 Getting something done is proving to be a monumental task.
----------------------
This statement is the key. Here 2) who gets paid in this stasis is followed in importance only by 2) who gets paid to change the forms that progress must engender? Is either answerable to tax payers, if not directly, then at least indirectly through direct tether to the fortunes of superiors who are. The former gives, 'throw the bums out.' The later says, 'fuck the consultants.'
If the answer is no to 1), then the government is not approaching its mode as tyranny - tryanny is already here. If the answer is yes to 1) but no to 2), then inefficiency and dearth of purpose plagues current government. Both mark opportunity for savings. Finally, if the answer is no to 1) and 2) AND you are either not in current government or lack its sanctioned legal counsel, then no matter the official discursive trappings, otherwise, or propoganda - you, citizen sir or madam, are but a slave.
Note: the difference between a negative 1) versuse a negative regards both 1) and 2) is that with the former, you still might be a ronin consultant, who doesn't rely on simply rules lawyering to make his or her living.
Question is - How can the United States avoid its Mayanifcation via Constitutional travesty? All must realize supermajority unilateral mandates as applied against the 'seemingly individual concern' (as recently argued for at the Appelate level regards Healthcare Reform) says only that Change We Can Believe In reduces to euphemism for, We Say No to both 1) and 2)! Such is not a matter of Separation of Powers, it instead renders absurd the fiscal oversight of the citizenry over the government purported to be bound to it.
This attititude if notorized by the Supreme Court, which by Consitutional charter must retain last word, is no longer an academic exercise (either knowledge process or masturbation) or a question of degree concerns the common good (perhaps socialism). This bad boy hitherto unheard of in American history is in fact the real mccoy regards tyranny. As such, for Americans, it would present both the failure of our generation as American and thus as well the death of our nation. If the good is not common to all but money is still collected for service (or worse, ongoing maintenance of some 'evolving' notion of some service) impressed upon all without recourse, opt out, due process - that sirs and madams is quintessential tyranny.
Gripping, drama, eh. Would that the Supreme Court's time was not wasted in this patently needless consideration of reckless political thought. The US government has already admitted it can't contain costs under its new plan. Hell, even the EPA must consider the 'do nothing' program regards any potential change AND the first rule of medicine is 'do no harm.' But in fact, all anyone has to claim is that there is an adequate Healthcare Reform availabe to the United States (even if still not fully worked out) that does not require the lever of such mandates.
In other words, the counter is the notion of mandates should not be used to mandate mandates (as opposed to say a real Healthcare Reform), which is what current 'ploy' using fiscally straw man (better scarecrow because lacking brain) Healthcare Reform clearly attempts. Restated, Feds cannot walk away from fiscal and still push for mandate without pushing for mandates to mandate mandates rather than to institute a now lacking all expedience specific legislation to be mandated. To do so would demonstrate in turn the lack of expedience of mandates for this given application. And this sirs and madams would not only empower needlessly an unbalanced expansion of federal powers, it also as given cannot be just.
It's just a crying shame what passes for legislation and executory in this country these days, just a crying shame. Even if current Healthcare Reform is ramrodded through, the civic tether between citizenry and government has been shredded near shorn in a way that would have made even 4 term FDR puke. If he had the stomach for today's mandates, he just would have declared them himself, and independent of fiscal reality of issues being addressed (like today's proponent's propose) - and then he would have declared himself King. And why not? He is a Roosevelt after all.
Not some nigger like Obama. Call this a rhetorical device. Don't let them take the white man's burden. And suppose this one a rhetorical device too.
Put colorful language aside, and call the ball. In other words, though these two presidents are lumped together, for all his radicalness and thought experiment applied to state in crisis, unlike Obama and his fiendish supporting hoards, Roosevelt and his crew actually comprehended Constitutional restraint.
Arrghhhh!!! More white man's burden!!! No, far rather more defense of the US Constitutional intent by men forced into hard choices by ill fortune to render change to what they would die (and kill) to defend. This concern is not essentially populalist, Obama. The issue is impressed in the very fibre of American being qua American, if and when this notion is ever put to the fire else there is no notion of American qua American. It's thus not something you offer consituents as part of a pre-paid ongoing fee scheduled election card.
Makin' Bacon - I thought Harvard still taught such things or is now just too queer? Ignorance, sirs at Harvard, can be ridiculed into reformation so that proper 'change' can be considered (order is Bacon, the ridicule just today's need). Queer applied as defense against the otherwise rightness of this task is simply ad hominem.
--------------------
Mayanfication of the United States is its stepwise pyramidization via substantial change toward tyranny in favor of Constitution. The move is not inherently Mayan (who were comfortable with government form they declared cultural) but rather in usurping something right out of Robert E Howard. Yet Jurisprudence of Empathy is all the rage.
Question for Justice Sotomayer and Justice Kagan - what is the empathy is afforded to the man who must with a knife in his back say, 'I am done, I am slain', and so die. How bout to his widow and children?
Now - what empathy is afforded Americans if America qua America suffers same? You can't answer it's for some common good. Mandates for mandates destroys that. There is now no more Constitutionally coherent America left to support and protect such quaintness. Don't coddle tyranny. Commented 4551 days ago |
