American Politics

[Tropic Storm 15]

That's not entirely true. The Republicans did propose a few of their own ideas (most notably, tort reform and selling insurance across state lines), which the Democrats likewise refused to consider. What eventually got passed contained only the Dems' ideas. The whole "party of no" business is just political spin. Reality is, there was a hell of a lot of "no" coming from all over the place. And the reason the bill was stripped down was not because of the GOP (after all, they were a minority in both houses and the law passed without a single vote from them), it was because the "Blue Dog" Democrats weren't willing to sign onto some of the more Progressive items, and it required things like the Stupak Amendment to buy them off.

It’s a compromise nonetheless and the Republicans turned it down. Even the private sector still get full dibs on the market with the national healthcare plan scrapped, just now its with more regulations, and less payout limits.

I would love to see how selling insurance across state lines would work. The problem I see though there’s the accountability equation in it. It’s just the private sector competing against the private sector. At first, it sounds great to have more choices. But its one thing to offer affordable healthcare, what’s vital is it has to be comprehensive coverage. Laws on various mandated checkups and so forth differ between states. There’s also the cost of living issue. If I lived in expensive New York, I could pay $50 for an insurance plan from Wyoming and realize I’ve maxed my payout in an accident because healthcare costs are much higher than Wyoming’s. In Wyoming though, my coverage may have been sufficient.

Then again, that wouldn’t be the case; even the Democrat’s bill has a provision on selling health plans over state lines. Under the law, insurance providers must honor state law and dispute claims are to be handled in the state the customer bought it. Regulation is done by the NAIC. The Republican bill however doesn’t have either of that.

Well, even if the president himself can't get reelected, he does still have his party to worry about.

An ulterior motive. The voter is always put aside.

...the only way to get the president out of office short of convicting him of a serious crime is to kill him. And even in those cases, all you get is succession, no election until it's time.

Sounds like we need a better government. If it takes a gun to forcibly rotate office and you still can’t get an proper election then something is indeed inheritantly flawed with our system. Even ye olde medieval Westminster system does a better job keeping the most power hungry of leaders on their feet than ours. Just imagine the snickers from our neighbors (or for that matter, our "neighbours").

  Edited March 28, 2011 by Tropic Storm  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

About FDR, he did remain incredibly popular with the public in time, in fact he's still considered the most popular president ever.

Popular at the time, yes (over 60% of voting Americans voted for him in 1936), but not so much in legacy. There's quite a bit of controversy surrounding his presidency and his policies, especially these days when we're once again in a major economic downturn, and the issue of size of government and scope of government spending is again at the forefront.

Hindsight may be 20/20, but in FDR's case, he was the man for that season. Can you imagine what would have happened if Wendell Wilkie (dyed in the wool isolationist) had defeated him? You'd be goose stepping past the Hitler monument and all persons of color would have been exterminated. Historians tend to distort things to suit themselves. and after less than a century the jury is still out. For those of us who were around at the time (even though I was only 8 years old when the war ended) it was a time to trust leaders like FDR, Truman, Churchill, and McKenzie King. If you weren't there, it is too soon to comment.

[Duke87 1,070]

It’s a compromise nonetheless and the Republicans turned it down.

I honestly don't believe that there was ever an honest effort to compromise with the Republicans. The Progressives knew it would be a lot easier to get the Blue Dogs on board, and that that was all they needed. And they also knew that when the Republicans inevitably refused to sign onto their ideas, that they could conveniently project the blame for lack of cooperation onto them.

Note how it took until after the midterm election last year for the administration to seriously start reaching across the aisle on anything. Why would they if they didn't need to? Such is the danger of having one party controlling both houses of congress (by a significant margin, no less) and the white house

I would love to see how selling insurance across state lines would work. The problem I see though there’s the accountability equation in it. It’s just the private sector competing against the private sector.

Since when is a government bureaucracy more accountable than a private company? The bureaucracy isn't worried about losing business, after all.

There’s also the cost of living issue. If I lived in expensive New York, I could pay $50 for an insurance plan from Wyoming and realize I’ve maxed my payout in an accident because healthcare costs are much higher than Wyoming’s. In Wyoming though, my coverage may have been sufficient.

I would think someone in New York buying from New Jersey or Connecticut would be more likely. "Across state lines" doesn't have to mean "across half a dozen state lines".

