Five Political Groups

In order to understand politics, I think it is important to understand the general categories of people that one has to deal with.  This is not to say that one has to appeal to ALL of them, but just to be aware of how each one would likely react to any new proposal.

First and largest are those people who simply never get involved, or at least, those who only get involved when they're directly inconvenienced in some way.  For the most part, you can ignore these people, just as long as you don't go out of your way to piss them off.  Second are the people who are just plain set in their ways and will oppose any new ideas simply because they're new.  You can ignore these people also, because they tend to be all-talk-no-action, and once a new policy is put into effect, regardless of how often they spoke against it, will usually just accept it after the fact.  Third, are the fringe groups such as conspiracy theorists and radicals and cults and miscellaneous extremists.  You can ignore them as well, because they tend to be relatively small in number and aren't taken seriously by anyone else.  That leaves just five major groups that are actually politically impactful.

1. Libertarians and Anarchists:  I include anarchists because they're basically just the extreme end of the libertarian spectrum.  Libertarians have one simple political philosophy, and that is "my life is my life, and your life is your life, and you can't tell me what to do."  I can totally see their point.

2. Socialists and Communists:  Again, I include communists because they're just the extreme end of the socialist spectrum.  Socialists simply don't trust the free market system to provide opportunities for everyone, so they want a safety net for those who can't provide for themselves.  Those who can afford it should pay the way for those who can't.  I can totally see their point as well.  Some are opposed to the idea of wealth inequality at all, but for must of them, it would be sufficient to know that no one is going hungry.

3. Bourgeois Liberals:  On first glance, they may seem hypocritical, but I suspect that the majority of them are well-meaning.  They are charitable up to but not including making any real sacrifice.  They support all the same progressive social causes that their friends support.  They don't deep dive into research on political issues, but they're willing to listen when you volunteer information.  They're not the sort who would march in protest, but they will show moral support with a nice t-shirt or bumper sticker.  It's actually pretty easy to get these people on your side as long as you make it fashionable.  The one drawback is that they tend to drop support pretty quickly for any individual who has a falling out with the leadership of the DNC.  Basically, they're the sort of people who can't wait to tell you about their "black friend."

4. Moralists:  Some might call them Christian Conservatives or Religious Fundamentalists, but I suspect that religion has very little to do with it, beyond the surface level.  What these people believe, simply put, is that they way they were raised is "right," and anything that differs is "wrong."  They see anything nontraditional or unamerican as a deliberate act of rebellion.  If you want the support of these people, you have to frame it in a way that appeals to their existing ethos.  In other words, they want to be good little boys and girls, and you have to show them that you're also coming from a place of being the good little boy.

5. Assholes:  There are plenty of other words I could have used, but this one was the most accurate.  The Assholes are the ones who want the outward appearance of a meritocratic system with free market capitalism and winner-take-all and upward mobility within the social hierarchy, but with a single caveat.  No one but themselves is allowed to win.  These are the people who want everything handed to them while pretending that they earned it fair-and-square.  They want to see the little guy suffer and they want to see him realize that it was his own fault.  They treat the world like a big game of monopoly that they force others to play, and they throw a temper tantrum unless if the game isn't rigged in their favor.  They're spoiled, entitled, greedy, arrogant, narcissistic, and worst of all, feel like they deserve the right to be so because they were "smarter" or "bolder" or "worked harder."  They're the sort of people who use the phrase "alpha male" unironically.  If you want the support of these people, you have to trick them.  Fortunately, they're usually pretty stupid and easy to trick.

Jokes That Need to Retire

Nobody does jokes about airline food anymore, because audiences see those types of jokes as cliche. That got me thinking, what are some other jokes (in stand-up, in shows, in movies, etc.) that have been retired, or that should be retired?

Wife is out of town, and the husband has to do the cooking, and everything goes wrong. This joke doesn't work anymore because hardly anyone cooks a meal from scratch anymore. Plus, everyone knows it's an old bit. (Even the Dick Van Dyke Show made a joke about what an "old" joke that was.)

(Edit:  Okay, I was JUST talking about this, and now I just saw a trailer for the new movie "The Breadwinner," which is entirely based on this one joke!  Seriously???)

Implying or insinuating that a guy is gay. It's only funny you assume that all gay men are supposed to be closeted, or that the TV/movie censors won't allow gay portrayals on screen, because then you "slipped one past the censors." Once you have openly gay characters in movies and shows, dropping "hints" doesn't make sense anymore.

Jokes about old people's fashions or young people's fashions. They don't really make sense anymore, because all the old fashions keep cycling around and coming back into style, so you never know what's going to make a comeback next. "Can you believe we used to..." and there's a young person wearing the same thing. "Can you believe the young people are..." and there's an old person who used to wear the same thing.

Mother-in-law jokes. Just because they're hacky and predictable.

Words that "sound funny." You usually don't hear this on stage, but I have seen some comedians actually get on television with a bit that is basically "this is a weird-sounding word," and then prove that point by repeating the word over and over in a silly voice. It's a cheat, because ANY word is going to "sound weird" if you do that.

Jokes about how there are "too many" Starbucks'. It kind of worked when it was a new company and was opening up a lot of new locations, but nowadays, it had just settled in as one of the many franchises that people are used to seeing, like McDonald's or Dunkin' Donuts.

Nerds using a computer. It doesn't work now that everything is computerized.

That joke where a character sees an Asian guy and tries speaking Japanese to him, and he's like, "Sorry, I don't speak Japanese." No modern audience would see an Asian person and assume he speaks Japanese.

A man mistakes a woman for a man because she's wearing a hat, then she lets her hair down, and he's like, "you're a girl???"  (The weird thing about this one is that this joke was being used in movies at the same time that a lot of men had long hair, and a lot of women had short hair.)

Jokes about how men never pull over and ask for directions. The joke doesn't work if everyone's car has a GPS system.

Someone mentions a blonde Asian. The joke is that there's no such thing as a blonde Asian. It doesn't work anymore, because hair coloring is now super common among Asians, especially in Japan and South Korea. (I guess you could make the joke make sense if you said "naturally blonde," but even then, it's kind of pointless.)

