Recent exchanges have focused on organized conspiracies that seem to control world outcomes in a concerted fashion. I think it's worth some level of discussion, and I'll promise up front that I'll remain open-minded and I will not be derisive.

So I'd like to ask if you can see a historical era when this conspiracy (or conspiracies) were not in control and in what sense average mankind was not victimized by an organized elite?

I tend to see the evolution elites in much the same way that Francis Fukuyama postulates in The Origins of Political Order (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Political_Order). It's persuasive theory, to me at least. In a nutshell, elites emerged as a class after human societies could produce surpluses of foodstuffs. He describes this mechanism of how, exactly, the class separated itself--the strongman/chief granted special "rights" or authority to a group of close associates to take by force if necessary, surpluses, ostensibly for the betterment of the entire society. Priesthoods soon evolved, along with the surpluses. There could be supernumerary social roles, where there never could be before the surpluses.

So I tend to work from this point of departure.

So that's where I'm coming from: it started in prehistory, with surpluses. The more aggressive/charismatic/forceful seized resources from the less aggressive, aided by a select group. To me, it looks like nothing has changed, except in scope and sophistication. Simply put, it's a form of predation.

When was it any different? If there was such a time, was it a stable period, or was it in an expansionary phase, when there was little or no established social order? Clearly, during a frontier phase, when one group displaces another, it's too chaotic for a large group conspiracy to function. They can emerge relatively quickly as soon as a minimal degree of stability sets in, along with a stable population, but not before.

What is the scope of the supposed conspiracy? For example, does it include mainland China? Do you suppose that the Chinese would accept either the supremacy, or even the equality, of the Rothschilds, because I know a fair number of people from mainland China, and if one thing come thru loud and clear, subtly and overtly, is that they have NO DOUBT that the Han Chinese are the most competent, capable, and gifted group of humans alive today. They are unburdened by externally assigned guilt are are very hard to manipulate short of physical threat. In my limited experience, they would not welcome lasting collusion with a bunch of Levantines, or anyone else, for that matter.

So does the conspiracy control the Chinese, or does it include them?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So you'd see this kind of thing developing more or less concurrently with settlements and towns & cities, rather than a pastoral-agricultural semi-nomadic scenario?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you'd see this kind of thing developing more or
> less concurrently with settlements and towns &
> cities, rather than a pastoral-agricultural
> semi-nomadic scenario?


The key to its emergence is surpluses. Significant surplus (it needs to be enough to make it worthwhile to take) are less possible with nomadic existence but not impossible.

Settlements permit storage of surplus and hence are more conducive to this kind of class predation.

I mean, everything is possible, but politically sustainable predation, i.e., is not so much as to induce organized opposition, is easier with larger surpluses.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It has always been there in one form or another. Survival of the fittest. I tend to agree with Dale's Christian faith perspective that it is very ancient. Greed. Grasping after what can be had. And if it turns into excessive obsession, it becomes a darkness of the soul.

Surplus yes, basically. The acquisition of wealth. But when direct bartering was replaced with money changing as a go-between in trade, and banking of profits, the acquisition of enormous fortunes became much more convenient and easy to handle (than vast volumes of material surplus) for the shrewd and cunning. And with all that money, of course, came increased power and influence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 8 Aug 21 | 05:19PM by Knygatin.

And lending money to interest rate, was the key to acquiring astronomical fortunes. I don't know when that started. But I believe Jesus kicked some individuals out of the temple who were attempting it.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And lending money to interest rate, was the key to
> acquiring astronomical fortunes. I don't know when
> that started. But I believe Jesus kicked some
> individuals out of the temple who were attempting
> it.


I was thinking about starting a thread to form a list of people who got in trouble for being wise guys or smart alecs. People who were either killed or imprisoned for questioning the status quo effectively.

I was going to prime the pump by putting on Socrates, Jesus, Galileo, etc.

It seems like if you can only ineffectively question existing dogma, you get slapped around a bit or laughed off; you're simply a deplorable. But the instant you gain some traction and make the entrenched authorities look bad, you're really in for it.

I guess Solzhenitsyn could be added to the list.

Have any suggestions?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

St. Stephen the Protomartyr...

Hypatia is often mentioned as a Neoplatonist killed by a Christian mob.

Various guys before Luther got in trouble with the papal authorities, e.g. John Hus...

The Edict of Worms made Luther an outlaw, i.e. anyone could kill him with impunity.... There were the Oxford Martyrs including Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, Thomas Cranmer... Michael Servetus was burned at the stake for heresy in Protestant Geneva...