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If you have a National Insurance Program, there are no state lines.

We have squabbles between provinces on a lot of things, but these wrinkles are often ironed out by negotiations. Provincial health care plans are accepted in all provinces. If you move to a different province, you have three months to change from one provincial plan to another as all plans are not the same.

You have too many jealously guarded perks among the United(?) States of America. You have also allowed your federal government to grow into a monster and I wonder how much of this inter-state rivalry is responsible for. When I really look at it from a political point of view, you have too many states, which of course brings up the old parochial arguments. For example, why not merge the New England states? They'd probably have much more clout as a single, larger state.

  Edited March 29, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[Meg 368]

For example, why not merge the New England states? They'd probably have much more clout as a single, larger state.

As six separate states, they get 12 senators. Each state gets 2.

As one state, they would get 2 senators.

The number of representatives going to the House would probably be the same since it is based on population.

I say "probably" because there might be some rounding differences in there.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

For example, why not merge the New England states? They'd probably have much more clout as a single, larger state.

As six separate states, they get 12 senators. Each state gets 2.

As one state, they would get 2 senators.

The number of representatives going to the House would probably be the same since it is based on population.

I say "probably" because there might be some rounding differences in there.

Yes, I am aware of that, but then, I think you should abolish your senate. We are working on abolishing ours.

In your case, a unicameral legislature would be much more manageable and you would get rid of all these idle guys who have nothing better to do than form committees to argue about things that the people, represented by the House, don't really want. You also get rid of the expense of elections for them every two years, and a lot of the BS. Since you started electing senators in 1923, they have been nothing but a gaggle of greedy geese.

In history, the Roman Empire was not long for this world when they started electing their senate. Elected senior legislators tend to become patrons of a vocal group, rather than representing a constituency.

When your senators were appointed by the governors of the states, you knew what their main agenda was. Now they have a private agenda, each, and you never really know what to expect of them.

I realize you would never get this done because it would open that can of worms called the Constitution of the United States of America, and get people to really think about what has changed since it was designed. It is getting a little long in the tooth and needs some serious revision of its aims and goals.

Ours is brand new (1987) by comparison, and we are still shaking it out.

I don't recall whether your two party system is enshrined in the Constitution or not, but I hope not. Both of those parties need a good dose of trust busting.

[Duke87 1,070]

Merging the New England states would be very difficult on a practical level. There are several names of towns and counties that are reused between states where the duplicates would have to be renamed. Try getting a town which has had its perfectly good name for 300+ years to change it and see how far you get. The state highway systems would have to be completely redone since the same numbers are often reused, unrelated, in different states. And what of the laws? We'd have to redraw an entire legal code from scratch as well, can't just merge the existing laws.

Besides, the fact that there are different states gives the region character and cultural diversity. Being from Connecticut is not the same as being from Vermont, which is not the same as being from Massachusetts.

And all this for what benefit? Having fewer states? Isn't really much of a benefit, certainly not when compared to the cost.

To answer your question, no, the so-called "two-party system" is not constitutionally defined, and only exists in effect, not in actuality. There are way more than two political parties in the US, it's just that there are only two major parties. If you don't like the Republicans or the Democrats, you may be able to vote for the Green Party, the Reform Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Working Families party, etc.... even the Communist Party. But these parties don't get someone on the ballot for every seat, their candidates don't get much media exposure, and most people don't consider voting for them. There is a very common attitude that voting for a third-party candidate (as we call them) is "throwing your vote away", since that person has no chance of winning. Hence, the two-party system is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Tropic Storm 15]

Since when is a government bureaucracy more accountable than a private company? The bureaucracy isn't worried about losing business, after all.

Likewise, the bureaucracy doesn't have to worry about profit either. I’m not talking about total socialism. Companies can be good (look at Google!) but no matter what the industry, private companies care more about their stockholders, and their bottom line. Just imagine when everything in the world has to be justified by price, including a life.

Governments deal with matters that are profitably unviable. That’s not exactly the case with the United States, who tend to sitting with the industry more often.

For example, why not merge the New England states? They'd probably have much more clout as a single, larger state.

As six separate states, they get 12 senators. Each state gets 2.

As one state, they would get 2 senators.

The number of representatives going to the House would probably be the same since it is based on population.

I say "probably" because there might be some rounding differences in there.