Someone mentions a "lesbian trapped in a man's body." This joke is based on the audience's assumption that all cross-dressing men are attracted only to men, except that no one really thinks that anymore, so the joke just falls apart.

Any remark about not liking rap music.  Back in the 1990s, rap was just starting to become mainstream, and it started getting some backlash from people who just wanted to be counter-cultural or anti-current-trends or show that they were "old" and don't get the new music.  (And maybe a few racists thrown in there, because rap was mostly seen as "black" music.)  Nowadays, rap and hip-hop are just as established in the mainstream as country or metal.  (Plus, not all hip-hop artists are black these days.)  The guy making fun of "rappers" just sounds outdated.

Smug remarks about how all the women have breast implants (or other plastic surgery) these days.  This was a popular trend in California for a while, but it seems to have died down.  (In fact, these days, most of the people getting breast implants are either cancer survivors or transgender women.  Probably not the sort of people you intended to make fun of.)  But for some reason, the idea of "everyone has fake boobs these days" just stuck around because it showed up in movies and shows written by people living in California.  (It's kind of like the "ribbit" frog sound effect or the dialtone-immediately-after-being-disconnected sound effect.  It was region-specific to California for a while, and then through movies, because the standard in the public consciousness.)

Division Problems

 I never liked the way division was taught to me in grade school.  Basically, it went like this.  In the third grade, they taught division as simply the reverse of multiplication.  That by itself was fine, but they would include problems that didn't come out evenly BEFORE teaching fractions and decimals.  So what did they do?  They taught "remainders," and the answers would be written as the whole number, followed by the letter R, followed by the remainder.

Having a remainder is fine when dealing with word problems involving units that cannot be divided into fractions (such as salable units or people), but not when dealing with pure math.  It just made sense to me to each the use of fractions and decimals BEFORE introducing problems that don't come out evenly.

Here's an example.  Let's say you have three money problems:

    1) Divide five dollars between two people.

    2) Divide nine dollars between four people.

    3) Divide seven dollars between three people.

If we were to teach the "remainder" solution, all three questions would have the same answer:  2 R 1:

    5 ÷ 2 = 2 R 1

    9 ÷ 4 = 2 R 1

    7 ÷ 3 = 2 R 1

However, if we write all three problems as fractions and then solve without using remainders, then we get three different answers:

    5 / 2 = 2.5

    9 / 4 = 2.25

    7 / 3 = 2.33333333...

Of course, since we're talking about a money problem, there are indivisible units involved, so a remainder is necessary in the third problem, but not the first two.  So all three solutions would look like this:

    1)  $5 divided by 2 people equals $2.50 per person.

    2)  $9 divided by 4 people equals $2.25 per person.

    3)  $7 divided by 3 people equals $2.33 per person with a penny left over.

Also, I think it's time to retire the division sign (÷).  Just write all the problems in algebraic form, with the dividend in the numerator and the divisor in the denominator.  And while we're at it, let's reinforce the idea that subtraction is just addition using a negative number.  It's WAY easier than that whole "PEDMAS" left-to-right bullshit.

Things I'm Sick of Hearing

 Here's a simple list of things I'm sick of hearing people say, and why:

