"Robert Mueller's Investigation" and "Democratic Slogans"

I want to talk about a couple of political topics.  I will try to make this amusing to offset the apocalyptic nature of them.  Well, the first one, the second thing I want to talk about is how lame the Democrats are that they might just lose again while playing on easy mode.

Let’s start with the bleak one

As of right now there are numerous criminal charges being brought by the Mueller investigation into the illegal dealings of the Trump Campaign for President and the numerous connections between it and Russian Oligarchs.  While not all of the criminal dealings they have uncovered trace back to Russia (a lot of it is just good old fashioned domestic crime) they are conducting one of the most important investigations in the history of the world.

Yes, the fucking world.  The US has nukes and if the President is a criminal then that is a historical hot potato.

My real point is this, Short of Anubis, the Egyptian God of Death and Judgement, I can think of no other being I would more readily trust with this investigation.

And let's be clear, I am not 100% sure Bob isn't secretly some mythological creature of grim and glowering expressions toward disappointing and criminal persons.  He has the face of a sphinx.

Can you tell I don't own photoshop?  I think that is passable for an MS Paint job.

But there is another narrative taking shape that is scary in a way that really is the death knell of Law and Order.  It is the break down of the public trust that is not coming back.  It starts here.

“THAT PSYCHOPATH IS GOING DOWN”: INSIDE TRUMPWORLD, A BIZARRE COUNTER-NARRATIVE TAKES HOLD

"It is a deep state conspiracy to keep President Trump from being President."
Why did they let him win the election then?

"They tried to stop him with millions of fraudulent votes."
Why did they put those fraudulent votes in states that wouldn't affect the outcome?

All of this is the language of making a boogeyman.  The villains are degenerate, weak, unable to stop the might of the glorious leader; simultaneously they are well organized, deeply implanted, and cunning enough to make innocent lawyers plead guilty.

It is part of the victim complex that is necessary for President Trump to rally his followers.  The narrative that claims, “you have to apologize for being white these days” or that “Christian values are under attack”.

In a political environment where the Conservative (capitalized for emphasis, not for proper noun status) party is in total control, able to push out policy after policy if they had the patience to write it all out coherently, they claim that they are victims of a grand conspiracy.  For the record they don’t have the patience to write out all their policies because they are dumb.

Rather than admit that they just can’t be bothered to actually accomplish thing… I mean they can't just admit that they are indifferent, because even though they don't care to do anything with the power (again, dumb), having power for its own sake IS WHAT THEY WANT.

In order to justify keeping the power they don't need or want, they have to construct some bad guy that keeps hamstringing them, "We want to save you, but those assholes won't let us.  I am for the good things, BELIEVE ME.  I know the best people, believe me.  We are against the bad things; those bad things are a disaster.  Total disaster, those bad things.  Not like the good things that I am definitely for."

To learn more about this concept here is an excellent video about one of the most influential movies ever made… That is neither good nor influential in the ways it should be.

Now onto the funnier story, if you find the Democrats fucking up to be funny

How will the Democratic Party snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this time?

(Checks notes).

Oh.  Yeah, that is certainly a step in the right direction.

The Democrats’ newest slogan is just dull enough to lose big in November

You don’t have to follow that link, here is the stupid tagline,

“A Better Deal for Our Democracy.”

And that link leads to this boring and rambling mission statement that is pathetically weak.

Seriously, "A Better Deal" or "For Our Democracy" EITHER ONE WOULD HAVE WORKED, but both of them together is bloated and fails.  Just like every policy position paper put forth by Secretary Clinton in the Presidential election.  Too many words, too much nuance.

How do you fuck up a slogan?

Beyond that there is a deeper issue.  The boring and rambling article linked up there is boring not because they are off topic, they have a policy agenda, but here is the thing, it is basic.  There is a quote that cycles online it goes something like, “The Democrats are better than the Republicans, the problem is, that is all they aspire to be.”  The policies spelled out in that mission statement boil down to, “Voting”, “Ethics”, and “Campaign Finance”.  That is about it.

Here is why all of that is boring, “Ahem…. THAT SHOULDN’T HAVE TO BE SAID!”

Why?  How?  Why is the bar so low?

Oh.  Yeah.

Well, I guess I am stuck with them.

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Political Language and Children

            This is just a random thing that shows how learning worked for me as a kid.  I was born in 1985, and don't have to many memories before 1990, and the three strongest memories I have from that year was my brother falling and hitting his head at a house we lived at in Bradenton, moving into our house in North Port (I actually remember saying something like, "I turn 5 next week", in our soon to be living room that was completely devoid of furniture), and a conversation I heard between my parents about the first Gulf War (I remember my dad explaining how little military Iraq had and my Mom being concerned that the war was going to get out of control, I believe she was concerned because my uncle John was 17 at the time and a draft would have been a hard thing for our family).

Yeah, looks pretty bleak.

             The thing is I had no conscious memory of a presidential election, and I had always heard President Bush referred to as a Republican, and when he ran for reelection in 1992 I heard Republican and Democrat a lot, but did not really know what they meant, but I assigned them a definition in my head that I wasn't consciously aware of, I was 7 and really didn't care at the time so it was not something I really labeled out loud.

            Cut to 4 years later and President Clinton was running for reelection against Senator Dole and Ross Perot.  At some point I said this, "So now President Clinton is the Republican." and my dad responded with, "No, son he is a Democrat."  Which confused us both really so I explained my definition of Republican, "I thought Republican meant the guy who was in the office, and Democrat meant challenger."

