The American people are to blame, not the politicians.

Enough already with blaming everyone except the one group that no one has the guts to blame: American people, those U.S. citizens eligible to vote.

I exercised my personal frustration two days ago with the lousy options I had for candidates here in New York by voting for myself. Didn't help. Didn't hurt. Made me feel better, if not actually good. The new embarrassingly inept paper voting system New York state adopted as a result of the 2000 presidential travesty makes it much easier to write in the name of someone not on the ballot. It's amazing that no one has seized on that to promote one's self, Alaska not withstanding as a sitting U.S. Senator ran as a write in candidate and will probably win after a month of manual counting.

When will we U.S. citizens realize that we cannot continue to play pinball by repeatedly shifting from one major party to the other and expecting improved policy? It's like a kid opening and closing the refrigerator door looking for something that he/she has already determined is not there.

These politicians are not from Mars. They are from among us. If we think that we can do better, then do better. One problem is that we don't know what we want. When something is proposed we form an opinion or not. It's like a parent trying to feed a one year old.

American people, grow the heck up!

Democracy is not a spectator sport. Get involved or stop complaining. And get informed.

I don't know whether it's illegal to bribe voters to vote for a candidate but it might be less expensive. I've long wondered if it's illegal to bribe members of the theoretical electoral college, you know, the people who actually elect a president every four years and then dissolve back into the anonymity they so richly deserve (from the play "1776").

Only 270 electors are needed to elect a president. A rich person could offer $1,000,000 to the first 270 electors and become president for a known fixed amount.

States probably have laws against it but I'd consider taking $100 to vote for a candidate for the House. Maybe $150 for the U.S. Senate.

Candidates raise huge sums of money to get elected and become obliged to their big money contributors. This is generally considered to be a bad system and implicitly corrupt. But where is that money spent?

Most of the campaign money is spent on ads, mostly television commercials. Those annoying nasty little 30 second spots, which play us for fools or worse.

And we have the nerve to blame the politicians? We're too dumb and lazy to behave like responsible citizens and we blame the politicians?

Shame on us. Shame on the American people. The American people are to blame for whatever ails the United States of America.

Personal property and religious freedom.

The current hot button issue concerns a Christian minister in Florida and at least some of his congregation who have announced that they intend to mark September 11 this year by burning copies of the Islamic holy book, the Koran.

I oppose this on environmental grounds. Burning is bad.

However, as long as they legally obtain copies of the Koran those books belong to them and they may destroy the books if they wish for whatever reason they choose. Those books are their personal property. It seems silly to me but not completely irrational since the United States was attacked by 19 Muslim men on Sept. 11, 2001 for reasons associated with their Muslimness. This lead to NATO military action in Afghanistan, which continues today.

If we may burn the American flag, why not books, even those considered holy scripture by their faithful? Destroying your own personal property is OK. So is developing it.

This issue closely follows, and may be a reaction to, the fuss over an Islamic Imam who wants to develop personal property that he owns two blocks from ground zero, the site of the on Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. He's intent on building an Islamic center. It seemed harmless enough until it became a media issue and then it became insensitive, you know, because those 19 Islamic terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners and intentionally crashed two of them into each of the two World Trade center buildings, destroying both buildings and killing over 2,000 innocent people including some Muslims. Oh, a third airline was intentionally crashed into the Pentagon and the fourth crashed in a field.

Once it became a media issue it seemed insensitive for the Imam to insist on continuing with the project but, hey, that is his right, to develop his personal property.

New York Mayor Bloomberg weighed in heavily on the side of development, perhaps because of his business background. He also, made a big point of religious freedom.

Both issues have unleashed a tirade of religious freedom rants, which seem completely based on fantasy, not fact. How many Muslims were killed in the U.S. since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks? How many were attacked? How many mosques were burned? I think few, if any, is the answer to all those questions. President Bush the younger went to a mosque days after the attack to demonstrate religious tolerance. How many Muslim moderates condemned those attacks since the Sept. 11, 2001? Not many. How many Muslim moderates are suddenly crying religious bias now? Many.

