln did once the Civil War started, including the Emancipation Proclamation, was in fact in technical violation of both word and spirit of the Constitution."
Except those that were grandfathered in, statehood is a matter decided upon by Congress and Congress alone. The Supremacy Clause as well as the granting of power to suppress insurrection seems to be enough to justify the use of force against states that try to secede unilaterally.
As for the Emancipation Proclamation specifically, it only (*cough*) divested the property of those in insurrection against the lawful authority of the federal government. It had no effect on the slaves in those states that did not attempt to secede unilaterally (e. g. Maryland, Missouri, etc.), who were not liberated until either unilateral state action or the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.
"has made us forget that the Constitution was pretty bent up in the act of ending slavery."
And it wasn't "bent up" in protecting it? If nothing else, the Dredd Scott decision flies in the face of Article IV with respect to the territories and Congress' ability to regulate them.
"Most of the original seven wonders are long gone. That's why this was needed."
Because nobody can appreciate the idea of building, say, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon or the Lighthouse at Alexandria using only ancient technology and materials without actually seeing them?
"Just a compilation from the Greco-Roman point of view."
The list itself was a Greek idea. Deal with it.
"This time this could have more international flavor."
If by "international" you mean "has access to SMS."
"This is also good exposure not just to the 7 winners, but to all the nominees."
Because it's possible to have heard of this cheesy marketing stunt but not to have heard of any of the ancient structures and modern tourist traps listed?
"Unless you think us Americans really ought to go to stay ignorant and go to Disneyland every year"
Oh, I'm sure if Disneyland needed any more marketing and appeared in the list offered, it would have made the finalists.
"(I give no money to that company)."
"I've never owned a Mickey Mouse watch" isn't enough to be able to safely claim that you've never patronized any business or subsidiary of the Disney corporation in any way.
"So they're bombing us so that they can go get laid in heaven with those 72 virgins."
Now that you mention it, nobody around here is getting much action either...