Comments on: The clones versus fresh air

By: Toby Bast

Toby Bast — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:56:46 +0000

i cant believe that you are failing once again and once more , even a monkey can do it

By: D E

D E — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:36:37 +0000

He had some serious flaws in practice and policy. But its a good speech.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:09:50 +0000

Great speech. I wish I liked Reagan more. I don’t adulate him like others do. I think he go rolled on immigration and taxes, paving the way for future democratic Presidents via the loss of California as a Republican and functional state.

By: D E

D E — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:45:19 +0000

I don’t think that everyone needs to be at the founder level of education. If we could get everyone in the habit of critical thinking, it might be enough. Much of modus operandi in politics is emotional appeals: “Don’t you feel bad for….” “Isn’t it a shame…” “That’s outrageous….” “Shouldn’t we help…”

If people were to understand the consequence to the actions we take as individuals and a nation I think that would be a huge step in the right direction. There was a speech by Ronald Regan in 1964 which is highly applicable to this conversation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY
**replaced that link with a better one

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:12:14 +0000

For an education system fix to “fix” this it would have to bring each kid up to the founders level (or close) of education. Unlikely.

What we need to “fix” is the system that permits uneducated peope, and their agents, to reach into educated/productive people’s pockets.

That is the ultimate corruption. That the Senators are bring each other with other people’s money.

By: D E

D E — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:23:40 +0000

The American people are as much to blame as any other party. We produced the nitwits, we elected the nitwits, we realized that the nitwits were nitwits so we produced and elected different nitwits.

My argument against compromise is not absolute, but it is borne out of disgust. Senators and congressmen are BUYING each others’ votes. Tell me how that is a good thing? Tell me why I should accept bribery on a national scale when we abhor it so much on any smaller scale?

Excuse me if my statements seem to excessively blame the government and ignore our own culpability. However, many politicians, including the current fearless leader use demagogy to attain power. An uneducated populace doesn’t recognize the signs of someone manipulating them. We all say “those idiots in Washington” then vote for the same corrupt politicians all over gain.
Yes, as a nation we should be saying “Mea Culpa” but we need to stop “The New Deal” and “The Great Society” from getting us into worse trouble. We are quickly reaching a point described thusly: “A democracy only lasts as long as it takes the people to realize that they can vote themselves generous stipends from the public coffers.”

Believing as I do in the rule of law, the method we must use to stop the descent is this: show people what is going to happen if it doesn’t stop. Show them what California is on the brink of, and what history shows us of nations who voted for those who promised them whatever it took.

What we must fix in order to stop it all is the current “educational” system, which for all intents and purposes is turning out mindless drones:
http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=11141949

By the way, I don’t like government involvement even when the effect seems to be positive. There are numerous programs which have had a largely positive effect that I still believe are not the right of the federal government to run. Those are the kinds of programs I would fight *for* on a state level or a local level.

By: Carl Nelson

Carl Nelson — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:46:53 +0000

It is convenient to blame the lawmakers when we don’t like the results of the government. We might take notice that over the 220 years we have a wide variety of men and women in the Congress, probably more lawyers than any other expertise. The resulting collection of laws and government roles has acccrued over those 220 years for a variety of reasons, but each exists because compromises were made among an ever growing panoply of competing interests and public demands. Electing yet another slate of Congresscritters, experienced or novice, is not going to change the process nor the results until the voters change their ways of thinking about government. Our lawmakers are us!

By: D E

D E — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:29:56 +0000

#19 I would take a mechanic over a lawyer designing laws in a heartbeat. The lawyers should be the mechanics of laws, building them to match a specification laid out by a broader-thinking architect/designer.

I think that the best possible lawmakers are Scientist Businessmen. Scientists not neccecarily in trade but in line of thinking. For instance, show me a lawyer who can follow If->Then->Else logic without equivocating in well-not-really terms. Businessmen so that they understand what it takes to build something in the society they help govern and they have something to lose if they f*** it up.

IF: the government gives money to someone
THEN: the government had to steal the money from someone else first

IF: you grant amnesty to illegal immigrants
THEN: more will come in the hope of amnesty

As far as compromise to make laws: that is where pork comes from. The federal government was not designed to have that much of a stake in each state, or individual’s life. It has no moral or legal right under the constitution to be doing what it is doing.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:35:29 +0000

at least she promised. And I’m not aware of Republicans putting up with broken term limit promises. I know I wouldn’t.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:27:18 +0000

Maybe so, but I think #1 is right about your Eager’s term limits promise.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:02:48 +0000

#22… there are a # of readers around Utah, I surmise somebody passed it along. They were on talking points for sure.

But… I’ll take term limits, feisty non-careerist, not who the other insider politicians want, and not a lawyer as my talking points.

The inside game might work to get some delegates and maybe force a primary, but it isn’t clear to me who appeals more to the insiders – Bennett (incumbent) or Lee. I think they split that vote.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:53:02 +0000

# 19 You are right about the silver-tongued campaigner as evidenced by the disaster in office now. Good point.
How did the Mike Lee campaign office find out about your blog and spam it?

By: Paula Nelson

Paula Nelson — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:00:10 +0000

How about this: Don’t elect a lawyer, but the representative who uses lawyers on staff to make sure the legislation has a chance at doing what he/she was elected by the people to do.

Commenter Carl: I agree that the skills to get elected aren’t the skills to get things done. I don’t necessarily want Congress getting things done. I want one with the skills to undo!

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:53:24 +0000

Lawyers can help write them on staff, as hired hands. The way they think is useful there. But not in representing us.

If less laws are made because principals are stuck to then we are better off. We need less laws, not more.

By: Carl Nelson

Carl Nelson — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:42:48 +0000

If you wouldn’t want lawyers repairing automobiles, why would you want mechanics designing laws?

BTW: a silver tongued campaign speaker isn’t necessarily an effective lawmaker which requires leadership and getting other lawmakers to see things your way. Speeches don’t do that very well. The legislative game is negotiating among a dozen different viewpoints, incentives, and interest groups. Constitutional principles are only a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. Standing rock-solid on your principles sounds noble, but laws aren’t made that way.