So if Americans collectively have shown nothing but religious tolerance toward Muslims since Sept. 11, 2001 why are they painted by some as intolerant for these two recent innocuous issues: one a bit whacky but harmless, the other quite understandable?

The U.S. general in Afghanistan has stated that the whacky Florida minister by merely announcing that he intends to burn his own copies of the Koran has put U.S. troops in harms way. Doesn't that lend credence to the idea that some Muslims are nuts enough to kill people because of something as trivial as a book burning?

An emergency ecumenical meeting of Christian, Jewish and Muslim "leaders" was just convened to condemn the Florida minister. That seems out of all proportion with the minister's intent and importance. Even the president's press secretary has commented. One of these ecumenical leaders even called upon the U.S. Attorney-General to prosecute the Florida minister. For what? Exercising his constitutional rights of freedom of speech and religion?

Doesn't religious freedom include disliking a religion?

Isn't destroying personal property that has religious symbolism classified as freedom of speech, like burning the American flag?

Everybody calm the heck down. Do not become violent. Be tolerant, even with those with whom we disagree.

Andrew Cuomo's five-point plan to build a New NY.

Andrew Cuomo is the Attorney General of New York state and son of the former governor Mario Cuomo. Andrew was also a cabinet officer under President Bill Clinton. Andrew is running for governor.

Here is a link for his personal election website:

http://www.andrewcuomo.com/issues_and_agenda

It contains his five point plan, which include:

3. Rightsizing Government
Government in New York is too big, ineffective, and expensive.

Now contrast that with this link to his official Attorney General website "Meet my Senior Staff":

http://www.ag.ny.gov/senior_staff.html

Here are the titles of his "Senior Staff":

Director of Communications

Special Deputy Attorney General for Public Integrity

Special Deputy Attorney General for Guns and Gangs

Counselor and Chief of Staff

Special Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights

Chief Investigator

Executive Deputy Attorney General for Social Justice

Counsel to the Attorney General

Deputy Attorney General for Administration

Special Deputy Chief of Staff

Special Counsel to the Attorney General

Deputy Counselor and Special Assistant

Executive Deputy Attorney General for the Division of State Counsel

Press Secretary

Special Deputy Attorney General for Investor Protection

Deputy Attorney General for Regional Affairs

Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Executive Deputy Chief of Staff

Solicitor General

Executive Deputy Attorney General for Economic Justice

Deputy Attorney General for the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit

21. I may have lost count but I think it's 21. You can't make up stuff like this. And remember, this is just Andrew Cuomo's "Senior Staff".

On August 9, 2010 I had filled out a form at the website of the Attorney General of New York state, figuring I might get some attention because the office holder is running for higher office. Instead I received a PAPER letter dated August 11, 2010 from someone whose title is "Associate Director of Correspondence". Since the PAPER letter writer is only the "Associate" and since the actual "Director" is not a member of the 21 person "Senior Staff" I guess my message did not have the impact I had intended. That and the fact that the author did not provide an e-mail ID and had his phone number in miniature font size. Plus this: "We are unclear, however, as to the nature of your concerns". PAPER man could have called me. I provided my phone number. PAPER man could have sent me an e-mail message. I provided my e-mail ID. I used digital means to communicate. Why did I receive a PAPER response?

Maybe he was too busy ... attending a staff meeting. Maybe he was trying to schedule a meeting with one of those 21 "Senior Staff" people. More likely he was trying to contact one of the associates of those 21. Or an associate of one of the groups that are not important enough to be among the 21 "Senior Staff", a group such as his own: Correspondence.

Can you imagine a group named Correspondence, that is important enough to have a "Director" who is important enough to have an "Associate Director" who cannot understand a constituent's message and responds as described?