            I had never heard the word incumbent, and had heard President Bush referred to by party so frequently as a child that I had come to think of the word in those terms.  Conversely, I had never heard anyone refer to President Clinton by his party, he had always been called President Clinton.

            I didn't really realize why that was until I read the book "Bias" Freshman year of college, that this is the sort of thing you don't notice until it is pointed out.  The major networks refer to Republican Presidents and other Republican office holders as Republicans, but they don't do that for Democrats, Fox News refers to Democratic officer holders as Liberal or Democrats, but just refer to Republican office holders by name and title.

            My family didn't have cable and watched ABC nightly news, so my mind had this engrained into it without noticing.  And since read "Bias" I have noticed something more, people in news who are not aligned with the President of the time, Bush or Obama, don't refer to them as President Bush or President Obama.  When Bush was President, ABC would call him Mr. Bush, while Fox would refer to him as the President.  Now things have flipped, Fox calls the President, Mr. Obama, and ABC calls him President Obama.  I am starting to wonder if these things are intentional slights or not, because it is rather consistent, and these "journalists" are reading from a teleprompter.

            Regardless, right now, lots of kids who don't chose what channel their parents watch are hearing either directly or indirectly the President getting referred to a certain way, and it is changing the way they understand the language of civics in the country.  changing the way they understand the words Socialist, Muslim, and Liberal.  I wonder how this will shape them.

Might make them all a bit cynical.

Changing the Federal Structure

            Well the last blog I did was somewhat political so I figure I will talk about what I think is wrong with government again.  Not that the last post got a lot of views, just that I have had this on my mind being that it is everywhere.

            I do not like the structure of the United States government as it currently stands.  I think that it has failed to be amended in a long time and needs to be cleaned up a good bit to be more reflective of the nation it is supposed to represent, and to eliminate a lot of the institutional memory within it.

            I think that each state should have three Senators, each serves a 6 year term, so every election will include a Senator from every state, think of them as the Red, White, and Blue Senate seats.  A Senator serves 2 terms or 14 years (if she was appointed to take over for a senator who moved on).  This way the Senate has consistent role over, and the Senate is always a concern for a voter, because no matter what year it is, or what state they are in, they have a senator up for reelection.  I also think three Senators should exist to represent the collective territories of the United States, meaning that Washington DC and Puerto Rico would have representation (this is not perfect as the two areas are far apart and have distinct needs, but it is a step up from having no representation in a federal body that they are required to enlist in to defend, if they would like stronger positions then Statehood should be considered).

            I heartily dislike the way the House of Representatives is constructed.  The terms as so short that Representatives are allowed no time to pen legislation and set them into motion before they again have to justify their existence.  What is more the districts are horrifyingly Gerrymandered, creating a political class that will safely live out their lives in office because they safely trimmed out a section of the map that does not pay attention to how poor a job they are doing.  What is more the Speaker of the House has no real power and no real voice in the public sphere, meaning they have no way to spur action toward meaningful legislation.  To replace this system wholesale would be for the best.  What is more, they are afforded a level of local anonymity that only disappears when they commit a scandal, if you don't know who is representing you, then why have a direct local election for a Representative?

This is a Gerrymandered Congressional district.  This cannot be defended as democratic.

            The House should be replaced with a Parliament.  Each state allocated a number of seats based on their population, counting the territories as a state for purposes of representation (again this is not perfect as Puerto Rico and Guam are very different from DC, but it is better than the zero and a half they get now, and if they desire more representation they can advocate for Statehood).  Every four years an election is held (these are the off years from the Presidential Election, so on the same years as the Winter Olympics rather than the Summer Olympics) to allocate the seats of each state to members of the parties they vote for, the Party members vote along party lines and pen legislation individually.  We have a National Minister that takes the place of the Speaker but with more power and focus.  No one can serve more than 8 years as National Minister, and they can be removed by their party should they be found too close to crazy town.  No one should be allowed to serve more than 12 years in the Parliament in any party.

            The Presidency needs their role to change, with a lot more power being given to the Minister, a lot needs to be taken away from the President.  He should remain the center of the military and diplomatic channels, and should still appoint Judges, but should not be the source of legislative initiative, and should not be in direct talks with the Parliament and Senate committees over national programs.  The President's power to veto things should also be restrained, only using the ability if a new law threatens the President's ability to maintain peace and security, or if the President thinks that the law in question is unconstitutional and needs the Supreme Court to take action.  Furthermore we need to eliminate the Electoral College and have a one man, one vote, first past the post election.  He should also remain limited to his current term restrictions, and Vice Presidents should have their place as Senate leader continue.  This is more the Presidential role in France, where they have both a Minister and President.

Two Videos why the electoral college does not work.  And where I got this picture.

            The Supreme Court needs to be expanded to 15 members.  This should happen slowly, so that it does not suddenly become insanely conservative or liberal all at once, but by doing this more points of view can be considered, and less impact is made with each member's moving on.  It allows for more diversity.

            So you have a President in charge of foreign affairs, a Minister in charge of domestic affairs, a Senate that acts as a check on the Minister and Parliament, a Vice President that helps put a check on the Senate, and a Presidential Veto which helps put a check on both Legislative bodies.  The Courts are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and checks everyone else against the Constitution.

            Beyond these things I think that a clearer structure for creating states needs to be put into place.  That way if a state like New Jersey feels that its northern and southern half's are too different and populous to be represented by just their three current Senators then they can divide themselves for cleaner presentation.  That extends to other massive and populous states and territories, and to foreign countries seeking a place in the Union.