For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"

Okay, here is the list of countries with poplations of greater than 150 million:

1 China (1,338,760,000)
2 India (1,183,669,000)
3 United States (309,786,000)
4 Indonesia (234,181,400)
5 Brazil (193,253,000)
6 Pakistan (170,064,500)
7 Bangladesh (164,425,000)
8 Nigeria (158,259,000)

Which of these is doing a better job than us in terms of governing a huge mass of people (actually wayyy beyond huge)?

Yup. Our founding documents were inspired - but we are no longer an 18th century minor nation in a pre-industrialized world.

With 300 million people and multiple layers of government striving to both keep those 300 million people unified, protect their wide ranging iintereste, while at the same time give them a voice in federal and local govt. -- GUESS WHAT?? Waste & corruption happen. It is not the apocalypse, it is not the end of the govt., it is not a conspiracy - it just is. And we 300 million people muddle along trying to keep it together and not blow ourselves apart by finding inspiration in those timeless founding documents that were written by a bunch of (very smart) privileged white men for the benefit of privileged white men.


Did I mention there are 300 million of us?

Did you forget those enlightened Red bastards harvest convincts for their organs? Have you forgotten that China is a huge sweat shop with concentration camp labor? This is who you want to be like? They're doing a better job? Mao liquidated millions of people in the cultural revolution. The only thing they're doing better than us is accepting Western industry into their country because American politicians have sold out the American people.

The last time I was on an airplane I saw huge portions of land that no one has ever touched. There's plenty of room and resources for everyone.

The Constitution is one of the best documents ever written. Who cares if it was written by white men, so was the Magna Carta. You mention India, who's Constitution do you think they copied when they kicked out the British?

So what if it was written a long time ago. Christ was crucified a long time ago but his message is as true today as it was back then. Buddha lived a long time ago, so did Confucius. But I guess their message isn't relevant without a gas turbine or an internal combustible engine.

Did you forget those enlightened Red bastards harvest convincts for their organs? Have you forgotten that China is a huge sweat shop with concentration camp labor? This is who you want to be like? They're doing a better job? Mao liquidated millions of people in the cultural revolution. The only thing they're doing better than us is accepting Western industry into their country because American politicians have sold out the American people.

The last time I was on an airplane I saw huge portions of land that no one has ever touched. There's plenty of room and resources for everyone.

Wow. Could you miss the point even further?? It's like you are standing in front of one of those mall maps that says "The Point is Here" and your looking for it in the map of the basement garage. (Don't force me to bring on the "obtuse"!).

I guess you didn't understand my rhetorical question - "You think anyone will be saying 'If only this were Bangladesh'?" - to mean that, no matter how bad it gets in Oakland, no Oaklandian will be dreaming of a better life in Bangladesh. I also assumed you understood that I think the US is governing itself better than any of the listed countries - since that would be consistent with my previous arguments.

Sorry, I'll spell it out for the rhetorically challanged.

In my humble opinion, flawed though it may be in practice, the United States system of government as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (with its federalism and the devolution of power to the vaious states) is far and away the best system for governing large populations. Further, as it is applied today, even with only remnants of the original federalistic system in place, it is - far, far, far and away - the best system currently governing a population of more than 150 million people.

The Constitution is one of the best documents ever written. Who cares if it was written by white men, so was the Magna Carta. You mention India, who's Constitution do you think they copied when they kicked out the British?

So what if it was written a long time ago. Christ was crucified a long time ago but his message is as true today as it was back then. Buddha lived a long time ago, so did Confucius. But I guess their message isn't relevant without a gas turbine or an internal combustible engine.

Again, I apologize for the subtle rhetoric. I thought my deep admiration for the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights was apparent by indicating that, even though they were written by rich white men for rich white men, - over 200 hundred years later- a population of 300 million people with vastly disparate interests and with technological advances beyond the imagination of the Founding Fathers could still find unifying, binding principles that are relevant to them today "by finding inspiration in those timeless founding documents."

But then - I forgot I am talkng to someone who thinks capping a deep sea oil well is like changing a pipe in your house. Sure the principles are the same, it's just that the implementation may require a different level of expertise or specialised equipment.