• "Kids today don't know how to use a rotary phone." ~ First of all, why is a rotary phone the go-to example of outdated technology?  Why not a touchtone phone, or a candlestick phone, or a telegraph, or a small note tied to a pigeon's leg?  It seems to me that most of the people referring to rotary phones are people who are just barely old enough to remember them anyway, and probably only used them while visiting their grandparents.  But I guess it's not unusual for old and middle-aged people to exaggerate their childhood experiences (like saying they walked miles to school every day), but this one is oddly specific.  Also, why would a young person ever NEED to know how to use a rotary phone?  Just in case all technology from the past sixty years suddenly disappears?  And then is magically replaced with the earlier versions?  And how hard is it to figure out a rotary phone anyway?  You just turn the dial.  The only real challenge is having to remember other people's phone numbers (or at least, remember where you wrote them down), which old people don't do anymore anyway.  If technology did suddenly and inexplicably regress, EVERYONE would be screwed.
• "You only enjoy that thing because of the reward center of your brain." ~ You usually hear this one from smug intellectual cynics, but it's not only wrong, but also a pointless observation.  I'm no brain surgeon, but even I know that the brain is way more complicated than just having one "happy" switch that turns on and off.  It's basically a modern form of phrenology, an oversimplification of one of the most complex systems to ever exist.  But even if it were as simple as "this one part of the brain either likes a thing or doesn't," it still wouldn't be an answer to WHY you like a thing.  Your brain has to learn what it likes and doesn't like.  Unless it's a direct action on that part of the brain, such as a drug response or some kind of electrode stimulation, your brain's reward center is responding to things that you like because you like them.  What makes you enjoy something?  There are lots of reasons.  Maybe you connect it to a happy childhood memory.  Maybe it fits your sense of personal branding.  Maybe it suggests something good is coming in the future.  Maybe it's a novelty.  Maybe you don't even need a reason.  My point is that saying you like a thing BECAUSE of the reward center is pointing to a piece of the process instead of the actual cause.  It would be like saying that rain is caused by water falling out of the sky.
• "The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim." ~ This is another one from the pseudo-intellectuals.  It basically assumes that whoever speaks first is automatically wrong unless they can prove otherwise.  Maybe this comes from courtrooms and the idea of innocent-until-proven-guilty, but it really doesn't make sense in a scientific or philosophical discussion.  For one thing, almost any statement can be reworded from negative to positive.  For example, if one person says "aliens exist," and another person says "no they don't," then the first person is making the positive claim, but if the first person says "earth is not unique for being inhabited," and the second person says "yes it is," then the second claim is positive, even though there is no significant difference in what is being said.  Then, they always give a ridiculous example to prove their point.  Someone might say something like, "if I claim there is a giant hamster about to eat the earth unless you stand on your head, but I can't prove it, then you should assume that there isn't one."  Well, the problem with these hypothetical claims isn't that they're positive, but the fact that they're outlandish.  If I were to claim that somewhere in the world right now, there is a bird sitting in a tree, but I didn't offer proof, it would be silly to assume a default position that there are no birds currently sitting in trees, because the claim is perfectly reasonable.
• "The older I get, the more I realize how smart my parents were." ~ This one is popular with the Baby Boomers.  I really don't like this one, because it assumes that all of our disagreements with our parents are based on either a youthful lack of understanding or a teenage rebellious phase, and that our parents (broadly speaking) had life all figured out and the rest of us will eventually catch up to them.  Look, I don't deny that there are some ways in which we become wiser as we get older, but if we're not getting wiser than the previous generations, then how the hell is humanity ever supposed to advance?  I'm reminded of the old adage, "It is a poor student who cannot surpass the teacher."  Your parents were, at best, trying to give you the tools to do better than them, or at worst, stupid, and it's perfectly okay for you to say so.
• "The male loneliness epidemic." ~ This is some kind of a hybrid thought between people who are so luddite that they think young people have no social lives anymore because of technology (despite most of today's technology being used for social interaction), and men who have this delusional worldview that a cabal of radical feminist overlords are forcing males to stop acting like "normal" men by fucking a hundred different women every night.  Somehow, these two ridiculous ideas have merged together into a kind of technocracy that oppresses men and makes them sad in horrible and unspecific ways.  It's bullshit.  Maybe in some ways, technology has made us more distant in some ways at the same time as making us more connected in others, but what the fuck does being male have to do with it?
• "The President's Day Month-Long Sales Event!" ~ I have to hear this bullshit on every radio station a hundred times a day for the entire month of February, and I'm sick of it.  First, how can a day be a month long?  Second, stop calling a sale an "event."  They keep those balloon arches and wavy arm inflatable tube men up year round, and although I can't be bothered to check, I'm pretty sure the car (or whatever is for sale) prices are the same in February as they are the rest of the year.  And third, what the fuck does any of this have to do with President's Day?  Why does that day get to define February?  Why not Valentine's Day or Groundhog Day or Mardi Gras or Black History Month or the Super Bowl?  How does George Washington's Birthday negate all the other events going on in that month, and what the fuck does any of it have to do with buying a car???
• "Read that again." ~ I'm so tired of posts on social media that make some kind of a point very clearly (sometimes a good point, sometimes bad, sometimes original, sometimes not), but then at the end, it says, "read that again," implying that I wasn't really taking the awesome point into my mind as I should have been.  Just let the point stand on its own.  Granted, there are some situations where a point needs to be repeated for emphasis or clarity, but not EVERY point.  Also, if you want to reiterate a point, how about just repeating it yourself, the way a person would normally talk?  Again, you shouldn't overuse it, but on those occasions where it seems appropriate, saying something a second time is more in line with what readers are used to hearing in normal conversation.  And while I'm on the subject, not every point needs to be literally underlined or highlighted in yellow or typed in all caps or boldface or have arrows pointing at it from all sides with the word 'THIS."  It's the text equivalent of grabbing someone by the caller and shouting in their face for a mundane conversation.  Oh, and it's not just social media either.  New age and self-help books tend to go hog wild on placing italics everywhere, as if every other sentence in the entire book was the most important statement you'll read in your entire life.
• "So-and-so predicted the future." ~ I've heard this about George Carlin, The Simpsons, Idiocracy, and every other social commentary or parody artist for the past thirty years.  No, they didn't "predict the future."  They were talking about the present, and nothing changed.  Will Rogers was making fun of politicians believing in trickle-down economics back in the early 1900s.  The problems and stupidity of today are not new things.
• "It's like astrology, but for boys." ~ This is just plain stupid.  It's always when someone is making fun of some nerdy dorky thing, and for some reason, decides not only to compare it to astrology (which would only make sense if the nerdy thing was some sort of fortune-telling, which it usually isn't), but to then gender-specify it in such a way that it assumes that all dorky things are guy things EXCEPT for astrology, which is suddenly a girls' thing.  When the fuck did that happen?  I have no recollection of astrology ever being a girls' thing.  A hippy thing, sure.  A simpleton thing, naturally.  A 1970s thing, absolutely.  But a girls' thing?  Now you're just making shit up.
• "Vinyl is making a comeback." ~ Every few years, somebody thinks it's funny to point out that people are suddenly buying vinyl records again.  Vinyl never went away!  It just shifted from being the "only" way to listen to music to being the "classy" way to listen to music, and that was a long time ago.  Nobody is abandoning their streaming music apps to switch to vinyl.  It's just the same niche interest that it's been since CDs became the standard media thirty years ago.  (And by the way, vinyl was not replaced by eight-tracks or cassettes.  Eight-tracks were a way to listen to music in cars and for playing commercials and jingles on the radio, and cassettes replaced eight-tracks in cars, and were played alongside vinyl in the home.  The CD replaced the cassette, and the MP3 replaced everything except vinyl.)
• "The wisdom of a child." ~ This is usually when someone wants to make a profound point and quotes the simple wisdom of a child who doesn't overcomplicate things.  Of course, it's all bullshit, because the "wisdom" that these children share is almost always just them repeating something an adult said, and that adult was probably oversimplifying a concept so that a simple child could understand it.
• "The most important election of our time." ~ I hear this phrase used by newscasters all the time, and it tends to lose its meaning if you say it for EVERY election.  They even say it for midterms!  I get that they're trying to hype up the stories they're covering for dramatic effect and ratings, but really, elections should be routine.  How can every election be the "most important?"  Oh, but they have that cop-out phrase "of our time," leaving it deliberately vague as to what exactly "our time" refers to.  This year?  This decade?  This century?  This exact microsecond?  I guess you can't really call them out for being wrong if you don't know what exactly they're even saying.  It's usually followed by the even more abstract "struggle for the soul of our nation," which is another phrase I'm sick of hearing, because it's meaningless bullshit designed to over-hype some otherwise boring election coverage.
• "You know what's a weird-sounding word?" ~ When people say this, you can expect that they're about to take some particular word and start repeating it over and over again, usually with exaggerated pronunciation and maybe even a silly voice, in order to illustrate just how strange the word sounds.  Well no shit, EVERY word sounds weird if you're going to stand there saying it over and over again in a silly voice!
• "I had the weirdest dream." ~ All dream are weird.  That's what dreams are.  You're asleep and you're seeing things that aren't there, so what could you possibly be dreaming about that wouldn't be weird?  And I'm sure you're excited to tell us all about your dream, but trust me, nobody but you finds it interesting.
• "The future is now." ~ It's just a way overused phrase, especially in advertising.  It's supposed to imply that something previously thought to be futuristic is now available, but most of the time, it's just a lazy way to overhype some newish product.  Half the time, the "new" thing is just a repackaged version of an old thing, so you might as well say that the future is the past.
• "Violence delegitimizes a protest." ~ If your goal is to be perceived by a bunch of ex-hippie bourgeois liberals as the "good guy," then yes, you should always protest non-violently, an probably sell some merch with leftist slogans and take lots of selfies and leave the rally quickly before it becomes unfashionable.  But if you actually want to get results, then why the fuck would you not use every possible resource at your disposal?  Yes, that includes violence.
• "Men get body issues too."  ~ It seems like every year or so, someone points this out like it's a revelation.  The idea is that women are worried about being overweight, but men never have that problem, but did you know that men can also be worried about not being muscular enough?  Okay, first of all, no duh.  All sorts of people have insecurities about their body types.  Everyone knows that.  Second, why do we assume that the ONLY thing men could feel insecurity about is wanting to be more muscular?  Considering how much money is spent each year by male consumers on hair restoration and plastic surgery and weight loss programs and even hair dye to cover up the graying parts, did it really never occur to anyone that men might be insecure about these things as well?  And why do we assume that women are only concerned about weight?  People can be insecure about their height, their skin, their hair, their nose, their teeth, or whatever else.  And while we're at it, what about non-physical insecurities, like lack of education, lack of musical talent, financial troubles, clumsiness, social awkwardness...  The list goes on!
• "I dated women, and now I understand men."  ~ Still on the topic of men/women.  These are basically clickbait for men who want to hear an attractive bisexual woman telling them basically, "you were right... it wasn't your fault... she was a total bitch... she didn't appreciate you enough..."  First of all, you don't "understand" men, because every person's situation is different.  One major difference with your experience is that you were in a homosexual relationship, which is not the same thing as being in a heterosexual relationship, and doesn't grant you instant insight into the people-who-date-women experience.  Second, while you may get some partial insight into other people's feelings about relationships from your own experiences, you can get that from ANY type of relationship.  For example, someone raised by a physically abusive mother might have some partial insight into someone with an emotionally abusive boyfriend.  It doesn't have to be date-women-to-understand-dating-women.  Third, stop giving blanket validation to all men!  Okay, maybe for some of the guys watching, the woman WAS the problem, but for other guys, maybe it was the MAN who was the problem, or maybe they were BOTH the problem, or maybe neither one of them was the problem, but they just weren't a good fit for each other.  Usually, these types of female advocates for men tend to make general and old-fashioned assumptions about how men and women relate to each other, like women being indirect.  "I was watching the football game, and she mentioned that the trash can looks pretty full.  The next day, she made me sleep on the couch and told me I should know what I did wrong.  Eventually, I found out she wanted me to take out the garbage.  Why couldn't she just tell me that???"  Bro, that's not a relationship!  That's a sit-com episode!

