Sisyphus

Well, my "car" - that is, a loaded electric subway car - gets about 5000mpg. And my work and everything I could possibly need is within a couple miles of where I'm sitting - most of it within easy walking distance. So I just sit back and chuckle condescendingly, like any good New Yorker.

Clearly, the man was way ahead of his time.

Wake up! All of this - the global warming hoax, the secret world government, my income taxes, ALL of it - is just a smoke screen, decoy conspiracies to distract concerned and alert citizens from the REAL conspiracy, the collaboration with Reticulan overlords to help create alien-human hybrids to colonize Earth and replace humanity, all in exchange for the guaranteed survival of a select few elites, a consortium of shadowy world manipulators without names, allegience, or conscience.

I suppose, but what would be the point? That VP would be blocked from the Presidency, and thus wouldn't be able to fulfill the primary obligation of the office. If the President were killed or incapacitated, the Speaker of the House would be sworn in instead of the VP. "Most?" I dunno, I think it would be more "interesting" if he picked me.

D'oh! Boy do I look stupid. It seems the answer, then is Martin Van Buren, in 1836. Neat!

Before George Bush Sr., the most recent VP to be elected into office was Harry Truman. And that was a squeaker!

What I mean by partisanship is not just disagreement. Partisanship, in my mind, is when "winning" for "your side" becomes an end in itself, rather than simply supporting the policy you believe in. By that definition, I think any amount of partisanship is negative, albeit completely inevitable given human nature.

I doubt it. We've had lots of both Northern and Southern presidents, but "balancing the ticket" is still conventional wisdom.

Wait, so you mean "drill for our own oil" metaphorically, as in domestically-based replacements for oil like nuclear, solar, and wind? Or are you talking about Alaska (which would have barely any effect)?

Most have been, but then again, Dick Cheney was Bush's closest advisor, chief architect of many important policies, and pretty much set the tone for the whole administration. Also, if you think about it, being "only" a tiebreaker is actually an advantage over a Senator. A Senator's vote only makes a difference if he's the "tiebreaker" anyway, but they have to be on record with every vote.

I don't equate "nonpartisan" with "centrist."

I've been classically trained in piano and trumpet since I was very young, and in high school I had a job that required me to basically learn every instrument for the purpose of teaching them to beginners. In college I did some informal, fairly hilarious stuff with friends. Think Frank Zappa meets Jerry Lee Lewis meets The Band meets Talking Heads meets Nirvana meets William Shatner. (Better yet: don't.) There was also a Beach Boys clone we called Dreamboat formed solely for the purpose of making a scene at parties.

We have a situation in the U.S. election right now where the nominees from both parties have reputations for being less partisan and more genuine and open than their peers. Whether or not these reputations are deserved, the fact that they were both able to trade on them so successfully speaks a lot to the national mood right now, and weariness with the perceived evil shadow government we've been living with and the associated deep and bitter divides between red and blue cultures. The question is: are those reputations deserved? Personally, I think Obama and McCain were definitely the least partisan (though not necessarily most centrist) of their respective fields. But is McCain really the straight-talkin' maverick he claims to be? Is Obama? I go back and forth on both of them. Certainly both of them are politicians, and both have megalomaniacal streaks. Both have their examples of cringe-worthy cheap shots and pandering (although they both seem visibly uncomfortable doing it), but on the other hand some of the most important moments in both their campaigns have been when they (*gasp*) actually spoke to us like we're adults. McCain is often criticized for living in the same fantasy world as the Bush Administration with regards to the Middle East, but I think he's mostly refrained from the denial and stupid optimism, and instead said "this sucks and will continue to suck, but we have to do it anyway despite it being unpopular." Obama has been criticized for being "all rhetoric," inscrutable in his specific policies, and too idealistic. But I don't think any of those things are true, either: his positions are detailed and a matter of public record (even if you don't hear any of them in the soundbites), and he's taken his share of unpopular but responsible stances. Plus he gets huge bonus points for the first honest and mature speech about race in America by a major politician since... Lincoln? So I guess my questions are: are we really moving into a different era of politics? If so, are these men part of the cause, or are their successes and tactics merely a response to a broader change? If the latter, how much of it is ABB sentiment? How much is the era of the Youtube Gotcha?

Such a thing would almost certainly be impossible, for a number of reasons, which you may or may not find satisfying. First, as mentioned, it's a "one way" force, so you can't really neutralize it with some "opposite" force. (You can, of course, just put an equal mass an equal distance away in the opposite direction, but I don't think that's what you mean.) Second, it's not really a "force" at all, per se, so much as the "shape of space," hence there's nothing really to "block." And finally, it would totally invalidate a number of fundamental laws in really obvious and extreme ways. For example, you could easily make a perpetual motion machine by "blocking the gravity" to the upward swing of a wheel and not the downward. Simply put, if that were possible, it would be happening somewhere with such extreme and bizarre effects that we would have to notice it.

And why should we care about that? Jesus is king of America.