Actually, your prior simplistic approach to the BP situation is an excellent analogy of the fundamental flaw in your political theory. The practical application of the timeless principles set forth in our brilliant founding documents (Got it? I think they are good!) may differ when they are applied to a population of 300 million people that is the most technologically advanced society the world has ever known and who all have a voice in the government as opposed to their application to a pre-industrial population of 5 million where the government was chosen by a minority of the population all of whom had basically similar interests.

Not true. I care. I'm no Obama supporter to be sure, but unlike blowhards like Limbaugh, I'm not cheering for him to fail. But I'll damn sure point it out when he screws the pooch.

So do you think Obama screwed up in all of this? Yes or no?

Or it's just not that clear?

Wow. Could you miss the point even further?? It's like you are standing in front of one of those mall maps that says "The Point is Here" and your looking for it in the map of the basement garage. (Don't force me to bring on the "obtuse"!).

I guess you didn't understand my rhetorical question - "You think anyone will be saying 'If only this were Bangladesh'?" - to mean that, no matter how bad it gets in Oakland, no Oaklandian will be dreaming of a better life in Bangladesh. I also assumed you understood that I think the US is governing itself better than any of the listed countries - since that would be consistent with my previous arguments.

Sorry, I'll spell it out for the rhetorically challanged.

In my humble opinion, flawed though it may be in practice, the United States system of government as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (with its federalism and the devolution of power to the vaious states) is far and away the best system for governing large populations. Further, as it is applied today, even with only remnants of the original federalistic system in place, it is - far, far, far and away - the best system currently governing a population of more than 150 million people.



Again, I apologize for the subtle rhetoric. I thought my deep admiration for the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights was apparent by indicating that, even though they were written by rich white men for rich white men, - over 200 hundred years later- a population of 300 million people with vastly disparate interests and with technological advances beyond the imagination of the Founding Fathers could still find unifying, binding principles that are relevant to them today "by finding inspiration in those timeless founding documents."

But then - I forgot I am talkng to someone who thinks capping a deep sea oil well is like changing a pipe in your house. Sure the principles are the same, it's just that the implementation may require a different level of expertise or specialised equipment.

Actually, your prior simplistic approach to the BP situation is an excellent analogy of the fundamental flaw in your political theory. The practical application of the timeless principles set forth in our brilliant founding documents (Got it? I think they are good!) may differ when they are applied to a population of 300 million people that is the most technologically advanced society the world has ever known and who all have a voice in the government as opposed to their application to a pre-industrial population of 5 million where the government was chosen by a minority of the population all of whom had basically similar interests.

So we let this society grind away, the minions working the daily grind, while the politicos throw away our childrens future on utopian tax and spend policies? Or do we try to bring this country back to the federalist principles that allowed us to prosper. Do we ignore the fact that politicians are doing exactly what Tocqueville said would be the ruin of our society - writing checks that our government has no real backing for. Rome in 100AD looked awful good compared to the barbarians but their society quickly devolved as the populace sat and enjoyed their gladiator contests. But hey we can run around and criticize the government so its ok, actually if you yelled you love the KKK in Oakland you would probably be arrested for inciting a riot. The govt has a huge national security beauracracy that will eventually find a way to secure the internal debate even as it claims to be acting in the interest of security. In the end though there is not enough discontent to overcome the drug of public money and no amount of political discussion is going to overcome that.

So we let this society grind away, the minions working the daily grind, while the politicos throw away our childrens future on utopian tax and spend policies? Or do we try to bring this country back to the federalist principles that allowed us to prosper. Do we ignore the fact that politicians are doing exactly what Tocqueville said would be the ruin of our society - writing checks that our government has no real backing for.

Did I say we let it grind away? The only way we can change it is by continuing to work. The concept of smaller govt., fewer taxes is all good - you got any ideas on how to make it work? I mean real, practical means?

Rome in 100AD looked awful good compared to the barbarians but their society quickly devolved as the populace sat and enjoyed their gladiator contests. But hey we can run around and criticize the government so its ok, actually if you yelled you love the KKK in Oakland you would probably be arrested for inciting a riot.

We ain't Rome, Rome wasn't a democracy and at its height the Roman Empire was approximately 1/10 of our population. As you said in one of your earlier posts, the need is not yet dire and we can change if we can find the political will. But I agree, I am not sure we will.