Yes, I am aware of that, but then, I think you should abolish your senate. We are working on abolishing ours.

I too think it could be possible, I don't know the sentiment of what exactly Americans may feel on it. I bet it may be (very) negative.

I've read of mergers happening in tradition-strung Japan. In fact they had hundreds of them. Towns and districts joined and merged together to cut down govt. size and to save costs on public utilities. Schools and hospitals sometimes shut down entirely from the shrinking birth rate. Most of the mergers were villages and municipalities though, never really any of the province-like prefectures.

[Duke87 1,070]

And that has happened and does happen in the US as well. It is not unheard of for major cities to annex surrounding land, for small villages and cities to disincorporate and dissolve into their surrounding township or county, etc. What is now New York City consists of quite a few formerly independent cities and towns. My very own City of Stamford, CT, was prior to about 1945 or so two separate entities: the City of Stamford and the Town of Stamford (although, before ~1890 it was all just the Town of Stamford, so it was a reunification).

On the state level, no states have ever merged, although a few have been split. Maine was originally part of Massachusetts. Kentucky and West Virginia were originally part of Virginia. Vermont was originally part of New York.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

On an old topic, but ever fresh, this is what taking license with freedom does.

Now that the Reverend(?) Mr. Jones has entered the international terrorism arena, why not brand him a terrorist? His actions may not have much effect in the U.S. but if the State Department doesn't jump all over him and his flock (of sheep, Baaaa), it is time that there was some kind of statute about abuse of freedoms. You can see that absolute freedom is the same as absolute power, It corrupts absolutely.

This guy has got to be made to realize the consequences of his action. If it were even slightly possible, I'd like to see him before the bar at the Hague.

This creep is no better than a radicalizing imam in a mosque full of innocent but impressionable Muslims. The middle tail race if Dis is too good for this boy.

This knife cuts both ways, if it is illegal to radicalize Muslims to hate America then why not make it illegal for anyone to teach hate for Muslims.

I would be surprised if Homeland Security couldn't find a clause in the Patriot act just for him.

  Edited April 2, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[-Lexus- 2]

Whatever he has done, that guy will never be sent to the Hague. America doesnt recognize it as a valid court, because America doesnt want its citizens to be judged over by a foreign court. America likes it sovereignty to much.

That aside, even though it was a terrible and stupid thing to do, should he be held responsible for the deaths all by himself?

[hym 358]

On an old topic, but ever fresh, this is what taking license with freedom does.

Now that the Reverend(?) Mr. Jones has entered the international terrorism arena, why not brand him a terrorist? His actions may not have much effect in the U.S. but if the State Department doesn't jump all over him and his flock (of sheep, Baaaa), it is time that there was some kind of statute about abuse of freedoms. You can see that absolute freedom is the same as absolute power, It corrupts absolutely.

This guy has got to be made to realize the consequences of his action. If it were even slightly possible, I'd like to see him before the bar at the Hague.

How do you propose to bring him to trial when he hasn't committed a crime under US law? You can't charge him with hate speech because the Constitution forbids that, you can't charge him with any sort of defamation to a religion (again because of the Constitution), and you could charge him with murder, but you'd never get the charges to hold up in court because you could never prove intent.

[Meg 368]

Well, there is "reckless endangerment" but that would be reckless endangerment of people in Afghanistan and the US courts have no jurisdiction over that.

[Easy Bakes 253]

You can't Legislate idiocy.

[Duke87 1,070]

Meh. He didn't do anything illegal. Nor did he do anything wrong. If someone is offended by his actions, that is their problem, not his.

I mean, really. If you kill someone, you've committed murder. Even if you did it because someone said something nasty about you, it's still your fault and your fault alone. He may have provided you with encouragement, but you were the one who made the decision to pull the trigger. There is no blaming someone else for your actions unless they actually forced you to act.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Meh. He didn't do anything illegal. Nor did he do anything wrong. If someone is offended by his actions, that is their problem, not his.

I mean, really. If you kill someone, you've committed murder. Even if you did it because someone said something nasty about you, it's still your fault and your fault alone. He may have provided you with encouragement, but you were the one who made the decision to pull the trigger. There is no blaming someone else for your actions unless they actually forced you to act.