More to follow!

Constitutional Proposal Additional Notes

 Notations and explanations of the purpose of each clause in my New Constitutional Proposal:

https://shawnravenfire.blogspot.com/2023/06/constitutional-proposal.html

Article 1, Section A, Paragraph i:  This will spare the American public from having to deal with overbearing national election cycles, while still allowing states the freedom to hold elections for council positions if they so choose.

Article 1, Section A, Paragraph ii:  Historically, states have been concerned with the number of representatives from each state, and the impact of some states having more votes than others.  By explicitly stating that councils are not required to give one vote to each representative, by that they are free to use a caucus or roundtable discussion system, no state will need to worry about being out-voted by a state with more representatives.  Additionally, without formal rules about how long each representative is permitted to speak, we eliminate the problem of representatives arguing about gaining additional time to speak on important issues (as with the House) or of representatives filibustering to stall legislation (as with the Senate).

1, A, iii:  The purpose of this clause is to eliminate long-term career politicians, and to prevent any one representative from gaining too much power.

1, A, iv:  This is in response to previous incidents during which Senate committees have been formed with unelected activists acting as committee members.  Note that this does not preclude councils from inviting a guest to speak as an expert on a particular topic, or from seeking advice from experts.  Only that these experts may not serve in the same capacity as the representatives.

1, A, v:  This is to help alleviate any states' concerns about what might happen if they don't have constant representation in every council.  Smaller states may not wish to appoint any council members if they feel it's not necessary or might be a waste of time and money, but still want to have a backup plan if it becomes necessary later.  Ideally, councils will not be oversaturated with members, as this can slow down the legislative process.

1, A, vi:  A simple limitation to prevent councils from exceeding their authority.

1, A, vii:  In addition to the obvious reason of avoiding waste of taxpayer money, this will also hopefully alleviate the psychological effect of council members feeling a sense of superiority, as well as deter candidates seeking personal gain.

1, A, viii:  Standard anti-corruption clause.

1, A, ix:  Purposefully vague, but will hopefully prevent issues on deciding where to locate offices, as well as prevent one state from gaining undue power through deals with specific councils.  Most likely, most if not all offices will continue to be located in Washington, but there is nothing to prevent them from relocating for whatever reason.

1, A, x:  A variation on Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution, but instead of being "privileged from arrest," they will simply not be detained from their duties.  This way, council members may not use their position as a means of immunity, but simply avoid the disruption of council proceedings.

