INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3
REPLYADDR scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us
REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP
MSGID: a36d7d99
REPLY: 3c1d4501
PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
In article ,
TimS wrote:
>Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
>
>1) Not controlling guns severely
...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes
Take out the blue shithole cities from our crime stats and they're no worse
than yours. Probably better, actually. Those blue shitholes, BTW, already
have gun laws much closer to what you'd want. Again, how's that working out
for them?
>2) Believing *rigidly* in the Constitution, instead of being more flexible
>about it
That "flexibility" is what has landed us in our current mess. It's a short
document...maybe three or four pages, written in plain-enough English that
there ought not to be nearly as much disagreement over what it means as
there has been. I chalk that up to a group of politicians who seek to
obfuscate and gaslight...mostly with "D"s after their names, though there
are more than a few with "R" after their names who I wouldn't trust as far
as I can throw them either.
Given that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, it follows
that sharply curtailing the power the government has over the people would
serve well to limit the extent of corruption.
>3) Allowing any tuppenny-ha'penny jurisdiction to "incorporate" (whatever that
>means) and thus have its own police department and mayor - with the chief of
>the former being elected like the latter. A good recipe for corruption and
>incompetence. The US has over 15,000 police departments for 350 million
>people, we have 45 for 60 million.
Police chiefs generally aren't elected. They're appointed by mayors and/or
city councils, to whom they're beholden. Sheriffs are elected, usually on a
countywide basis. There are some exceptions here and there...here in Las
Vegas, the city police department and the county sheriff's department merged
in the early '70s, so we have a police department headed up by an elected
sheriff.
>4) Having judges be elected, and having them be allowed to decide policy
>matters such as abortion based on some spurious interpretation of the
>Constitution, instead of such questions being decided by the legislatures,
>where they belong.
The bigger problem, especially at the federal level, is the unaccountable
administrative state. Congress has mostly abdicated its responsibility and
let organizations like the EPA and ATF do pretty much whatever they want.
At least if an elected judge proves himself to be a total fuckup, there's a
chance that the voters might shitcan him the next time he's up for
reelection. (Practice might have some variance from theory in this regard,
given how many judges run unopposed.)
>5) Allowing political advertising on TV and radio.
I'm not sure I'd consider that the problem so much as that they get away
with blatant lies without any consequence. Theoretically, the voters would
throw the bums out. In practice, most people seem to be of the mindset that
while other people's representatives are scumbags and reprobates, theirs are
as pure as the wind-driven snow. Why this is the case is a mystery.
--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
SEEN-BY: 15/0 19/38 90/1 105/81 106/201 128/260 129/305 135/225 153/7715
SEEN-BY: 218/700 226/30 227/114 229/110 112 113 200 206 307 317 400
SEEN-BY: 229/426 428 470 550 616 664 700 266/512 282/1038 291/111
SEEN-BY: 292/854 320/219 322/757 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280 281
SEEN-BY: 633/412 418 420 509 2744 712/848 770/1 3 100 330 340 772/210
SEEN-BY: 772/220 230 5020/400 5075/35
PATH: 770/3 1 633/280 229/426
|