His actions were immoral and he sets himself up as an arbiter of morality. If it were possible, he should at least be defrocked. I should prefer tar and feathers. One look at the stupid <censored>, and you can tell he is so self-righteous that nobody, including his God, need apply.

Islam is a powder keg thanks to our great friends Al Q'eida. We don't need someone blundering around with a torch in the magazine. The American constitution writers never foresaw the damage their words could do 200 years later, and I am sure would be appalled at some of the license that is taken with their words. All those freedoms have a price, and one of the prices is knowing when to shut up and do nothing.

This kind of religious crap -- er, fervor -- went out with the Spanish Inquisition.

The people of the United States have to make up their minds how much disrepute they will stand before they get up enough gumption to do something about people like that who see freedom as license. This character is the quintessential Ugly American.

{rant} And, by the way Duke87, that kind of sentiment is what got you December 7, 1941. The Japs thought they could get away with it because of that kind of attitude among your people. Wake up! This is not a private argument in the United States. Your people have offended the world community, and with neighbors like you we don't need any enemies. And you certainly don't have God's gift of governmental systems nor constitutional law. {/rant}

  Edited April 5, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[Easy Bakes 253]

Meh. He didn't do anything illegal. Nor did he do anything wrong. If someone is offended by his actions, that is their problem, not his.

I mean, really. If you kill someone, you've committed murder. Even if you did it because someone said something nasty about you, it's still your fault and your fault alone. He may have provided you with encouragement, but you were the one who made the decision to pull the trigger. There is no blaming someone else for your actions unless they actually forced you to act.

His actions were immoral and he sets himself up as an arbiter of morality. If it were possible, he should at least be defrocked. I should prefer tar and feathers. One look at the stupid <censored>, and you can tell he is so self-righteous that nobody, including his God, need apply.

This kind of religious crap -- er, fervor -- went out with the Spanish Inquisition.

the problem is his "flock" probably approved of what he did I doubt he was the only person there.

What good is a one man book burning?

.

Book burning , Music records burning is unfortunately alive and well.

Not that theres some books that shouldn't be burned, pretentious, self-promoting celebrity tell all books come to mind.

but then one persons drivel is another's literature.

  Edited April 5, 2011 by Easy Bakes  

[hym 358]

The American constitution writers never foresaw the damage their words could do 200 years later, and I am sure would be appalled at some of the license that is taken with their words. All those freedoms have a price, and one of the prices is knowing when to shut up and do nothing.

I imagine that they would be appalled by what people do today, but that doesn't mean they'd advocate rewriting the Constitution either. The Constitution was written to guarantee freedoms (among other things), not limit them.

The people of the United States have to make up their minds how much disrepute they will stand before they get up enough gumption to do something about people like that who see freedom as license. This character is the quintessential Ugly American.

Blaming the US for this man's actions is like blaming Australia for Julian Assange's document leaks. No matter how you try to justify the point of view, you simply can't.

Your people have offended the world community, and with neighbors like you we don't need any enemies.

So the proper response is to blame the many for the actions of the few? One would be wise to remember the millions of people who have died as a result of that attitude.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Your people have offended the world community, and with neighbors like you we don't need any enemies.

So the proper response is to blame the many for the actions of the few? One would be wise to remember the millions of people who have died as a result of that attitude.

Well, what would you suggest? This kind of jingoistic attitude displayed by a congregation reported to be 30 adherents is a matter of the tail wagging the dog. "Freedom does not consists of the right to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater." - Justice Holmes in an SCOTUS decision.

[-Lexus- 2]

Islam is a powder keg thanks to our great friends Al Q'eida. We don't need someone blundering around with a torch in the magazine. The American constitution writers never foresaw the damage their words could do 200 years later, and I am sure would be appalled at some of the license that is taken with their words. All those freedoms have a price, and one of the prices is knowing when to shut up and do nothing.

Now youre turning stuff around. People cant do things because it might offend someone? Thats not how its supposed to work! People shouldnt be offended, or they should learn not to go ballistic every time something happens at the other end of the world they dont agree with. Essentially, our friends should take some anger management courses instead of beheading a bunch of people in response to a perceived insult. Its like how you should deal with a schoolyard bully: if you cant beat the bully directly, stop acting like you care or go to the teacher to complain. Dont take out your anger and frustation on the other kids.