1, B, i:  Due to the complexity of the various pros and cons of central banking, fiat money, commodity-backed money, etc. this clause is left deliberately open-ended, giving the Financial Council the freedom to alter and adapt the monetary system as they see fit, as opposed to just having a fixed system that could potentially fail, requiring a difficult amending process.

1, B, ii:  This is to prevent a government shutdown from occurring as a result of budget disagreements, as well as preventing the Financial Council from gaining too much power.

1, B, iii and iv:  This is to protect the poor and middle-class from having to bear most of the tax burden.

1, B, v:  This, of course, is to put an end to the controversial practice of large corporations receiving huge sums of money from the government, claiming to be "too big to fail."

1, B, vi and vii:  A more clarified continuation of some of the powers granted in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, as well as preserving existing antitrust laws.

1, C, i and ii:  Protection for the existing benefits programs.

1, C, iii:  This is a failsafe clause for economic crisis.  While UBI has been suggested by never implemented, this clause allows a pathway to start this or a similar program should the need arise.

1, D, i:  This is in response to recent controversial proposals to expand the Supreme Court in order to give a majority to activist judges wishing to overturn previous rulings.

1, D, ii:  This is to prevent any one office from becoming too powerful by having the ability to grant pardons to anyone, regardless of the nature of the crime committed.

1, D, iii:  This is to prevent federal law enforcement from becoming more powerful than state or local law enforcement, as well as to have the Civil Rights Council act as a watchdog over the Department of Justice.

1, D, iv through vi:  Adding separate sections for election rules, law-enforcement rules and general rights will make it easier for people to review their protected rights (as opposed to listing them in the order in which they were ratified).

1, D, iv, 1:  To avoid the controversial suggestion of mandatory voting, and protect the rights of the people to refuse to participate.

1, D, iv, 2:  To avoid the problems of jerrymandering, disloyal electors, and other risk factors which have on multiple occasions resulted in the election of a president (or other officer) who did not win the popular vote.  The dissolution of the electoral college has been a frequent proposal throughout U.S. history.

1, D, iv, 3:  A continuation of the 26th Amendment.  This will allow states to lower the legal voting age (something that has been suggested in recent years) if they choose, but will not allow them to raise the voting age higher than it currently is.

1, D, iv, 4:  A continuation of the 24th Amendment.

1, D, iv, 5:  Codifies absentee ballot rights into writing, avoiding a recurrence of controversies regarding the counting of absentee ballots.

1, D, iv, 6:  A continuation of the 15th and 19th Amendments, plus preventative measures against any future forms of discrimination.

1, D, iv, 7:  Hopefully to help break up the two-party duopoly, discourage mud-slinging campaigns, and avoid the need for special runoff elections.

1, D, iv, 8:  This is to discourage candidates or options from being dismissed by voters due to lack of availability in neighboring states or districts, and to avoid the issue of votes becoming obsolete if a candidate drops out of a race partway through an election.

1, D, iv, 9:  This is to help discontinue multi-state political parties, to discourage trading public endorsements for backdoor deals, and to discourage politicians from gaining too much control of a council by supporting politicians who will appoint representatives with a shared agenda.

1, D, iv, 10 and 12:  This leaves election rules open-ended for issues like broadcast campaign ads, campaign financing, misleading ads, spamming, etc.  Since no one can possibly plan for every possible form of corruption, regulators need room to adapt to new situations.  This also prevents unfair treatment in the case of one group of states fearing that another group of states is more likely to act dishonestly.

1, D, v, 1:  A continuation of rights protected in Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

1, D, v, 2:  A continuation of the 4th Amendment, with some additional wording adapted for the digital age.

1, D, v, 3:  This grants further protection against unlawful searches, preventing police from avoiding consequences for their misdeeds.  At the same time, this guarantees that courts can still convict violent criminals, even if there are legal issues regarding how the evidence was obtained.  Note that the specific disciplinary actions are not specified, but left up to the states to decide.  The purpose is simply to avoid favoritism within the police force.

1, D, v, 4:  A continuation of the rights protected by the 5th and 6th Amendments.

1, D, v, 5:  A continuation of the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, but with some additional wording.  Police can no longer trick or threaten people into confessing, and police must give complete and honest testimony in the execution of their own duties, even if that includes self-incrimination of police misconduct.  Police are supposed to enforce the law, including on themselves.

1, D, v, 6 through 9:  Additional protections against police misuse of power, and codifying existing protections.

1, D, v, 10 and 11:  Additional continuation of rights protected by the 5th Amendment.

1, D, v, 12:  A continuation of the 8th Amendment.

1, D, v, 13:  This is to settle the debate regarding the abolition of the death penalty, and eliminates the risk of executing any innocent person mistakenly convicted.

1, D, v, 14:  This is in response to current overuse of prison labor.

1, D, v, 15:  This will save authorities the trouble of having to systematically pardon and expunge the records of offenders for repealed crimes, as is currently happing with a lot of non-violent drug-related crimes, and may come up in the future with other types of crimes.

1, D, v, 16:  This is to protect the rights of voters, gun-owners, and persons wishing to run for office.  Currently, the rights of ex-cons varies from state to state.

1, D, v, 17:  This further protects the rights of people who have served their time from unfair sentencing in the future, and is largely a response to the highly controversial Three Strikes Law.

1, D, v, 18:  This eliminates the problems of diplomatic immunity, and also guarantees that public officials will have to face the same consequences for crimes as everyone else.

1, D, v, 19:  Avoids the "just following orders" defense.

1, D, v, 20:  This is to impose a strict penalty for police who abuse their authority, and eliminate the old practice of planting evidence on suspects or political enemies.

1, D, v, 21:  Codifies the existing practice of compensating jurors, but adds that it should be "fair," as opposed to the usual pittance.

1, D, v, 22:  This is to eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing laws, as have been imposed in the past, particularly with non-violent offenders who otherwise would have been dismissed by judges.  However, it does specify that unusual or extenuating circumstances are a requirement, meaning that judges cannot abuse the privilege by playing favorites.

1, D, v, 23:  A continuation of the 7th Amendment, but with the amount increased due to inflation.