My only point with Oakland was a response to TTE assertion that our govt. is "shitty". To me, it's all a matter of perspective. Is it bad compared to the ideal? yup. Is it better than any of the alternatives currently out there? yup. Should we be satisfied with it? Nope. But you "Govt. is innately evil" types just don't get that.

The govt has a huge national security beauracracy that will eventually find a way to secure the internal debate even as it claims to be acting in the interest of security. In the end though there is not enough discontent to overcome the drug of public money and no amount of political discussion is going to overcome that.

Feeling a little paranoid? You may be right. I doubt it. In America, I suspect that the freedom of speech is greater than it has ever been.

Look, bottom line, as 12th said - I agree with the cut spending live w/in our means objective. As you say, the problem is finding the political wil to cut something. Attacking govt. for govt. sake, however, is simply wrong headed. Despite what the rhetoric from the Tea Party, govt. is not innately "bad" it simply is and it is what we let it be.

Shouldn't they have maybe waited for all the facts to come in?

Regardless of the outcome this reigns supreme right now. It's obvious that I lean to the left and not to discredit Obama because he had decent experience but at the same time he was a bit of a made for TV candidate. Once the administration settles in that has to leave.

So do you think Obama screwed up in all of this? Yes or no?

Or it's just not that clear?

Well, I think it is on Obama, even if he didn't make the phone call himself. I mean, Gibbs in his presser today said that he had "no knowledge" of anyone in the administration pushing for Sherrod's resignation. Then in the same breath he apologized for the administration acting without all the facts. Ummmm....

Bottom line is, someone in the administration made her firing happen, otherwise they wouldn't be apologizing. Ultimately Obama is responsible for the people with whom he surrounds himself. So yeah, it's on him. Frankly I think it was a rash decision by an administration anxious to prove it stands equally on both sides of the racial fence. And chances are they probably do. But they've stumbled so much on the issue that they now just look dumb.

This presidency has really wet the bed on race in a few major instances, which surprises me considering the skin color of the POTUS. I figured on issues of race he'd be more unifying than polarizing. Guess I was wrong. I mean, didn't his campaign emphasize that it wouldn't get caught up in racial issues? Oops. The whole Gates thing, this Black Panther voter-intimidation case, Van Jones, now Sherrod...

Do I smell Beer Summit V2.0? LOL.

Regardless of the outcome this reigns supreme right now. It's obvious that I lean to the left and not to discredit Obama because he had decent experience but at the same time he was a bit of a made for TV candidate. Once the administration settles in that has to leave.

They are close to halfway through his first term, two years in which Obama has enjoyed a dominant majority in Congress. That won't be the case come November. So at what point are they "settled in?"

His mortgage plan is failing (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Govt-watchdogs-mortgage-apf-1527849934.html?x=0), his race relations are poor (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K6JN20100721), many think he has mishandled Afghanistan, (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38852.html) spending/debt/deficits are gigantic, (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/17/obamas-endless-summer-of-spending/) he put jobs on the backburner while pushing healthcare, (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/18/the_wrong_war_health_care_amid_jobs_crisis_104822. html) and he is hearing desperate pleas from House Dems to campaign for them with November looming. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/14/midterm-tensions-spark-pelosi-white-house-feud/)

So let me ask you, what constitutes "settling in?"

let me ask you something scud. do you think that racial issues are more in the fore front because we have a black president? not once during W's, or any other presidents term have i heard anyone refer to them as a "white" president. i guess because Obama is the first "non white", there will be some growing pains. i agree that Obama is walking a tight rope when dealing with this stuff. but not sure what he, or the administration, had to do with the voter intimidation thing. and i am always in the corner of getting the facts first

Did I say we let it grind away? The only way we can change it is by continuing to work. The concept of smaller govt., fewer taxes is all good - you got any ideas on how to make it work? I mean real, practical means?