And Andrew Cuomo (Remember him?) has this as one of his five elect-me-governor points:

3. Rightsizing Government
Government in New York is too big, ineffective, and expensive.

You can't make up stuff like this.

________________________________________

The link to this message was sent to:

http://www.andrewcuomo.com/contact

Maybe we need a Dumb Democrat.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

We elected the smart guy.

http://matinale.blogspot.com/2008/11/we-elected-smart-guy.html

_________________________________

I'm starting to have a new perspective. Maybe we need a Dumb Democrat. The smart Democrats who have been elected in recent decades have not done so well: Carter, Clinton, Obama. They seem to know what to do but can't get it done. Carter was inept, Clinton and Obama too expedient. Clinton and Obama can talk themselves into and out of anything.

I'm starting to consider alternatives to Obama who shows no signs of doing anything radical enough to matter. A Dumb Democrat might be just the right balance. Someone who's dumb enough to actually try to do what is needed.

Obama can lose re-election to the first Spanish speaking president.

John Ellis "Jeb" Bush: born February 11, 1953.

Sunday Chris Mathews and his panelists stumbled around the idea that the former governor of Florida could defeat President Obama in 2012 in part because Jeb speaks fluent Spanish as a second language. They failed to describe him as the first Spanish speaking president, somewhat akin to Bill Clinton being described as our first black president.

Jeb is the son of President Bush the elder.

Jeb is the younger brother of President Bush the younger.

Jeb is smart and well spoken in English, something that his presidential relatives were not. Unlike his presidential brother Jeb seems to have actually gone to class while in college. Jeb also lacks his brother's boorish qualities.

Jeb has these advantages:

- he no longer holds public office
- he would not be immediately succeeding his brother
- his children have a Mexican mother and were described indelicately as "the little brown ones" by President Bush the elder, their grandfather.

If Jeb could garner 90 percent of the "Spanish" vote that would overwhelm Obama's 90 percent of the black vote and could decide the election.

Were Jeb to be elected president he would clarify the Bush dynasty as the greatest in U.S. history. So far Bushes have been elected to three presidential terms, one while losing the popular election. Bush the elder lost re-election.

Adamses were elected to two presidential terms, John Quincy while losing the popular vote. Both lost re-election.

Harrisons were elected to two presidential terms. The elder, William Henry, died soon after taking office. His grandson Benjamen lost the popular vote in both his elections, winning in the electoral college in the first.

Roosevelts were elected to five presidential terms but Theodore was a distant relative of Franklin who racked up four of those victories all by himself. Each had been governor of New York.

John Kennedy was elected to one presidential term. Two of his brothers were elected to the U.S. Senate and two of his nephews were elected to the House of Representatives and a niece was elected Lieutenant Governor of Maryland. I think that the Bushes already have that trumped with two presidents and a governor.

Immigration: suppose you change country to company?

http://matinale.blogspot.com/2008/02/immigration-solution-by-kenneth.html

Immigration: the solution

That's something I wrote May 16, 2006. Too bad nobody did it.

Now there is political turmoil about the Arizona law, which was enacted in April and "which, barring an injunction, takes effect July 29 — makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant there. It also requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for other offenses if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they might be illegal immigrants." NY Times, July 11, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/us/politics/12governors.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

Sounds good to me. Some people are falling all over themselves in protest, way out of proportion to any conceivable negative impact. What's the worst that can happen? Some of the people in the United States who should be deported are deported.

The fallacy of the concern is that no entity in the United States would tolerate the policy that the entire United States is supposed to tolerate. Try substituting company for country. Then see how far that policy gets you. Any entity has a right to know who is in its jurisdiction and to set policy about that.

IBM, you know the big computer company, has its headquarters a few miles from where I live. What would happen if I showed up there? I might not even get into the parking lot as a non-employee. I definitely cannot get into the building without having an employee vouch for me by
signing me in and signing me out when I leave.