1, D, v, 24:  This is to prevent people from filing lawsuits for felonies instead of filing criminal charges, or of using the civil court to seek monetary damages from people acquitted of felonies.  In the case of misdemeanors, criminal charges are not required to seek monetary compensations.  It also does not prevent out-of-court settlements.

1, D, v, 25:  This reverses the highly controversial 11th Amendment, which has caused problems for several groups, especially civil service workers.

1, D, v, 26:  This is to prevent federal judges from taking it upon themselves to establish new rights or new limitations to rights, such as in the Dred Scott Decision.

1, D, vi, 1:  A continuation of the 1st Amendment's protection of religious freedom, but with some modified wording.  States do have the right to acknowledge the existence of a majority religion, provided that none are shown preferential treatment.  This provides a far more clear definition of purpose than the commonly used "separation of church and state" quote from Jefferson's explanation of the 1st Amendment.

1, D, vi, 2:  Another continuation of the 1st Amendment, but codifying into writing the same restrictions (such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) that were previously only implied.

1, D, vi, 3:  A continuation of the 1st Amendment's protection of free assembly.

1, D, vi, 4:  A continuation of the 1st Amendment's protection of the right to petition, but adding the word "means," so as to guarantee that representatives have clear open lines of communication with their constituents.

1, D, vi, 5:  A continuation of the 2nd Amendment, but with additional wording to codify existing regulations on weapons which would not have been available when the original 2nd Amendment was written.  However, the specific wording is still kept open to interpretation so as to avoid issues in the future as new weapon technology is invented.

1, D, vi, 6:  Protection of property rights previously only implied.

1, D, vi, 7:  A continuation of the 13th Amendment, but with some additional clarification.  A person who commits a crime may be forced to directly compensate for that crime (for example, a person who paints graffiti on someone else's property may be forced to wash off the graffiti), as opposed to simply being forced to work for the state after having committed an unrelated minor offense.

1, D, vi, 8:  This resolves the controversial issue of married status having a different tax return form than single status, as well as continues the protections of several states' "no fault divorce" laws (starting with California's Family Law Act) and the same-sex marriage protection of "Obergefell v Hodges," as well as any future marriage issues that may arise involving non-traditional wedding rituals or practitioners of polyamory.  (Granted, this may mean that private insurance companies may have to update their spousal benefit insurance policies, but that shouldn't be a problem.)

1, D, vi, 9:  This codifies the abortion rights protected by Roe v Wade, eliminates the problems of failed drug and alcohol prohibition laws, and protects the rights of sex workers.  The general consensus for some time has been that government should not infringe upon bodily autonomy.

1, D, vi, 10:  This provides a protection of business-owners not to have to deal with unfair zoning laws.

1, D, vi, 11:  Codifies into law existing transportation rights previously only implied.

1, D, vi, 12:  The legal adulthood of persons 18 or older is more or less standard practice already, but this eliminates odd exceptions.  (For example, there is no reason why a person should have to be 18 to buy tobacco, but 21 to buy alcohol.)  The clause about extending rights to younger people is included to avoid any misinterpretation that persons under 18 have no rights at all (for example, getting a driver's license at 16).

1, D, vi, 13 and 14:  This is mainly to avoid mandatory education, and protect the rights of home-schooling.  It also avoids a recurrence of previous incidents in which French Cajun or Native American children were forcibly indoctrinated into Anglo-American cultures.  However, the phrase "in their homes" is included to avoid the possibility of any parent assuming that their children can do whatever they want outside of the home without consequence.

1, D, vi, 15:  This effectively eliminates the line of separation between citizens and non-citizens.

1, D, vi, 16:  This is to settle the controversial matter of Daylight Savings Time, and put the entire nation onto year-round standard time.  This does not, however, prevent the state from making permanent adjustments to time zones for the sake of accuracy.  It only prevents states from issuing regular semiannual changes.  This, of course, does not prevent regional institutions (such as school bus schedules or local businesses) from choosing seasonal adjustments to their schedules.

1, D, vi, 17 through 18:  This is a preventative measure against the possibility that some future lawmaker might claim that his own department doesn't have the same restrictions as another department, or that a town may decide to infringe upon freedoms on the basis that only the word "state" was used in protecting these rights.  The protection of intentional communities is to avoid a possible loophole that some future person may join such a community and then claim rights infringement (for example, someone moving into an Amish village and then claiming the local rules do not apply to him).

1, D, vi, 20:  An open-ended clause so that if any future civil rights issues should come up, there would not be a need for a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court case.

1, E, i:  Adds an extra layer of protection of state sovereignty.

1, E, ii:  Adds an extra layer of protection of treaty compliance.

1, E, iii:  It has been an established general policy to avoid supporting nations which violate human rights.  However, this clause explicitly gives the Foreign Affairs Council control over those decisions.  Obviously, there are some cases where completely cutting off trade with a foreign nation isn't feasible, but this will allow the Council to use their best judgement in cases like this.

1, E, iv:  Provision in case the matter ever comes up.

1, E, v:  A continuation of the Peace Corps, listed separately from the rest of the military so as to avoid disruption to humanitarian services.

1, E, vi:  The purpose here is to avoid having a centralized standing military which may be misused by the federal government.  This has the added effect of keeping military forces close to home, so personnel, when not deployed, can be close to their homes, as well as allowing states to decide how best to train and operate their own forces.  The lack of a minimum readiness requirement is necessary so that smaller states need not waste time or money on a small military force that is unlikely to make a significant difference in time of war.

1, E, vi, 1:  Mainly, this is to alleviate any concerns that opponents to this constitution may have about each state having its own military.

1, E, vi, 2 and 3:  This is to prevent another situation like the Vietnam War, involving deployment of troops without a formal declaration of war, and then retroactively committing to war after troops have been deployed.  Particularly stated goals are to avoid a recurrence of situations like the Iraq War, involving an invasion force without a long-term strategy.

1, E, vi, 4:  This resolves the problem of the absence of a president in time of war.  It also helps to make sure that only the best person for the job is in command, as opposed to an all-purpose politician acting as commander-in-chief.

