Pangloss

Well again, you do have a technical point that I am willing to concede (which maybe I didn't make clear in my last post), but what I'm trying to make clear is that it's not just a matter of it being "difficult" to amend the constitution, it really is a question of whether such a thing could actually happen. It's a question of practicalities. Demagogues and oligarchs simply have much easier ways to change society than that. Consider what they would have to do: For the federal constitution to be amended, the federal legislatures (both houses) must pass measures by 2/3rds. Then it goes to the states, 3/4ths of which must pass the amendment in order for it to be added to the list. The state legislatures decide the issue in exactly the same way as the federal, except that they're simple majorities (but both the proportional and non-proportional sides must both pass it, and the governor gets no say). (They're not required to ask the people for their opinions, but they've almost always done so through a referendum, which is where you're right. But stick with me a bit longer.) Note that both the executive and the judicial branches are uninvolved in the process. They cannot become involved. The president doesn't sign a bill and can't veto anything. The Supreme Court can't reject it. Both branches are completely powerless in the matter. That removes a lot of the potential for demagoguery right there. But because the bar is so high, even a highly popular movement can't get one passed without a huge amount of persuasion. In essence, the entire country has to be behind the measure. The people absolutely have to be behind it, because it simply will not pass without overwhelming support. This is why it's so difficult to conceive how an amendment could pass against the will of the people. It's just not the sort of mechanism that could be utilized in order to overrule habeus corpus, or trial by jury, or "the gitmo thing" (all of which have been happening either illegally or within parameters already existing, depending on whom you ask). It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of practicalities. Would it be better if it mandated that the people must be consulted through referendum? Perhaps, I could see the angle, sure. But is it necessary? It doesn't seem so, at least not for reasons of resisting demagoguery or even popular movements. The proof is in the pudding. We're supposed to be a nation of christian consevatives, right? The crazy right that supposedly runs this country. That "80% christian" statistic you always hear batted around. Our steady stream of conservative Republican presidents. So then why is it that abortions are legal? A constitutional amendment would override Roe vs Wade without any input from the Supreme Court or the President of the United States. And yet there is no such amendment. The reason is that (a) the country is not unitedly conservative enough for such an amendment to be proposed and passed, and (b) there is no way for conservative demagogues to ram such an amendment through over even minority objections. In short, it is exactly the situation you want -- the amendment cannot pass for exactly the reason you worry is missing from our system -- popular support. It isn't there, so the amendment doesn't exist. Make sense? It's also worth keeping in mind that the constitution must also be protected FROM the will of the people. Just to give an example of how it can go badly the other way, my state (Florida) has a state constitution amendment process that is extremely easy. The people decide amendments, and thus virtually every time I go to the poll I'm being asked to vote on three or four amendments -- amendments to our constitution! It's insane. Half of the amendments are typically there to void or marginalize some previous constitutional amendment! Anyway, the political split for our founding fathers was between those who wanted a strong federal government and those who were deathly afraid of that very same thing. The process reflects that fear, protecting the people against demagoguery while at the same time protecting the people against oligarchy and even each other. I could see giving the people a little bit more of a guarantee in the matter, but as a practical matter they already are part of the process, and we desperately have to avoid giving them too much authority. I see your point there, and like I said before I wouldn't presume to tell you what would be a better way to run Australia. Yes, I can see how that might be a problem, and the people might be needed to help with the balance. That's... interesting. Definitely an "alien" concept from where I sit. That's certainly true. And I think that post gave me some interesting insight. I think there's a general perception over here is that parliamentary systems are antiquated and flawed, but I don't really think that's the case. All systems have flaws, and as a friend of mine used to say, all systems are vulnerable to demagoguery, but I can see where a parliamentary system can be just as effective at defending a state and its people as a... well I don't know what we call ours, but whatever that is.

She won't run as an independent. You think she has high negatives now, just watch what happens if she undermines the Democratic nominee.