Let's take it a step further. Suppose that I want to work at IBM. What would happen if I broke in? Would I be allowed to stay and would I be put on track to become an employee, employment being the functional equivalent of citizenship? Does anyone think that would happen? Forget about being sent to the employment office and put on the end of the line. The only line I would be on is the one in jail.

To the knuckleheads who think that foreigners should be allowed to break into the United States with impunity: what would you do if you came home and found a family of strangers in your home? Would you call the police and have them removed? Or would you allow them to stay ... and send for their relatives to join them?

How many people who live in houses do not have a fence between their property and the property of their immediate neighbors?

And what about showing identification? We do it all the time. As mentioned previously, virtually every company requires employees to not only have ID but to wear it when at their place of employment. When a police officer stops us for a traffic matter we are asked to show our driver's license, car registration and proof of car insurance. I have no objection to showing proof of citizenship at any time.

So why do some of us pretend to have a totally different attitude about the most basic form of membership: U.S. citizenship? Every country has a right to decide who is allowed to visit, stay, become a citizen.

And why should we pretend that most of the people who violate our borders are not from Mexico and other countries further south? Why pretend that basic common sense is "racial profiling", whatever that is? People who came to the United States from south of the border are generally the overwhelming majority of those who are offended? Why? Are they really concerned? If they were truly concerned about being deported then why would they participate in public protest rallies? Apparently they are not so concerned that the police will round them up. What is the negative implication about rounding up law breakers? How about rounding up deadbeat dads? Who opposes that?

One supposed benefit is diversity. The current dynamic is just the opposite. We are allowing people from Mexico, etc. who are generally poor, not well educated and almost encouraged to leave their countries by the ruling elite of those countries. How many of these Spanish speaking intruders would favor lawless entry into the United States if there were true diversity, i.e., that people from many different countries from around the world were breaking into the United States, people who speak many languages other than Spanish, from cultures very different from theirs, with different religions?

Tolerance is an elusive thing and very subjective when truly confronted.

Conservation.

Teddy Roosevelt advocated conservation over 100 years ago. Isn't it about time that another American president do it? While the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico continues unabated, no one has suggested that we conserve and use less oil so that drilling would be less necessary. Not President Obama, not the governor of Louisiana, not the governor of Mississippi, not a mayor of one of those pathetic little places which rely on the fishing industry. NO ONE! Instead of politicians who have nothing in common with NASCAR nation aficionados sucking up to them for their votes, how about SOMEBODY in a responsible position pointing out how absurd it is for the United States to embrace a culture of reckless speeding, needless oil consumption, pollution and weakening our national security through continued dependence on terrorist nations for essential energy sources?

Barack Bush and/or George W. Obama

During the 2008 presidential campaign I wrote that with Democrats like Obama who needs Republicans? Maybe we should search for Obama's birth certificate so that we can compare it to that of Bush the younger to make sure that they are not the same person. Maybe do a DNA analysis to determine whether Obama is an illegitimate son of Bush the elder. There must be some explanation for why Obama's policies are those that I would have expected from Bush the younger had he not been precluded from serving a third term by a constitutional term limit. Consider:


Economy:
- bailout of the auto industry
- bailout of the financial industry
- financial leaders allowed to receive HUGE amounts of money for their incompetence and possible criminality
- high unemployment
Obama's Treasury Secretary may not have been as much of a Goldman Sachs creature as Bush's Paulson or Clinton's Rubin but Geithner could not have protected Goldman Sachs more without being investigated. OK, Obama's justice department is looking into criminal charges against the financial crooks. Bush the younger would never have considered that.


Foreign policy:
- large numbers of troops kept in Iraq with no substantial improvement
- large numbers of troops kept in Afghanistan with no substantial improvement.


Environment:
- "drill, baby, drill" re-affirmed even after the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
- "mine, baby, mine" re-affirmed even after the recent coal mine disaster that killed 29 workers.