Then there were John Bunyan and Richard Baxter (a contemporary of Bunyan's who was tried by the notorious Judge Jeffreys) who were imprisoned...

So many.


[bmcr.brynmawr.edu]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 8 Aug 21 | 08:38PM by Dale Nelson.

Still thinking about Sawfish's topic.

In the United States, surely the Supreme Court ruling on abortion (Roe v. Wade) of 1973 marked a turning point and not for the better. Nobody wants ED to get into an acrimonious debate about abortion, and to start one is not my purpose. But consider:

1.For elective abortion not to involve premeditated murder, it must be understood that what's aborted is not a human being. No one (to my knowledge) has succeeded in demonstrating this so as to convince any reasonable, fair-minded person. The "solution" has been to see reality as "socially constructed" (though "the social construction of reality" was a term that became widespread only after 1973). If reality is "socially constructed," then there is no reality, certainly no ethical, moral, spiritual reality, that we need to discern and then, perhaps only through arduous effort, conform ourselves to. Rather, the agenda now becomes the affirmation of various communities' notions of reality. This is often put in terms of hearing or listening to the "voices" of people of color, members of sexual minorities so-called, etc. The idea is that, since reality is just a social construction, the only fair "reality" is that which is most inclusive. So those "voices" must be heard, while, since they have already been heard, the voices of men, especially sexually normal men, especially sexually normal white men, especially sexually normal white Christian men, must be silent.

2.Roe v. Wade was a massively significant moment in the story of the assumption by non-legislative powers of national control. It is a landmark in the movement of "America" rather than "the United States" as the nature of this North American nation. The correct way for "abortion rights" to be secured should have been a state-by-state matter. If it had, undoubtedly elective abortion would have become legal in some states (e.g. New York) while it might have remained illegal in others. But the people would have felt that the laws reflected their ownership, in their states, of the legislative process. Instead the Court ruled by fiat that there was a Constitutional right to elective abortion, bypassing state legislatures. Likewise, we have seen the rise of the "imperial presidency," as if the Roman republic was giving way to something more like Imperial Rome of the Caesars. Increasingly people on the left and on the right feel that the president exceeds his Constitutional powers, though the matter is expressed in partisan terms. Well, I suspect that the relative impotence of Congress was demonstrated with Roe v. Wade.

FWIW:

[www.senate.gov]

Can you imagine an alternate history in which Congress had zealously insisted on its sole right to declare war and had refused to pay for, well, wars of any other sort?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17 Aug 21 | 09:21AM by Dale Nelson.

Dale, this is a terrific response. I'm not saying that because I agree with it entirely, but because of the expressed thought processes.

For what it's worth, I see nothing at all the matter with the thought process, and where we differ is in the nature of some of the conclusions.

Responses, below:


Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Still thinking about Sawfish's topic.
>
> In the United States, surely the Supreme Court
> ruling on abortion (Roe v. Wade) of 1973 marked a
> turning point and not for the better. Nobody
> wants ED to get into an acrimonious debate about
> abortion, and to start one is not my purpose. But
> consider:
>
> 1.For elective abortion not to involve
> premeditated murder, it must be understood that
> what's aborted is not a human being.

To remain morally consistent to stated national goals and values, yes.

But so would capital punishment be considered. So what we've got, if one supports capital punishment, is that the unborn is being executed simply for existing, where a convicted capital criminal is being executed for actions s/he took in life.

> No one (to
> my knowledge) has succeeded in demonstrating this
> so as to convince any reasonable, fair-minded
> person.

Those favoring unrestricted abortion, available on demand, at no cost, everywhere, never seem to explicitly state that they do not see the unborn as non-human, and if true (that they see the unborn as human), they favor no rights, none, for the unborn without the consent of the mother. The mother, therefore, has total control of the unborn's fate.

They also then must see humanity as composed of different classes of individual based on external criteria, such as age, etc.

If not true, then they do not see the unborn as human; it is simply a sort of tumor.

Plug in "master" for "mother" and "slave" for "unborn", and see what you come up with. That's the kind of person we're dealing with, except that they'd deny it.

> The "solution" has been to see reality as
> "socially constructed" (though "the social
> construction of reality" was a term that became
> widespread only after 1973). If reality is
> "socially constructed," then there is no reality,
> certainly no ethical, moral, spiritual reality,
> that we need to discern and then, perhaps only
> through arduous effort, conform ourselves to.
> Rather, the agenda now becomes the affirmation of
> various communities' notions of reality.