1, E, vi, 5 and 6:  Clarifies the new powers and limitations on each state having its own military.

1, E, vi, 7:  A continuation of the 3rd Amendment, plus the permanent elimination of the military draft, which became highly controversial during the Vietnam War.

1, E, vi, 8 and 9:  This is to prevent a recurrence of unconscionable experiments such as those conducted during the Vietnam War.

1, E, vi, 10:  This is to prevent a recurrence of internment camps, such as those used against the Japanese in World War II.

1, E, vi, 11:  A continuation of the 5th Amendment's exception for active duty military personnel, but clarifying that it only applies where standard legal protections are not feasible.

1, E, vi, 12:  Codifies existing standard practices which avoid recurrences of the surprise alliances during World War I.

1, E, vi, 13:  This is to prevent a recurrence of the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the long-term effects of chemicals used in World War II and Vietnam, as well as in response to practices of waterboarding and other forms of aggressive interrogations, and to provide codified rules and penalties for mistreatment of prisoners such as was the case in Guantanamo Bay.

1, E, vi, 14:  This is to send a message to all foreign governments (Israel, for example) that they should not expect military support while engaging in severe human rights violations.

1, E, vi, 15:  This disincentivizes wars for profit, such as the expansion of lands during the Mexican-American War, or taking control of oil resources through the wars in the Middle East.

1, E, vi, 16:  Already a standard war practice, but here codified.

1, E, vi, 17:  Allows for intelligence gathering, while correcting the previous omission that secret intelligence has historically never been well-regulated.

1, E, vi, 18:  Provides a prescribed pathway in the event of a foreign leader going rogue.

1, E, vi, 19:  This guarantees that existing veteran benefits will continue, and prevents a recurrence of the unnecessary suffering of many Vietnam War veterans.

1, F and G:  This is to ensure that only those who have the necessary specialized knowledge of their respective fields will be in a position to make policy changes for those departments where scientific or industrial knowledge is necessary.

1, H, i and ii:  A continuation of several of the restrictions placed by Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.

1, H, iii through vii:  This is a direct response to recent abuses of power by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as avoiding the problem of resident aliens being treated differently under law from citizens.

1, H, viii:  A continuation of powers granted in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution dealing with ships on the high sees, but with additional wording to include spacecraft.

1, I:  A continuation of the copyright protections guaranteed in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and the census defined in Article 1, Section 2.

1, I, i:  A continuation of the Freedom of Information Act.

1, I, ii:  This is a direct response to the redactions in the recent the Epstein Files.

1, I, iii:  A continuation of existing practices.

1, I, iv:  This is a continuation and codification of existing practices.

1, J:  This provides a means for large-scale infrastructure projects similar to Hoover Dam to be developed independently of any of the other councils or departments.

2, A:  This is to minimize the problem of excessive department creations or arbitrary reorganizations, such as the Department of Homeland Security.

2, B:  This reinforces the idea that the executive departments are intended to be subordinate to the legislatures, and provides a much simpler means of dealing with insubordination than a lengthy impeachment process, as well as preventing rogue executive decisions (for example, Andrew Jackson's unauthorized forced relocation of the Cherokees).

2, C:  This is to prevent random people from being placed in positions of excessive authority, such as with the Department of Government Efficiency.

2, D:  To protect people dependent on government services from suffering under rogue executive decisions, while waiting for the council to deal with the rogue executive.

2, E:  This provides quick responses in the event of a crisis, such as with Covid or 9/11.

2, F:  This is in response to economic effects caused during the Covid quarantines.

2, G:  Codifies existing federal labor practices into the constitution, and also restricts cronyism with regard to high level appointments.

2, H:  Protects lower echelon government workers against pay cuts or loss of benefits in response to concerns of overspending.

3, A through D:  An adaptation of impeachment proceedings based on those described in Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 of the U.S. Constitution, but applied to state authorities, and shall only be used in severe cases.

4, A and B:  This further protects the rights of states to self-governance, while at the same time, protecting against abuse of the privilege of secession or reorganization.  Note that this does not require that all states directly-elected chief authorities, but rather that all authorities be held accountable.

4, C:  This is to discourage states from seceding for frivolous reasons, or with the intent of removing the people's rights, but also, to establish that states who have legitimate reasons for secession won't feel forced to stay solely for the sake of federal aid.

5:  This provides a simpler means of amendment, while at the same time, avoiding the problem of states having voted to ratify an amendment long ago, and basically forgetting having done so (such as may or may not have happened with the highly disputed anti-nobility 13th Amendment).

6:  Not to be taken as a permanent listing of federal departments, but rather as a temporary means of reorganizing the existing federal departments and integrating them into the new system without having to deal with the inconvenience of starting from scratch.

Married with Children

 I notice a lot of people on YouTube reacting to the "Al Bundy's Best Insults" compilation video, and I feel the need to point out that these sorts of compilation videos fail to represent the true spirit of the character and "Married with Children" overall.

Al Bundy is a loser (that's the whole joke that the show is based around). His "best insults" are just his impotent rage (both figuratively and literally), because his lives in a world where he knows that he's the one ultimately getting screwed. By taking his insults out of context, it frames Al as the one standing firm against a world gone mad.

The original premise behind "Married with Children" was a mockery of modern (at the time) television, which many people saw as too sanitized, too politically correct, too artificially wholesome, and just plain too nice and clean. In fact, the originally pitched title for the shows was "Not the Cosbys." Ed O'Neil (who played Al) said in an interview that he based his performance on an uncle of his who went through life with a constant self-defeating attitude. Basically, the whole joke of the show was "let's do a sit-com where everyone acts like the OPPOSITE of every other sit-com." The mother is the opposite of the perfect homemaker. The kids are the opposite of well-adjusted youngsters who learn valuable life lessons. The father is the opposite of the head of the household who knows best. The show became popular because of how different it was from every other show at the time.