You may think that the one major divergence was on health care. Obama's convoluted legislation ensures that the insurance industry will receive government mandated revenue. Bush the younger would embrace that. This is not change that we can believe in. It is not even change.

Is nature (God) giving us a hint on dealing with mother earth?

Two recent events:

1. Coal mine cave in in West Virginia, killing many workers.

2. Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico heading toward Louisiana, causing a state of emergency.

Where are the "drill, baby, drill" and "mine, baby, mine" morons now. Maybe nature and/or God is giving us a final wake up call.

These should be our energy imperatives:

1. Fill in the oil wells and coal mines.

2. Stop burning stuff, all stuff: coal, oil, natural gas, wood. Burning is bad. Repeat: burning is bad.

Then establishing an energy policy should be easy.

A personal experience with health care insurance.

Because my former employer, AT&T, hiked the monthly charge for my insurance carrier, US Health Care, from $141 to $291, I switched to another AT&T provided option for 2010: HIP New York. Monthly cost: zero. There were some minor differences: $50 for a specialist visit as opposed to $40; $50 deductible for prescription medicine, which would be $30 per 90 days instead of $20. Nothing that would justify paying almost $300 per month. Once again, my increase was OVER 100%. Obama was dramatizing the recent 39% increase in California. Hey, 100% is more than twice 39%! With US Health Care I could go to a specialist directly without getting a referral from the primary care physician (PCP). HIP New York requires that I get a referral from my PCP. So far I have not tested this. All my specialists took HIP New York but my PCP did not, so I would need a new PCP. HIP New York seemed to be a good choice. My old single practitioner PCP is a good doctor but his office administration was terrible. Usually, I could not get anyone on the phone, I could not leave a message and his office hours were limited. Having prescriptions sent to Medco (designated by AT&T) for mail order was a continuing source of concern and frustration. I chose Westchester Medical Group, which had many doctors in multiple locations AND a web site in which I could review doctor credentials and make appointments, request referrals, submit billing questions, review test results. http://www.westmedgroup.com/ Impressive, heh? Wow, this seemed like a major improvement if my new PCP was comparable to my previous PCP. My new PCP is good but he is old and apparently he does not use his group's web site. There were issues about simple gastro medicine. He seemed unaware of Medco's mail order system and told me that he just writes prescriptions that patients take to the local pharmacy. How quaint. I insisted that I wanted mail order because it is less expensive and more convenient. He was not sure that his people knew how to submit a prescription to Medco but his nurse assured him that she did. When the Westchester Medical Group, Medco and HIP New York web sites did not mesh on the status and details of my prescription I sent a message through the Westchester Medical Group web site expressing concern, thinking that it would be handled by an admin person. I received multiple phone calls from my new PCP about this. My PCP became agitated, stating that he was just trying to practice medicine and that neither he nor his people would spend hours on the phone trying to resolve this .. and that I should call and not send e-mail. Let's just say that there were more problems and that they need to be resolved, including his switching me to a new non-generic gastro medicine that HIP New York does not classify as continuing, which limits the supply to 30, not 90, days. This medicine appears to be the usual drug company trick of creating a slightly newer medicine when its predecessor is about to go generic. The new med, of course, costs a lot more than the old. My PCP fell for it. February 5, 2010 my new PCP performed an endoscopy on me. A couple of weeks later, I received a bill for $1,050 from the anesthesiology group. They claimed that they did not have any insurance info on me. Say what? Didn't Westchester Medical Group and/or my PCP pass along that info through the hospital? I had to show my HIP New York card at the hospital. Again, how quaint. Suppose that I had lost the plastic proof of insurance? Next I received a bill from a pathological organization, which I assume is the business for the hospital pathologist. After calling that group and HIP New York I learned that HIP New York had paid only $116 of the $330 submission and I was asked to pay the remaining $214. HIP New York informed me that the doctor in the hospital pathology department was not "in network". I asked what pathologist for that hospital would be "in network". HIP New York did not know. HIP New York will re-submit the claim of the pathologist but stated that it would probably be rejected again. What the heck? I had no control over who did the pathology work. I never even heard of this pathologist until I received the bill. At least I had met, though not chosen, the anesthesiologist just before my procedure. Suppose the anesthesiologist had not been "in network"? Could I have been socked with that $1,050 bill? I understand why some members of Congress are against a single payer system for health care: some of it is philosophical but most of it is greed. What I cannot understand are all those regular people who are foaming at the mouth in opposition. Don't they have experiences that are comparable to mine? I am relatively healthy. What the heck are sick people going through? Separate health care from insurance. Have the federal government pay the bills. And if the government will not pay the entire amount, present patients with clear indications of how much they will be expected to pay BEFORE medical work is done. ____________________________________________ Sent to Paul Krugman (New York Times), President Obama, Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Rep. Nita Lowey

