the mad, mad mind of the USA

"Americans became so used to the comforts and unilateral power of empire in the latter part of the 20th century that a significant segment of the population developed its own alternative worldview. This is an outlook and set of "principles" that are not based on facts and actual needs, but rather reflect fantasies - and a retreat to the comfort of a revisionist history of the nation, the world and even evolution."
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13192

~

Takes a bit to get into it, but this article indicts charter schools as a betrayal of the purposes of public schools:
http://www.truth-out.org/failure-corporate-school-reform-toward-new-common-school-movement/1322671494

~

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/12/another-definition-of-originalism.html
On that peculiarly Yank concern with constitutional "originalism."

Originalists do not think that their field is in crisis. They should. ... originalism has fragmented into an enormous number of different theories.

In most scholarly fields, fragmentation is not a problem. .... But the stated purpose of originalism is to produce unique and indisputable answers to legal questions in order to eliminate the possibility of judicial discretion. The proliferation of originalisms, and the certainty that none of them will vanquish its rivals, together with the concession in many of the sophisticated variants that interpretive discretion is unavoidable, make this enterprise a forlorn one. Multiple originalisms, then, are problematic for the same reason that multiple popes are problematic. Some writers have concluded that there is no longer any practical difference between originalism and nonoriginalism. Pamela Karlan analogizes originalism to a product whose name has come to refer to an entire category of products regardless of their source, like aspirin or cellophane. She argues that “it would be better if arguments over interpretive theory stopped trying to invoke this now-meaningless brand name.”

This is what I have been wanting.

http://www.occupytheballot.org/

I just want to see an anti-corruption, pro-redistribution, pro-actual economic growth, pro-environment candidate (or some approximation thereof) run. And all these people more respectable than I am don't bother. So, if no one else runs, I guess I may as well.

Also, I think we need loud public advocacy for actual public goods.

So, should I call up my friends in the local Democratic Party and give them each the line, "Either you run, or I do it, and EMBARRASS US ALL."?

Anyway, I need a job too. If I ran for Senate, could I pay myself a living stipend out of donations? Probably a bad plan.

I have done Get Out the Vote before, but that's it. We lost 70-30, total hopeless case, no publicity. I suspect flyers and phones make little difference.

(no subject)

Oh, I love this.

REINS and fantasy

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/214514.html
The REINS Act is only the latest of a slew of bills aimed at peeling back regulations, which House Republicans have pushed for in the name of cutting red tape and freeing up businesses. The GOP sees the regulations as overbearing rulemaking by unelected bureaucrats. democraticunderground

"Who do the regulators answer to? No one," said Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) in debate on the House floor. "When the regulators go to work every day, like most people go to work, their work assignment's a little different," Poe said. "In my opinion, they sit around a big oak table, sipping their lattes. They have out their iPads and their computers, and they decide, 'Who shall we regulate today?' And they write a regulation and send it out to the masses and make us deal with the cost to that."

I hope some civil servants invite Mr Poe to observe them at work, so he may be disabused of this fantastical view of things.