I mean, I can crap on a bible and set fire to a crucifix and I might get some death threats from religious fundies, but there wouldnt be any mass riots and any killing of people. They need to learn to act normally, not us.

This kind of religious crap -- er, fervor -- went out with the Spanish Inquisition.

What religious fervor? Burning books or insulting other peoples religion. I believe that never went out.

The people of the United States have to make up their minds how much disrepute they will stand before they get up enough gumption to do something about people like that who see freedom as license. This character is the quintessential Ugly American.

If freedom isnt a license then its no longer freedom. Freedom is pretty black and white. Either youre free to voice your opinions, or youre not free. And if this guy isnt allowed to say what he want because of political correctness you might as well scrap freedom of speech completely. What we should focus on is either making sure that such extreme opinions arent needed, or that people just dont feel the need to say it.

{rant} And, by the way Duke87, that kind of sentiment is what got you December 7, 1941. The Japs thought they could get away with it because of that kind of attitude among your people. Wake up! This is not a private argument in the United States. Your people have offended the world community, and with neighbors like you we don't need any enemies. And you certainly don't have God's gift of governmental systems nor constitutional law. {/rant}

What has Pearl Harbor has to do with Americans not caring about a guy who technically committed no crime?

And no, Americans havent offended the world community. One American has offended a part of the Muslim community. Muslims need to learn that they do not hold everyone else responsible for the stupidity of a few. And they should learn to not react like a bunch of savages and respect other peoples opinion.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

What you people don't understand is that whatever the U.S. Media covers as news or happenings in the U.S. that gets on to the social media is taken by this poor illiterate boobs as U.S. Policy. They can't even tell the difference between a UN compound (no Americans there) and a U.S. citizen.

The people of Afghanistan are in big enough trouble without outsiders messing up their heads further. I still say that Justice Holmes was right. If you want to know about license, look up licentiousness in your dictionary. It has more meanings that a permit to do something. And just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Don't they teach any ethics in your country?

[Meg 368]

What you people don't understand is that whatever the U.S. Media covers as news or happenings in the U.S. that gets on to the social media is taken by this poor illiterate boobs as U.S. Policy.

So the answer is what? To edit what the press and social media say? That's a cure worse than the disease.

I still say that Justice Holmes was right.

Yes, he was. The right to freedom of speech does not extend to the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. However, there is a matter of jurisdiction. Legal precedence has not yet caught up with international social media. Or international law of many kinds.

And just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Don't they teach any ethics in your country?

I took an ethics course while I was at university. It was an elective. But the issue here isn't ethics as much as it is basic manners. Insulting people for the sake of insulting them is rude. It is not, however, illegal.

I know you want us to rewrite the Constitution. There is a mechanism for changing it, not easy but it can be done. It has been amended six times in my lifetime so it's not that difficult either.

But a total rewrite at this point in time is a very bad idea. At the moment, we appear to be at (what I hope is) a peak of religious fanatics of our own. If we just open the doors for a massive rewrite, I shudder to think what they would do to it.

[hym 358]

What you people don't understand is that whatever the U.S. Media covers as news or happenings in the U.S. that gets on to the social media is taken by this poor illiterate boobs as U.S. Policy.

I think we understand that. The problem isn't that that such actions are legal in the US. The problem is that cultural differences between the US and Afghanistan are very extreme. Some things that are perfectly permissible in the US are extremely taboo in Afghanistan, and some things that are perfectly acceptable in Afghanistan are considered atrocious in the US. No amount of restrictions on individual freedoms will change this fact, unless you're willing to transform your society into the other person's society. These incidents, while regrettable, are a part of life.

And just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

That is correct. At the same time, just because you shouldn't do something doesn't mean it should be illegal. That ultimately leads to a barbaric legal system.

There is a mechanism for changing it, not easy but it can be done. It has been amended six times in my lifetime so it's not that difficult either.

On some level, I don't agree with you on this. The Baby Boomer generation has been a unique point in American history, and as you've said before, there were enough people that the politicians simply had to listen. It is unlikely that we are going to ever experience such a social era again, and this makes it significantly more difficult to get an amendment passed. As I remember, the last proposed amendment to even gain serious national attention was the effort to define marriage as strictly heterosexual, and even that proposed amendment never had a chance of actually becoming law.

[Easy Bakes 253]

What you people don't understand is that whatever the U.S. Media covers as news or happenings in the U.S. that gets on to the social media is taken by this poor illiterate boobs as U.S. Policy.