American citizens need health care, not health insurance.

It's pretty simple and basic. Nobody cares whether or not they have insurance. They just want access to health care. Medicare for every American citizen. I advocated that back in August 2009 on this blog and in a message that I sent to my member of the House and my U.S. Senators and to President Obama. I sent it again today to those same recipients who have yet to "get the message". Drive the damn insurance companies out of business. We do NOT need health insurance! We do not have police insurance. We just call the police and they respond. And for the current Republican rant about the tenth amendment and how requiring people to buy health insurance violates the tenth amendment: hey, states require car insurance. That pretty much sums up our priorities: cars before people ... and that's in the weird world in which insurance is deemed necessary to be healthy. Prohibit employers from providing health coverage. Hey, maybe a side benefit would be to encourage them to stay in the USA and be more competitive. The government should pay the bill as it does for national defense, the interstate highway system, blah, blah, blah. Oh, that would be big government! Government run health care! YES! Get over it! USA is the most powerful country in the history of the galaxy. Stop acting like it's Mayberry. Grow the heck up! We have a government run ARMY! Want to change that to an insurance system supplied by employers? You lose your job and you lose your army insurance and you may be invaded by the Russians. Oh, well that's stupid. Yeah, so is employer based health insurance, which you lose when you need it most when your employer fires your ass! I'll take my chances with that government bearueacrat over the ones I deal with now in the private health insurance companies. And the government is not going to fire me.

Media: pound inequity of the United States Congress!

President Obama has been conducting a seminar on health care with members of Congress. All day. Right now Obama is 30 minutes from the end and a senator from Wyoming, another of the Congressional Republican doctors, is running his mouth, protecting his interests. Who is this guy, representing fewer than 250,000 people (half Wyoming's population) when a senator from California represents 17,000,000 people (half California's population)? Media people should in every instance stress the inequity of the United States Congress. For senators, don't just indicate party and state, tell us how many people that senator represents. When senators vote on a bill, don't just show the number who voted for and against. Count up the number of people represented by those votes so we can see the relative weight on each side of the issue. In the House of Representatives, show a silhouette of the member's district and the percent of voters in the major parties. Embarrass the crap out of those in protected districts until the states adopt fair districting according to municipal boundaries. Better yet, call for a Constitutional Convention so we can fix the many deficiencies left by the Fumbling Founding Fathers.

Should liberals embrace states rights?