Yes.

Now don't banish me for saying this, but I currently think that this view (social constructed reality) is how mankind lives. I think they've always lived like this, and the principal difference being precisely *what* are the current beliefs of the vast majority of any given society at any given time.

So I'm saying that in an extremely simple case, the majority may strongly believe (i.e., "socially construct") that every member of society *must* conform to all traditional customs on pain of death.

A less absolutist example is fundamental Islam.

Similarly, at another time (era), the same society might believe (socially construct) that the individual is free of any social obligation while in pursuit of self-satisfaction.

Within my lifetime, the US has moved substantially in the latter direction.

But I see both as social constructs, with no overarching authority governing the environment other than physics.

So...

"Reality is that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it."

> This is
> often put in terms of hearing or listening to the
> "voices" of people of color, members of sexual
> minorities so-called, etc.

It is currently, but the opposite could be true and you'd still have a social construct of reality.

> The idea is that,
> since reality is just a social construction, the
> only fair "reality" is that which is most
> inclusive.

The key word, I'm sure you are aware, is "fair". This is highly subjective and varies over place and time.

> So those "voices" must be heard,
> while, since they have already been heard, the
> voices of men, especially sexually normal men,
> especially sexually normal white men, especially
> sexually normal white Christian men, must be
> silent.

Yes. This is a social construct.

But in my view, there is only social constructs, which is all we'll ever know, and there's physical reality, as I described above. Some social constructs are prepared to selectively deny all evidence of physical reality, while others attempt to make it a central part of the construct--although they will never know physical reality in its entirety.

I'm saying that a society that values poetic consciousness over sociological consciousness, and the opposite, are both social constructs, while falling into an active volcano is not.

Let me now say, gulp!--that I see all moralities as social constructs. This is because I am stained by the original sin of post-modernism.


>
> 2.Roe v. Wade was a massively significant moment
> in the story of the assumption by non-legislative
> powers of national control.

I want to plant the idea at this point that unrestricted voting may not be a *good thing*--in fact, I can't see how it could be construed as anything but socially destabilizing.

There, I've said it, and already I can see the lynch mob forming up down the street.

It's been great knowing you all at ED!

;^)

> It is a landmark in
> the movement of "America" rather than "the United
> States" as the nature of this North American
> nation.

Yes. Federalism vs state control.

> The correct way for "abortion rights" to
> be secured should have been a state-by-state
> matter.


YES!!!

YES!!!

Logically correct. There is no mention or implication of a right to terminate pregnancies in the constitution, which means that this would fall to the state level.

I've read Roe v Wade at least three times in its entirety. This is the conclusion I also came to.


> If it had, undoubtedly elective abortion
> would have become legal in some states (e.g. New
> York) while it might have remained illegal in
> others. But the people would have felt that the
> laws reflected their ownership, in their states,
> of the legislative process.

Yes, and an important conclusion I came to a while back was that local ownership/control creates the most satisfying day-to-day living experience.

The down side is that those who feel in opposition to the will of the general populace, as stated either by direct ballot or elected representative, will probably be better off moving to a locale where the populace is in concert with their preferences.

I didn't come to this conclusion because I "believe" in states. rights, but simply by grinding thru it, testing various examples. I found that those imposed from outside the locale, and were not popular (not in concert with local values), were what caused a great deal of daily social friction.

> Instead the Court
> ruled by fiat that there was a Constitutional
> right to elective abortion, bypassing state
> legislatures.

It's hard to read Roe v Wade and not come away with the idea that the majority of the justices "felt" that abortion should be available, and so worked hard to squeeze a camel thru the eye of a needle.

They seemed to start with this conclusion and then attempted to find ways to justify it by case law, since there is no direct guarantee.

> Likewise, we have seen the rise of
> the "imperial presidency," as if the Roman
> republic was giving way to something more like
> Imperial Rome of the Caesars. Increasingly people
> on the left and on the right feel that the
> president exceeds his Constitutional powers,
> though the matter is expressed in partisan terms.
> Well, I suspect that the relative impotence of
> Congress was demonstrated with Roe v. Wade.

I think that this is true, also, and you can see why I attempt to keep ahead of the game, sneaking like a nocturnal rat, because if there's an effective way within my lifetime, or even my wife's, who'll live to be 100 if genetics mean anything, please tell me. I've not found it yet.

[NOTE: Roe v Wade would never have involved the US legislature, at all, if the legal mechanisms stated in the constitution had been considered. It would be like the age of legal marriage: state-by-state.]