So the answer is what? To edit what the press and social media say? That's a cure worse than the disease.

I still say that Justice Holmes was right.

Yes, he was. The right to freedom of speech does not extend to the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. However, there is a matter of jurisdiction. Legal precedence has not yet caught up with international social media. Or international law of many kinds.

And just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Don't they teach any ethics in your country?

I took an ethics course while I was at university. It was an elective. But the issue here isn't ethics as much as it is basic manners. Insulting people for the sake of insulting them is rude. It is not, however, illegal.

I know you want us to rewrite the Constitution. There is a mechanism for changing it, not easy but it can be done. It has been amended six times in my lifetime so it's not that difficult either.

But a total rewrite at this point in time is a very bad idea. At the moment, we appear to be at (what I hope is) a peak of religious fanatics of our own. If we just open the doors for a massive rewrite, I shudder to think what they would do to it.

To totally rewrite the Constitution you would have to have group of politicians ( a large group} with an agenda that includes the future of the US and not thier own pocketbooks. you know willing to give thier lives and fortunes to make a better government.

the current group will never allow it basic document to actualy be changed as they all like to show how much they follow and hold up its ideals

while at the same time doing all they can to curcumvent it to get thier own agendas passed.

[-Lexus- 2]

What you people don't understand is that whatever the U.S. Media covers as news or happenings in the U.S. that gets on to the social media is taken by this poor illiterate boobs as U.S. Policy. They can't even tell the difference between a UN compound (no Americans there) and a U.S. citizen.

The people of Afghanistan are in big enough trouble without outsiders messing up their heads further. I still say that Justice Holmes was right. If you want to know about license, look up licentiousness in your dictionary. It has more meanings that a permit to do something. And just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Don't they teach any ethics in your country?

So youre saying we should lower our standards to accommodate the stupid and the dumb, instead of having them accommodate to a more acceptable level of intelligence? You think we should keep our mouths shut because there is some big bad bully threatening to hurt us every time he perceives an insult? Thats just cowardice hiding behind political correctness. Let them adapt to us, instead of us adapting to them, just because they tend to get angry and violent quickly.

And nah, they never taught me any ethics on school.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I know it is difficult to generalize from the particular. In fact, it is a bogus argument. It is gratifying to see all of you leap to the defense of your institutions while I act as devil's advocate.

I do think that someone in hierarchical authority over this "preacher" should admonish him, If he is not in a religious hierarchy, then perhaps he could be turned over to the secular arm. In the bad old days, if there were no other recourse, he could have been sent to argue his case before God or Allah or Jaweh (all the same being).

He should not have done that. It is an evil act. He is supposed to be a paragon of virtue. He is not an ecclesiastical court, so his "Trial of the Koran" is totally bogus. Perhaps a mental examination is necessary, eh? Radicalism takes all sorts of forms.

Will/has be been appropriately admonished? One article I read suggested that the Congress was considering some kind of sanction, but I don't think that is right. It is a waste of legislative time. Something suitably social should suffice, eh?

You have, in addition to your state papers, a large body of precedent based on it and on English common law. Statute trumps precedent, but what is the awareness of the average American of all of this? We cannot say that people on this forum are average as most of us are students of the human condition and other technical topics.

[Meg 368]

It is gratifying to see all of you leap to the defense of your institutions while I act as devil's advocate.

Well, it's one way to have a discussion.

I do think that someone in hierarchical authority over this "preacher" should admonish him,

I don't know in this particular case but odds are good he is not in a religious hierarchy. A large percentage of churches are not. I could get a preacher's license through the mail, open a church, teach whatever I wanted. People might ignore me but, as long as I had followers, it would be difficult to stop me.

If he is not in a religious hierarchy, then perhaps he could be turned over to the secular arm.

Turned over on what charge? This is what we have been saying: legally, there is nothing we can do to him.

We could apply some social pressure in the form of "yo, buddy, that was really stupid" but, unless he cares what people think of him, why would he listen?

He should not have done that. It is an evil act. He is supposed to be a paragon of virtue. He is not an ecclesiastical court, so his "Trial of the Koran" is totally bogus.

I totally agree with you.

Perhaps a mental examination is necessary, eh? Radicalism takes all sorts of forms.