I think this thread is interesting because it suggests a backlash from having Hillary on the ticket, which I think is not something that the MSM is reporting. They want their dream ticket. Bad.

I still think you're on the wrong page about the US government changing the constitution. The "Gitmo affair" didn't involve a change in the constitution, it involved the flexing of existing powers. I wouldn't presume to tell you how things work in Australia (though I think it interesting that everyone seems to be able to tell me how it works in the US, no matter where they happen to live), but in this case I just think you're completely off base with this. I don't think you replied (unless I just missed it) to my earlier point that the constitution cannot be changed without state ratification, and never in the entire history of this country has an amendment passed that the people did not want, nor do I believe it CAN happen, regardless of what the technical reality may be. As I said before, it's not a question of whether a demagogue will flex that power at some point in the future, it's a question of whether such a thing is actually possible. But maybe I'm just missing something, I don't know. By all means, tell me.

Maybe, but it's funny how that never came up in any previous economic downturn. It's not just the media, it's always been the accepted measure, and it's only now that the economy isn't behaving and doing what the ABB crowd wants it to do that we suddenly learn that that was just a "technical definition" (as if this wasn't a technical measurement!) and that there are really much more important ways to measure the economy. (Like how Suzie, a working mother of three, is concerned about losing one of her three part-time jobs and can't pay for her $500,000 condo on her hairdresser's salary anymore.) At any rate, saying we're in a "mild recession" -- a word that most definitely has a negative growth rate connotation -- when we've actually got a positive growth rate seems to me to be about politics, not economics. Using the word "recession" to scare people into voting properly.

Regarding the closed-minded, loyalty-based administration of the country, I agree that the Bush administration has raised the bar in this area, I just feel that the correct assessment of that problem (and this is entirely my opinion here) is that we needed someone to step up to the plate and push the bar the other way, and for whatever reason that didn't happen. Instead the problem was allowed to grow worse. That IS an indictment of the Bush administration. It is NOT an indictment of Republicans, conservatism, neo-conservatism, intelligence, lack of intelligence, white men, southern drawls or the price of tea in China. Failure to recognize these very same properties of he Clinton administration (albeit in smaller quantities) is exactly why the Bush administration was able to behave in this manner. And guess what? We still need that problem fixed! Now, do you all think that problem will be fixed by declaring the Bush administration flawed and making sure a Democrat gets elected no matter what, or by instead recognizing that these people do not exist in a vacuum, and that the exact SAME pressures will be focused on the next administration, regardless of whom it may be, and then taking steps to change that? Bear in mind that while we may not be responsible for it, we can very much facilitate it. When the press begins to characterize President Obama as "embattled" because his own party won't bring him the laws he asks for, will you respond to pollsters by repeating what the press tells you, or will you pay shaper attention than that, and empower him with the support he needs to affect real change in this country? Will you play political blame games like you're doing with Bush, becoming stalwart defenders of President Obama no matter what he says, even if it's something stupid that needs to not happen, or will you pay sharper attention than that and hold him to the change he has promised us?

Ok, it wasn't invented by the Bush administration nor is it a unique facet of the Bush administration nor would it likely have been any different with any other administration from 2001 to 2009 and it is the logical and obvious (if awful) outgrowth of what's been happening in this country in recent decades and recent administrations. Better?

Therein lies the rub. That's a moral choice, not an inherently obvious fact. Once you add a little moral ambiguity into the mix, human nature takes over and some will agree while others oppose. Always.

It wasn't invented by the Bush administration, Phi.

That's the thing that always cracks me up about Bush-bashing as well. They don't seem to get that it's not just Bush they're insulting, it's the audience. That's what really happened with the Dixie Chicks, for example, and why most of the ABB movies don't seem to get anywhere in the box office. As you say, all of this just gets in the way or real problem-solving. Impeachment, for example, isn't an answer, it's a pointless political ploy. It was stupid when they did it to Clinton, and it's the one thing we've somehow managed to avoid transforming into a standard practice under Bush. We should be GLAD of that, not lamenting its absence.