This is the point that seems to be lost on modern audiences, who have been presented with a narrative that television used to be a lot LESS politically correct, and that MwC was "typical" of shows at the time when you could "get away with a lot more," when in fact, the opposite is true. MwC was mocking the political correctness of the time. Al Bundy was not a "typical" character who was above the situation, but an atypical character who was crushed by it.

Strangely, if Al Bundy were a real person, he would fit in quite well today with the social media "alpha male" crowd, the weak loser beta male trying so hard to make himself look like a tough guy online, presenting himself as a brave resistor of the radical feminist oppression of masculinity, while everyone else just sees him as a joke, rolls their eyes, and ignores him. "No Ma'am" has gone from a joke on television to a joke in real life. Doesn't anyone else get that?

Rules for People with Radios

If you've ever worked in a place where they have a radio playing all day, then you know that there are some annoying as fuck things that need to be addressed.  Some people should just not be allowed to choose a radio station.  Where to even begin?

First of all, let me just say that if you can afford to buy a speaker with the cool moving lights on it, and one that is loud enough to be heard throughout the entire department, then you can afford the extra couple of bucks to spend on the ad-free music subscription.  I pay for ad-free radio, and I shouldn't have to listen to commercials while I'm at work.  And radio commercials are the worst.  I don't know where these people learned to talk, but no human being anywhere outside of radio ads sounds like that.  It's like a person with histrionic disorder taking cocaine, and then trying to talk through a closed door, while portraying a cartoon character.  And the worst of the worst are the car commercials.  I'd be very happy to go the rest of my life without ever again hearing the phrase "sales event."  A sale is not an event!  Just because you leave a balloon arch and a wavy arm tube man up year-round, does not mean that buying a car is festive!  And what's with those ads that think it's "clever" to act out the ad as if they were leaving a voicemail?  You know the ones.  The ones that have the old-fashioned answering machine beep.  "Hey, insert name, it's your stereotypical Jewish mother calling to tell you about the great deals as who-gives-a-shit restaurant, and how come you never call me back?  Beeeeeep."  Who started this shit, and why is it still going on?

Second rule, avoid the top forty stations.  I'm not saying never play them, but don't play them all the time, unless you want to hear a very short list of songs played over and over again, that have nothing in common with each other aside from the fact that they're all recent.  To quote the famous Sagat, "Why is it that when I'm listenin' to da radio, I hear the same five songs fifteen times a day for three months?  Funk dat!"

Third rule, if you pick the Spanish station, do me a favor, and pick one of the stations that lets the song actually play all the way through.  Do NOT pick one of the stations where the DJ has to interrupt the music about every ten to fifteen seconds shouting "ARRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIBAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!"  And I am not exaggerating.  It's fucking nonstop.  And that's not all.  They also throw in DJ tags and sound effects like hawk calls and car horns.  Who the fuck asked for that?  I'm at work, so stop telling me, in any language, to get on the dancefloor.  Also, why do they have ads for Taco Bell on the Spanish music station?  Who the hell is from a Spanish-speaking country and actually likes Taco Bell?

Fourth rule, and I cannot stress this one enough.  I don't want to hear any fucking Christmas music until AT LEAST the beginning of December!  October is for Halloween music, December is for Christmas music, maybe you can throw on "Alice's Restaurant" around Thanksgiving, and the rest of the year should just be "normal" music.  If I have to listen to a fucking Christmas song the first week of November, I might just take a baseball bat to the speakers!

Fifth rule, and this one is just common courtesy, but it needs to be said.  If someone is already listening to music on a small radio, don't be a dick and set up a bigger radio on a different station right next to him.  It's just...  dude, seriously?

Sixth rule, pay attention to what you're actually playing.  Don't just set your app up to auto-play your favorites, and then walk away, not bothering to check what's actually playing.  True story, I had a coworker set up a large radio for the whole department, and somehow, after finishing a few decent songs, it started playing an audiobook of a biography of Julius Caesar.  At first, I didn't say anything.  I figured, he's going to come back and notice, right?  He's not going to let this whole thing play through, right?  Nope, it just kept playing.  By first break, I knew more about Roman senate proceedings than I ever cared to know.  By lunchtime, I was ready to stab the bastard myself.  Please, stick to music!

Seventh rule, when I'm playing music on a small radio, don't be that boss who, even though he can make a phone call from anywhere in the building, decides to come over and stand right next to me, start talking on the phone, and then ask me to turn down my music because he's on the phone.  I'm standing there thinking, "you know you could just go stand somewhere else, dipshit!"  Of course, I don't say that out loud, because I want to keep my job.  So I just say, "sure, no problem."  But come on!

Eighth rule, I know that some DJs like to make a big deal about Friday close to quitting time, and how excited we all are for the weekend to start.  But that is NOT the radio station you want to be playing for people who work weekend shift!  I worked late shift at this one place that had a seven-day work schedule for all employees, and every Friday, right as we were returning from first break, the DJ on the radio station that was being piped through the PA system would say, "IT'S FRIDAY!!!!" and start playing "Everybody's Working for the Weekend."  Don't add insult to injury!  It's bad enough we didn't have any nights off, but did we need to be subjected to this reminder that in a different reality, we were all going home to relax?

Nineth rule, stay away from those DJs who are just so in love with the sound of their own voice.  You know the ones.  They play five minutes of music, and then talk for ten minutes about nothing.  They laugh way too hard at their own jokes.  They throw in the same wacky sound effects over and over, like it's some form of obsessive compulsive disorder.  They have to play a doorbell, a trumpet, a clip from a movie from five years ago, and the mating call of a South American tree frog, in that order, exactly thirty-seven times, because somebody said the word "the."  They're the ones who take half an hour to tell a five-minute story about a pizza arriving late.  Nobody fucking cares!  Worst of all, are the ones who act like perverts, because they think it makes them edgy.  This ain't the 1980s, you ain't Howard Stern, and nobody fucking thinks you're edgy!

Tenth rule, if you get bad reception, just shut it off.  I'd rather listen to dead silence than listen to that intermittent on-and-off punctuated by static.  If I can only hear about a half-a-second of a song at a time, just...  stop.