Not so much a conspiracy theory as pessimism. And yeah, a black president named Barack Hussein Obama with (however tenuous) associations with Islam probably has a rather greater chance of attempts on his life. Of course, the fact that foreigners in places like Australia think it will probably happen is rather embarrassing for us as Americans and indicative of the perception of us all as violent, racist, ignorant rednecks, which *ahem* has probably not improved in the last seven or eight years or so.

I think I can answer that. First: "allow." Implying that is what those 300,000,000 want and are trying to do. The phrasing of the question indicates that more districts is better, when that is precisely what is up for debate. Compare: "Will you allow them to have fewer than 435 districts?" Or: "Will you deny each representative even a 1/435th vote?" Etc. I suggest: "Are you in favor of increasing the number of Congressional districts?" Now come on. That's rather ad hominem and almost certainly not true. What would be Swansont's motive? I happen to know he's not a Congressman.

In an op-ed today in the New York Times (here, Tom Friedman criticizes the short-term gas tax holiday proposed by both Clinton and McCain as deeply cynical and destructive in the long term for the economy, national security, and the environment, and applauds Obama for being the "bad guy" and calling them both out on it. All of this I agree with. What he proposes, however, and what he implies all the candidates secretly know is the best solution, is to actually keep gas prices high intentionally, noting that the current prices, for all the short-term individual woes they've caused, have also forced the market to respond in a very positive way. People drive less, energy efficiency has become a huge selling point, and investment in non-petroleum-based energy technologies is soaring. All of these things bring us closer to the eventual goal - breaking petroleum addiction - that would curtail our most serious environmental problems, insulate our economy from the inherent instability of petroleum ("gas prices" would be a thing of the past), and end the need to prop up dangerous regimes just for oil. All of this sounds great, and is something I've thought for a long time... which is why I'm suspicious of it. What are the downsides I'm not seeing here? Artificially maintaining prices often seem to have unintended negative effects on the rest of the economy, right? Europeans have very high fuel taxes, right? What problems are caused over there that we don't have in America?

Overall I like the idea, for most of the reasons mentioned. Couple things I don't think anyone's mentioned: Why no middle ground? If the problems with 10,000 representatives are too great, surely you could increase the number by some lesser amount, no? Not necessarily pro or con, but I think this would probably give a huge boost to third parties. Less money to raise and fewer people to convince. Even more importantly, smaller districts are more likely to be more socially homogeneous, meaning there would be at least some who could consistently support more radical candidates of various ideologies, with less of the moderating (and, perhaps, paralyzing) need for a "big tent" to get sufficient support. I'm conflicted over whether this would be good or bad overall, but it would certainly be different. Anyway, as I said, I like the concept. But do you really think this could actually happen? Or is there a general plan within the movement that accomplishes this via a series of plausible steps? (And no, armed rebellion is not an acceptable answer....)

"Everybody kills Hitler on their first trip." So true, so true.

Who is waiting for the appropriate time? The KGB? I'm thinking they missed their chance.

This is so strange. Why would she make such a remarkable and attention-getting claim that could so easily be shown false? Yet apparently she did. What could she possibly have been thinking? It almost makes me think there has to be some kind of misunderstanding here, like she was joking or something, but it doesn't seem that way, does it?

EDIT: This was a response to post #5. Well yeah, exactly. You can say the existence of the various National Guards fully satisfies it (there's your state-based militia, alive and well and anyone can join), or you can say that if I'm asked to register my homemade ICBM, then the terrorists have won. (After all, would that not be an "infringement?") I can't imagine a decisive argument to be made, so we're mostly left with arguments about the "best" policy, as opposed to what the Constitution demands. Incidentally, I don't think there is a "best" policy for the whole country. You could call my position "localized pragmatism." Laws that would make sense in Utah or Vermont would make no sense in New York City. No private citizens anywhere should have the ability to shoot down 747s. And nowhere should responsible militias be disbanded, because blatant Constitutional violations are bad for the country. EDIT AGAIN: ParanoiA, no that's not possible. The Constitution is like Wikipedia - the only way to change it is to add to it. Hence the silliness with our 18th and 21st amendments.

I'm wondering what, if any, interesting arguments will be raised. There has always been sharp disagreement about the Second Amendment, but hardly any actual debate. Because honestly, what is there to say? It's ambiguous. Clearly it is talking about militias, but who's to say how far it extends beyond that? (Well, SCOTUS, I guess.) You can talk endlessly about what would be the best policy, but actual Constitutional arguments? The frustrating thing about it is that its authors apparently didn't put that much thought into it, assuming its meaning and applications would be clear. That is, that Britain dissolved colonial militias in a bid to prevent rebellion, which skewed the balance of power and unnecessarily put the colonists in extra danger in dangerous times, and they wanted to make sure the federal government didn't do the same thing to the states. Ok. What would they think about me keeping an anti-aircraft missile launcher in my apartment? Who knows. What is for sure is that they didn't think about it.

I'm not a PhD, but I think I would find it embarrassingly pompous to be called "doctor" in all but the most formal settings. All of my professors at school were PhDs, obviously, but not one of them referred to him or her self as "doctor" or asked students to refer to them that way. On the other hand, it seems totally natural and automatic in the context of medical doctors. Why is that?