>
> FWIW:
>
> [www.senate.gov]
> larations-of-war.htm
>
> Can you imagine an alternate history in which
> Congress had zealously insisted on its sole right
> to declare war and had refused to pay for, well,
> wars of any other sort?

WHOA!!! You have a strong sense of fantasy!!! ;^)

So long as the president is commander-in-chief, the potential is always there to use force. It's like private gun ownership, but on the grand scale.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish wrote, "Those favoring unrestricted abortion, available on demand, at no cost, everywhere, never seem to explicitly state that they do not see the unborn as non-human, and if true (that they see the unborn as human), they favor no rights, none, for the unborn without the consent of the mother. The mother, therefore, has total control of the unborn's fate."

Here's some confirmation of what you say, Sawfish.

Feminist Sophie Lewis says, "Abortion is a form of necessary violence. We need to move away from arguments designed to placate our enemies, and defend abortion as a right to stop doing gestational work. ...Abortion is, in my opinion, and I recognize how controversial this is, a form of killing. It’ s a form of killing that we need to be able to defend."

Or Salon blogger Mary Elizabeth Williams:

---All life is not equal. That's a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of "scraping out a bunch of cells" and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of "the baby" and "this kid." I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can't we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it's pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn't the same? Fetuses aren't selective like that. They don't qualify as human life only if they're intended to be born.----

Next, about the "social construction of reality." There's a sense in which this concept is true. One of the reasons to read outside one's own time is to encounter works of literary power that are demonstrate different understandings than ours. That can help us to be more independent of the characteristic preoccupations and even blindnesses of our own time; it can help us to perceive, as C. S. Lewis put it, the matters about which President Roosevelt and Hitler are in agreement, or (today) Biden and Trump are in agreement.*

There is, however, a perennial moral law that all civilizations bear witness to, and that makes them comprehensible to one another. When, say, Marco Polo & friends made it so far East as they did, they never encountered outrageous moral difference. They might encounter different customs & taboos, but both foreigner and resident recognized this fundamental objective moral law. This law has to do, for example, with the duty not to do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you; it commends truthfulness; it recognizes marriage of a man and a woman; it approves modesty and deference to elders, etc. (Some cultures might allow for polygamy. This is different from the ideal of a strictly monogamous society, but both communities recognize marriage.) What I'm saying is that ways of expressing awareness of moral law may vary, but there is an underlying agreement about something there, a way of the gods, a Tao, practical reason, etc.; it's something where the buck stops; you reason from it, but if you don't accept it as it is, your reasoning will be bound to be defective.


*I think part of what Knygatin is focusing on, when he writes of conspiracy or the pointlessness of elections, is this kind of thing.

To confound a very complex and difficult issue like availability of abortion, I have come to this: at present, in the present environment, generally available abortion is "good public policy" in terms of eliminating a potentially non-productive, non-positive social entity. By this I mean a) the unwanted unborn individual, who will statistically have a reduced (but not non-existent) chance at a socially productive life, but also b) removing the mother from a potentially untenable situation.

All this can be addressed thru successful adoption, as well.

Underlying all of this is my assumption, possibly wrong, that the current US society can do without the product of unwanted pregnancy. The added population is unneeded, whereas in earlier times in many locales, the addition of individuals to a society was much more important to that society's success.

So the surplus hands are unneeded at this time, and instead of being a positive social addition, tend to be a negative social detriment--a drain.

This same construct can be generally applied to the idea of criminal rehabilitation: in what sense do we need the skills/abilities of a twice convicted felon?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish wrote, "So long as the president is commander-in-chief, the potential is always there to use force. It's like private gun ownership, but on the grand scale."

That's about right, isn't it?

Conversely, if things like the power to declare war really were exercised by Congress, the country, I suspect, would often look more conservative and we'd get involved in less military action (but perhaps enforce our borders better), because those Representatives and Senators would be closer to the people who elected them, more accountable, than the president is. The president is a Caesar or a king. He can fly his private copter to Camp David or fly to his golf course kingdom or whatever. The members of Congress have perks all right, but they can't hide quite so easily. Same with governors. Look how quickly a governor can be forced to resign or be recalled, and compare that to the presidency. I'm a retired English teacher, not a political theorist or historian, and maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like I'd like to see a decentralized United States -- so that we'd even use a plural verb ("The United States are pressuring China to come clean about Covid"), which might be a lot more responsive to ordinary taxpayers, etc.

Good luck with that....