Oh dear, I waltzed right into that comparison! But I guess we agree it would be helpful. I'm almost as sick of the anti-media propaganda machine as I am of the media propaganda machine. Anything that would help people get a better measure of things than the "working single mother of three" barometer would seem to be a good thing.

Nicely done. I don't know about France moving right, though -- I was reading today that the Cozy Czar's approval ratings have fallen from 53% to 20% in a single year.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/wireStory?id=4952742 The definition of "recession" is two straight quarters of negative economic growth. That still hasn't happened, in spite of poor NBC News' desire to call it one. (Kinda funny how when they decide to call things "what they really are", they oddly turn out not to be those things! The "civil war" in Iraq comes to mind.) Perhaps new definitions are needed. I get annoyed at our media-driven sensitivity to the plight of the single-working-mother-of-three, but the economy has grown so large that problems like the housing market collapse can have far-reaching impact even if they don't produce an outright recession, and that's worth acknowledging with SOME kind of moniker. Perhaps we can divide it up into categories of recession or something, like with hurricanes or tornados. (lol)

Of course, but my point was that the new development tools that they're pioneering allow for rapid cross-platform application development. Games can be co-developed for both the 360 and the PC much more easily than can happen with other combinations of platforms. There are some major shortcomings, but those are clearly being pursued with great haste and focus (like graphic engines not being easily integrated into XNA Studio, no built-in modeling tools, the continued lack of standards amongst tool sets, etc). Consider what companies have to do in order to produce a game simultaneously for the PS3 and PC, or the Wii and PC. There's a lot of wheel-reinventing going on up and down the development chain. It's pretty ugly. The new integration approach used by Microsoft is almost certainly going to be copied for use in other development environments. They'll simply have to, if they want to remain competitive.

Thanks, I meant to say C-SPAN 2, much obliged. (Where you been iNow? Too quiet around here!)

Interesting op/ed in the Wall Street Journal today by Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh, authors of a new book called "After Bush: The Case for Continuity in American Foreign Policy". The basic point is that our foreign policy is not likely to change dramatically after the election. - Neither candidate has disavowed the war on terror - In fact they all claim they would do a better job fighting it - Administrations historically inherit foreign policy and situations - Bill Clinton committed more troops to foreign conflicts than any previous president since WW2 - European complaints are unlikely to have a dramatic impact, since they need us as much as we need them - Much of the anti-Americanism sentiment in the world is more or less immune to changes in policy anyway http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121236518042636485.html?mod=djemEditorialPage I think they have some interesting points, but I think the authors miss the overall point of people's objections to Iraq (for example). The objection isn't that we're fighting a war on terror, it's the specific actions that we're taking in that war. And of course the only way to ultimately express your displeasure over those actions is with your vote in the next election. What do you all think?

The senate begins debate on this bill this week, which is being covered on C-SPAN (Barbara Boxer is speaking from the floor as I write this). (Correction: That's C-SPAN 2 -- thanks iNow.) The Wall Street Journal had an editorial today that I thought notable: I bet. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121236237789236363.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

I know what you mean, Rev. A lot of people are in that boat, having bought trucks they needed for work and just deciding that they would drive them around for normal driving because they couldn't afford two vehicles. Gas was cheap so it made sense, but now it's becoming a problem. My brother in law is in that boat, with one of those 900-hp Dodge diesel monsters that are so great for hauling. He lives in a mountain resort area and works in construction and painting. I do think it will work out in the long run, but it's going to be tough for a while as everyone adjusts to the new reality. It's interesting that this didn't really happen at the 2 or 3 dollar mark, but now suddenly it's really starting to kick in. We crossed a threshold somewhere around the 3.50 mark, it seems to me.