I know a lot of ideas have been thrown out, and discussed. Straightening out the tax code, along the lines of Slinging Sammy's comments. A moratorium for 3 years on new defense spending, a reduction in the Army recruiting by 3-5% per year, and a corresponding redefinition of Army goals, including reducing overseas commitments. A freeze, on social security/health care benefits, again for the next 3 years. All these simply take political will - therefore they won't happen. Further(and more pie in the sky), 12 year term limits for all of congress, - if a president can be up to snuff on all the intricacies and serve only 8 years, I believe new congressmen can manage as well. Re-affirm Article 10 of the bill of rights, by removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club to force States to implement "the good of all" type legislation.
Finally, some serious Constitutional changes - take Senators out of the public vote, and back to being appointed by the individual States. If a state chooses to hold elections fine, but the Senate was designed to be a check on pure democracy tendencies.



We ain't Rome, Rome wasn't a democracy and at its height the Roman Empire was approximately 1/10 of our population. As you said in one of your earlier posts, the need is not yet dire and we can change if we can find the political will. But I agree, I am not sure we will.

A brief, but good read on the Roman Republic from Wikipedia:
Roman Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic)
The Roman Republic was the phase of the ancient Roman civilization characterised by a republican form of government. It began with the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, c. 509 BC, and lasted 482 years until its subversion, through a series of civil wars, into the Principate form of government and the Imperial period.

The Roman Republic was governed by a complex constitution, which centred on the principles of a separation of powers and checks and balances. The evolution of the constitution was heavily influenced by the struggle between the aristocracy (the patricians), and other Romans who were not from famous families, the plebeians. Early in its history, the republic was controlled by an aristocracy of individuals who could trace their ancestry back to the early history of the kingdom. Over time, the laws that allowed these individuals to dominate the government were repealed, and the result was the emergence of a new aristocracy which depended on the structure of society, rather than the law, to maintain its dominance. I could easily change a few terms and make this fit for the US governmental structure. This form existed for 482 years, we are at almost half that. But, as you correctly pointed out, this form of government wasn't even managing 1/10 of the population, and I tend to believe the increased scale could possibly increase the speed of the decline to an imperial form of government. I bolded the one line because that strikes me as the phase we are entering, where the structure of society (healthcare, social engineering, and social security) are beginning to override legal principles of sound government.

So, no we are not Rome, but we could learn ALOT from their historic example.

My only point with Oakland was a response to TTE assertion that our govt. is "shitty". To me, it's all a matter of perspective. Is it bad compared to the ideal? yup. Is it better than any of the alternatives currently out there? yup. Should we be satisfied with it? Nope. But you "Govt. is innately evil" types just don't get that.

Well fair enough, I just don't get that we should accept a poor gov't just because it is what we have. Yes it is better than the worst governments out there, truthfully, so was the English Monarchy when the founding fathers revolted against it. And more important, and what you "gov't is innately neutral" types don't get, is that there is an inertia within gov't which seeks to preserve its position within society and increase its own power. The founding fathers to some degree understood that, George Washington specifically understood that a permanent president was bad for the country. So is a Senate where a 94 year old can hold power and sway for 30+ years, and develop the necessary payouts to his/her constituents to ensure his/her continued re-election. NO ONE argues that gov't is not necessary, if anarchy were to arise, a central(and most likely bad) power would certainly and quickly fill that void. But likewise, gov't is not neutral. It is a power based position, and by definition, every person involved in it, wants the power to control what others do. Thus it should be limited, and restrained. Right now, we don't have that because the two parties have developed a natural block against anything that threatens their status quo.


Feeling a little paranoid? You may be right. I doubt it. In America, I suspect that the freedom of speech is greater than it has ever been.

I have and always will be paranoid :(, but as they say, just because I am paranoid doesn't mean someone's not looking at me.
I agree that at this moment in time freedom of speech is well guarded, but it also is something that can disappear fairly quickly if a gov't that has big guns decides it doesn't like it.


Look, bottom line, as 12th said - I agree with the cut spending live w/in our means objective. As you say, the problem is finding the political will to cut something. Attacking govt. for govt. sake, however, is simply wrong headed. Despite what the rhetoric from the Tea Party, govt. is not innately "bad" it simply is and it is what we let it be.
Well who is it that does not have the political will to cut "something"? I would argue it is the established politicians and government bureaucracy that so firmly believes in it's own pre-eminence that it thinks that States and people could not somehow manage without the Federal government dictating. Gov't is innately power motivated. Can power be used for good? obviously, but human history has shown that it just as often, or more often, is not.