States rights. The very phrase has so many negative connotations outside of the DSA (Dumb States of America) - see previous post. In the first half of the history of the United States of America, states rights was an excuse to justify and maintain slavery, the south's peculiar institution. In the second half of our history states rights has been an excuse to justify and maintain second class citizenship for blacks and for other backward policies. The U.S. constitution is so flawed in the process for electing a president and in the legislature by having a senate in which California with 68 times more people has the same representation as Wyoming, it's no wonder that our policies are perverted. These inequities cannot be changed without the consent of the beneficiaries of those same inequities. The Founding Fathers were no better than what we have today. What a mess they created. And we still had a civil war. And the civil war didn't even result in addressing secession, the act which triggered it. Three constitutional amendments as a result of the civil war and none dealt with secession. Without a constitutional convention to make fundamental changes there is no way that this system will improve. So, if you can't beat them, join them. Liberals should stop worrying about Mississippi mistreating its citizens. Short of lynchings, Mississippi is unlikely to do anything really terrible with the universal spotlight of the world wide web. If needed, the feds can step in, like in the old days, the 1960s. Besides, people can vote with their feet. That's the phrase that Reagan popularized. Aren't they already doing that, migrating towards the coasts? Isn't that why old people move to Florida, Arizona and Nevada? Oops, real estate values collapsed in those states. Isn't it why retired LA cops move to Idaho? Liberals, stop cringing and embrace states rights. Change the dynamic and make the nuts cringe. Dismantle federal programs and let each state set policy that is not by its nature federal, such as national defense. When the same people get flooded out of their homes every ten years or so because they refuse to move out of Mississippi River flood zones, their state government, not the federal government, will be responsible for rebuilding their homes. Good luck there. And when a city that is built below sea level gets flooded, Louisiana will decide whether New Orleans is such a good idea after all. You want universal health care? Move to New York or California. You want to carry a concealed weapon? Move to Montana or Idaho. You don't want all that government regulation like brakes on cars? Move to South Carolina. Oh, and make each state pay for its stretch of interstate highway. Let's see how NASCAR nation likes that. Why should someone in New York City who does not own a car pay for interstate highways? States rights. Cool.

Dumb States of America (DSA)

The old Confederate States of America (CSA) could join with some of the western states that are also dumb and form the Dumb States of America (DSA). It could be a more perfect union than the one to which they currently belong. At the Olympic games DSA citizens could cheer on their athletes with chants of DSA, DSA, DSA! It should be easy for them to convert from the old USA chant to the new one. Dumb. That's what we have become. Increasingly we allow dumb people to make decisions and set policy on matters that require smart people: climate change, health care, the economy, ... People who are afraid of science. I don't know science but I know enough to know when most scientists have reached a consensus such as on climate change or health hazards of smoking tobacco or human evolution. The rest of the developed world must be laughing at us. We can't even decide to have universal health care. How dumb is that? And we act as if it's a complicated decision. Dumb. You can't have that. Smart people are not always correct but dumb people are usually incorrect. We have over 308 million people in the USA. Why do we let the dumb people have so much influence. Maybe we should split up. Let states secede and form the DSA. Then they can produce as many guns as they want, leave their children uneducated and have a nice weak central government like the old CSA. It was that weak central government that ultimately doomed the CSA.

The United States Senate is a dumb idea.

The United States of America was founded on states rights. The best example of this is the absurd nature of the United States Senate in which each state has the same number of senators regardless of population. According to http://www.census.gov/ here is the U.S. population today: 308,742,516. This includes non-American citizens. The first census was done in 1790. The state totals are here: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1790a-02.pdf I created a document for the 1790 census, which shows the data: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tx0ONS8ONKuPMlty8v0CSqg&output=html In 1790 Virginia had 13 times more people per U.S. senator as Delaware. Each Delaware resident had 13 times more influence as each Virginia resident. Here is the state by state population for the 2000 census and through July 2009: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=GCT-T1-R&-ds_name=PEP_2009_EST&-_lang=en&-format=US-40S&-_sse=on California has the most residents and Wyoming the fewest. Their ratio of residents per U.S. senator as of July 2009 is 68. 68! That's five times worse than the max/min ratio in 1790. Wyoming residents have 68 times more influence than California residents. This is ridiculously outrageous. Instead of laughing at each others sophomoric wisecracks, those tea party morons should be pushing to reform the system of government. Fundamental reform of the system is the only hope we have of getting better results.

Two Americas? At least.