I agree that checks the federal government's ability to confiscate property is a good idea, that additional ones may be necessary, and that your suggestion is potentially a way to do that. Farther than that I'm not willing to go at this time. Surely you can understand my desire to be more thorough in my comprehension of this interesting subject. I agree with this. That was well put, doG.

I'm familiar with recent expansion of eminent domain, ala Kelo. We've even discussed the issue here before. Yes, I think it appropriate for our elected representatives to define limits on the government's power of eminent domain. So does the Supreme Court. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the constitution is followed, not to write new laws.

I agree that the argument against "judicial activism" is sometimes made from the left-side perspective, just not as commonly so. I wasn't disparaging anyone's arguments with that statement, just trying to clearly state my position. The concept of eminent domain is always an interesting one to see come up in discussions of pertaining to judicial review (or judicial activism), because often it's the majority that want the property taken, and the courts that stop that from happening. And it's an interesting mention in this thread, because we're talking about empowering the will of the people, and yet eminent domain is about protecting the rights of the individual. That having been said, I can see where this pertains to your overall subject of increasing the size of the legislature, and I think that's an interesting argument. (And since we're in new territory I'm loathe to close the thread now, although at the moment I think I'm mostly just enjoying watching you guys hash out these interesting points.) I was really talking more about the larger subject of judicial review. I'm not in favor of expanding eminent domain, and in fact would even strongly consider supporting tighter controls over its use. But I do support the core concept. Nor does it have it. I've said for a long time now that the problem of "judicial activism" is really a problem of not having a strong enough legislature and/or executive. Write and sign a law that directly contradicts the constitution, for example, and what do people expect is going to happen? And yet that judge gets accused of "writing law". Sheer nonsense. I wouldn't say that applies to all issues, though, and valid cases have been made regarding issues like eminent domain, abortion, etc. I recognize that. But even in those cases -- even with abortion -- the power continues to rest with the legislative and executive to resolve the issue, and yet nothing happens. So it cannot be rightly said that the judiciary has acquired legislative power. (I can move some posts into a separate thread about judicial activism if there is an interest in that.)

One thing you should definitely try to do is nail down whether you want to do "computer science" or something more of an applied field like "information technology", which is often listed as computer information systems, information systems, and so forth. There's also the offshoot of management information science/systems, but that's generally seen as a step down unless you're really interested in management. (Not enough smart managers out there, IMO, but that's another discussion.) CS has become more of a higher-level focus, looking ahead to, and developing, emerging and prospective technologies. As opposed to, for example, writing your company's new business portal, which is more in the applied province. There's obviously a huge gray area in between, though. Most programmers today probably work on business stuff -- client/server database interactions, front-end clients, etc. That's where the grunt work salaried positions are. But it can still be an interesting area to be in, and it's where most of the money is, especially if you do it well. On the other hand, the ultimate money, the real pie in the sky, is with new tech, which can only come with a solid understanding of the science and engineering behind computers, so a CS degree is beneficial there. And of course if programming doesn't interest you, if you're more interested in administration, support, consulting, etc, then IT is the way to go. Don't forget computer engineering, electrical engineering, and other hardware-related programs.

It's an underlying principle of the Constitution. Each of the three branches has a relatively equal set of powers. It's not a completely level measure, perhaps, but it's the general intent. Certainly the intent is not to have the judiciary be an enabler for mob rule, which is how I believe many on the right (and even the left) would have it. Their mob, their rules.

Maybe, but that wouldn't be consistent with his comment about international acceptance, which seems to recognize the value of a co-equal judiciary. (The right wing argument about activist judges doesn't play well with me, and the fact that it may resonate with "most Americans" says more to me about demagoguery and partisanship than it does about its necessity.)

That's quite a speakers list. Some of those personalities are quite differing on many subjects, and it would be interesting to see some of them go at it with each other. I wonder if they're brave enough to put Penn Jillette on a global warming panel with Michael Shermer. Probably not. Jillette would get roasted anyway, though he might score points calling Shermer a hypocrit.