Okay, let's say someone gets a court order to put him on a 72 hour involuntary psychiatric hold. Then what? In theory he could be locked away for being a danger to others but that is a series of legal hurdles that would be difficult to get through in this case. I imagine they could twist some clause in the Patriot Act to cover it but I suspect his legal defense fund would be quite large. It would be regarded as government interfering with religious practices and that does not go over very well.

Will/has be been appropriately admonished? One article I read suggested that the Congress was considering some kind of sanction, but I don't think that is right. It is a waste of legislative time. Something suitably social should suffice, eh?

What are your suggestions?

You have, in addition to your state papers, a large body of precedent based on it and on English common law. Statute trumps precedent, but what is the awareness of the average American of all of this? We cannot say that people on this forum are average as most of us are students of the human condition and other technical topics.

Odds are very good that the awareness of the average American is quite low. I have sat in the living rooms of average Brits and was amazed at their level of understanding of what is going on in the world.

Our so-called "news" contains a lot of totally useless stuff, like how Charlie Sheen's road tour is going. As the lyrics of one song go: "I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran".

There is a belief, deeply ingrained since colonial days, that we are here, on this nice continent away from the craziness going on across the ocean and whatever is going on over there is not our problem. This attitude might have make sense in colonial days (although that is questionable) but it is causing problems these days, especially since things are so much more interconnected than they used to be.

If your point is that Americans need to get their heads out of the sand and pay attention to what is happening on the global stage, I agree with you. But I can tell you that many of us have only started to pay attention to what is happening on the national stage.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If your point is that Americans need to get their heads out of the sand and pay attention to what is happening on the global stage, I agree with you. But I can tell you that many of us have only started to pay attention to what is happening on the national stage.

Well, maybe I wasn't exactly thinking of "sand", but you are correct.

Because of the insular (should I say isolationist) attitude that had been fostered since the beginning of the 20th century in America, it will be an uphill battle to make them more than locally aware. This is not helped by the news media who are entirely in the clutches of the marketing cartels.

There are too many distractions with the doings of the entertainment industry, too many tabloid papers and magazines, and the information tsunami is beyond the ken of most people. They just can't cope with the information overload, and adding something like the Reuters and/or BBC feeds to their lives would probably be a bad thing, let alone the CBC, and we are only next door. The political stuff alone would be just a silly distraction for them, since you have your own problems, but would knowing what was really going on off-continent in other than the Hawaiian island group find any ears? I seriously doubt it.

Just as a matter of instance, what do you think the average Joe thinks about the Fukushima mess beyond thinking, "It's not my problem", and "I hate nuclear power."? Do they think of the human cost? The economic cost? What about the general Japanese disaster? Up here, some automobile plants are closing (including Chrysler) for want of parts that are not shipping from Japan. Does Mr. America notice?

Maybe your problem is now the "huddled masses" you now have on your hands.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I do think that someone in hierarchical authority over this "preacher" should admonish him,

I don't know in this particular case but odds are good he is not in a religious hierarchy. A large percentage of churches are not. I could get a preacher's license through the mail, open a church, teach whatever I wanted. People might ignore me but, as long as I had followers, it would be difficult to stop me.

Meg is correct about this guy.Probably not a part of any of the bigger established church groups.

theres probably hundreds if not thousand's of independent Churches out there. most go unnoticed and most are probably

harmless.

who's to admonish him?

I'm quite sure this guy has a lot of skeletons in his closet and now hes drawn federal attention to himself.

just give it a few weeks I'm sure they will find his finances not quite in order.

  Edited April 6, 2011 by Easy Bakes  

[Duke87 1,070]

Just as a matter of instance, what do you think the average Joe thinks about the Fukushima mess beyond thinking, "It's not my problem", and "I hate nuclear power."?

Not much. Or anything. Interest in far away things is very limited in the US.

Up here, some automobile plants are closing (including Chrysler) for want of parts that are not shipping from Japan. Does Mr. America notice?

This actually came up in a conversation I had with a random stranger in a diner in Toronto Monday morning. I personally was aware that Japan has a shortage of power and is having rolling blackouts (most Americans I bet don't even know that), and had figured that would be quite a hit to the economy, but I hadn't considered this particular impact (I had no idea Japan's manufacturing industry was so large). So no, America hasn't noticed.