Former Senator John Edwards used the phrase and theme "two Americas" when he ran for president. Unfortunately, there are at least that many and always have been. Our current political gridlock is derived from the mess of a start that the United States had. Ridiculous compromises and expedient deals were made simply to found this country and they persist in our system of government. The only way to purge them is to change the system, which constitutionally, is unlikely to change. In their desire to have all the relevant British colonies become part of the new nation, the founding fathers made deals that make today's look principled. Not only did they not abolish slavery, they permitted the importation of slaves for another 20 years. They permitted the offspring of slaves to be slaves even though in other parts of the world those children would have been free. They implemented a compromise in which three of five slaves would count as free people for the number of seats in the House of Representatives. They maintained the British aristocratic concept of the House of Lords by establishing the U.S. Senate. Wyoming and California each have two senators. And we wonder why our federal government has become so dysfunctional. I have written about constitutional changes before:

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Electing the President: a new system

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2008 Electing the Vice President: a new system

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2008 City States in America:

New York City ... could be a new state with its own perspective and issues... The U.S. constitution has many flaws. An obvious one is the disproportionate nature of the Senate. The founders did not intend for the Senate to be proportionate but they could never have imagined that it would become so hugely disproportionate because they could not have imagined that cities would become so populous... Once New York sets the precedent, all large U.S. cities should follow... Once cities started to secede the Congress would have no choice but to admit them as city states. _________________________________

What to do?

1. Let states and other municipalities secede. No, the American Civil War did not settle this issue. Show me the constitutional amendment, which addresses this. If Lincoln had truly been great there would have been no civil war. When slave states seceded, he should have let them go. He could have corrected some of the original mistakes while leaving the original sin of slavery where it belonged: with the slave states of the Confederacy. The peculiar institution would have ended in about twenty years and the Confederacy would have failed by then. Those states could have been considered for re-admission but on terms that would have made far more sense than what evolved out of the civil war.

2. Within the limited federal functionality that remains, let states do what they want. If they want to rely on the federal government a lot, let them. If they don't, don't force them. If people in Mississippi want to continue to act against their own best interests, let them. Let health insurance companies in Mississippi rule that industry. But if people in New York state want to rely on the federal government, that should be allowed, too. New Yorkers can have a government option on health insurance, some alternative to the private companies. New York has a lot of regulation on health insurance already. Let New York have as much as it wants. Let Mississippi continue to lose population to places like ... New York. In other words, don't fight the two Americas, the many Americas. Let them exist. With our current constitutional structure there is no choice. So unless you are willing to change the U.S. Constitution or, dare I say it, start over, multiple forms of government will exist. Give tea party people (Are they all grouchy old white people?) the option to live under a form of government that suits them. It seems that about one third of Americans are pretty nuts. You cannot reason with nutty people. Obama needs to learn this and stop wasting his time. You cannot reason with terrorists either. Obama, get over it. There is bipartisanship only with those who are not partisan. Another third of Americans are committed to their political thoughts but are not nuts. Then there are the remaining third of Americans who are dumb, either by birth or by choice. Jay Leno interviews them on the street. We generally are appalled at how much they do not know. They are morons. No offense to former Alaska governess Palin or to any of her neglected kids. Hey, to each his/her own.

One Dollar, One Vote.

The immediate reaction to the 5-4 Supreme Court decision has been an hysterical description stating that corporations may now contribute unlimited amounts of money to political activities. There was little or no mention of labor unions and political action committees being similarly unburdened. According to the instant analysis democracy as we know it may be ending or at least taking a turn for the worse.

 1. The ruling did not change limits on direct contributions to candidates by corporations.

2. You never know what will happen.

3. To combat a rich person spending a million dollars on politics, get a million non-rich people to each spend one dollar.

Democracy is not a spectator sport. That's the problem with the second demise of fundamental health care legislation in less than twenty years. Most people are not involved, especially mentally. Most are not thinking about it rationally. Special interest groups, fueled by big, soon to be bigger, money, fill the huge void left by the masses. Who is to blame: the fillers or the voiders?