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Next, about the "social construction of reality."
> There's a sense in which this concept is true.
> One of the reasons to read outside one's own time
> is to encounter works of literary power that are
> demonstrate different understandings than ours.
> That can help us to be more independent of the
> characteristic preoccupations and even blindnesses
> of our own time; it can help us to perceive, as C.
> S. Lewis put it, the matters about which President
> Roosevelt and Hitler are in agreement, or (today)
> Biden and Trump are in agreement.*
>
> There is, however, a perennial moral law that all
> civilizations bear witness to, and that makes them
> comprehensible to one another. When, say, Marco
> Polo & friends made it so far East as they did,
> they never encountered outrageous moral
> difference. They might encounter different
> customs & taboos, but both foreigner and resident
> recognized this fundamental objective moral law.
> This law has to do, for example, with the duty not
> to do to others what you wouldn't want them to do
> to you; it commends truthfulness; it recognizes
> marriage of a man and a woman; it approves modesty
> and deference to elders, etc. (Some cultures
> might allow for polygamy. This is different from
> the ideal of a strictly monogamous society, but
> both communities recognize marriage.) What I'm
> saying is that ways of expressing awareness of
> moral law may vary, but there is an underlying
> agreement about something there, a way of the
> gods, a Tao, practical reason, etc.; it's
> something where the buck stops; you reason from
> it, but if you don't accept it as it is, your
> reasoning will be bound to be defective.

I recognize a large degree of overlap, and note that that the largest differences between various cultures are to whom these rules apply. Can the outsider expect to have the same moral protections as the insider? My readings tend to show a fairly divided sample. Killing a stranger for his possessions is not murder, but killing a tribe member is.

And this difference--whether the moral protections apply to all, or just some--is itself a profoundly differentiating moral difference. Those who do are profoundly different, morally, from those who do not.

But yes, murder, marriage, some level of deference to parents/elders, this is shared by many cultures.

But rather than see this as coming from a divine or spiritual source, one might see it as evolution in action. Rather than see it as "...an underlying agreement about something there..." and a conformance to it, I see it as the set of values that enable a group to survive as a successful social entity. In short, those that do not follow these patterns tend to die out over time; they tend to fall away, evolutionarily.

Consider a society that had no restriction on mutual killing, no matrimonial ties, no respect/deference for parents/elder?

How long do you suppose that this group could hold together as a society such as would be recognized by Marco Polo? I'm suggesting that in any instance where this group encounters a more recognizable society, in which intra-tribal killing is severely limited, there is a sort of stable domestic arrangement, and the aged are sought for counsel, it's very difficult to see how the unrestricted group could survive, if in open competition. They could only survive, marginally, in a relatively productive hunter/gatherer environment (one that did not require much social cooperation for individual survival--Eden-esque); if the environment demanded social cooperation, like northern Asia, for example, they'd die out on their own, or gradually adopt the "underlying moral codes" that we postulate.

And if they lived in a hyper-productive environment not requiring social cooperation, they would eventually be driven from this HIGHLY DESIRABLE territory by a "morally bound" society, simply because of the effective teamwork of the latter.

So the existence of similar moral codes can be explained satisfactorily, at least to me, as an artifact of successful social evolution.

>
>
> *I think part of what Knygatin is focusing on,
> when he writes of conspiracy or the pointlessness
> of elections, is this kind of thing.

OK

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish wrote, "So long as the president is
> commander-in-chief, the potential is always there
> to use force. It's like private gun ownership, but
> on the grand scale."
>
> That's about right, isn't it?
>
> Conversely, if things like the power to declare
> war really were exercised by Congress, the
> country, I suspect, would often look more
> conservative and we'd get involved in less
> military action (but perhaps enforce our borders
> better), because those Representatives and
> Senators would be closer to the people who elected
> them, more accountable, than the president is.
> The president is a Caesar or a king. He can fly
> his private copter to Camp David or fly to his
> golf course kingdom or whatever. The members of
> Congress have perks all right, but they can't hide
> quite so easily. Same with governors. Look how
> quickly a governor can be forced to resign or be
> recalled, and compare that to the presidency. I'm
> a retired English teacher, not a political
> theorist or historian, and maybe I'm wrong, but I
> feel like I'd like to see a decentralized United
> States -- so that we'd even use a plural verb
> ("The United States are pressuring China to come
> clean about Covid"), which might be a lot more
> responsive to ordinary taxpayers, etc.
>
> Good luck with that....


;^)

Signed,

The Nocturnal Rat

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~