This is what I fear most, that I am actually spending time arguing with a kid in high school.

This has got to be one of the funniest comments ever. (I say as I sit naked with nothing but a party-hat on, trying to get the tassel on my nipple cups to spin at equal rates in opposite directions.)

Knowing his archetype will help me deal with Dos is the future.

There is no “dealing” with me, mw, anymore so than any other political/cultural conservative Mentat all hyped up on the sapho juice. Good Luck.

But Terence. I dunno. I don’t really see either of those. I’m guessing those are smokescreen picks.

Obviously, real commenters will often have characteristics of multiples of these caricatures. And it is fun to see what people pick for themselves vs. what others pick for them. For Terence I would be looking at Pinko or Ideologue, but if I had to guess only one, it would be Net Rat. This is what I fear most, that I am actually spending time arguing with a kid in high school.

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm

“do you do have a few drinks before you blog at night …”TerenceC

Doesn’t everybody? Hee – this might help your psychoanalysis – my profile. You might find it amusing to locate your archetype in the taxonomy on that site. I’ve got you pegged, but would be more interested in your “self-evaluation”.

Oh, and I think you should read what you wrote. You were not just suggesting that people get involved locally. Maybe that is what you intended, but that is not what you wrote. You wrote that people should get in involved in politic in order to support (among other things) “curbing freedom of speech to include drug companies not being able to advertise on TV. Or TV News shows have to give the facts, impartially, clearly, without bias or slant…”. And I was suggesting that people should get involved in politics to stop that sort of thing from happening.

What do you do have a few drinks before you blog at night – read what I wrote again, surely you misunderstand if you think asking people to get involved locally is sugggesting any other activity other than that. If you want to effect political change it can only occur locally – get upset, call me elitist if you need to – but Americans deserve what they get politically because they just don’t care – and as a population they are stupid – look at the results in the last 40 years.

“How about curbing freedom of speech to…blah blah blah” – TerrenceC

Yeah that’s a banner we can all get behind. Lets take a meat cleaver to the Bill or Rights! Yay! Why? Because Terence knows better than you or me what it is ok for us to see or hear. I know that I for one would feel so much better knowing that Terence or his ilk will be protecting me and shielding me from making decisions for myself that he or others like him obviously need to make for me. I know he is right about that. I know because…

“Americans are either too stupid or too lazy as a populous to care about these things… – TerenceC

Good thing we have Terence looking after us. You know, I just don’t understand where people get the impression that liberals are condescending and elitist. If we would just accept that they know better than we do what is good for us, we all would be so much better off.

BTW TC – I would spend my 5-10 hours a week doing everything I could to stop any efforts to curb freedom of speech such as you suggest here.

Oh – And which reality show? I just started watching the new series of “The Big Break” tonight. Its one of my favorites. Never miss it.

All these changes can happen if people would just get involved in politics at the local level. People think they are too far removed from local politics to make a difference however, and the system (counting on those feelings) rolls right over them. If everybody got involved politically (5-10 hours a week) these changes could happen. Write letters, talk to neighbors, canvass for your favorite person, study the issues – actually look at facts and make decisions and determinations – that’s how things use to work in this country. It would also have the added benefit of bringing communities closer together.

Americans are either too stupid or too lazy as a populous to care about these things however, so they deserve what they get politically. Now, if you’ll excuse me I have a reality TV show to watch.

Again – a voting block, by definition, votes as a block. That requires organizing the vote around something. What is the organizing principle to convert Independents into a voting block? Parties are rejected in her thesis. Issues also don’t work because, as Marcia says “independent will never agree on social issues like abortion or the economy or immigration.”. I could add a few more to that list. Independents sometimes do organize around a personality. Nader, Paul, Perot come to mind, with Perot hitting the high water mark of 20% of the electorate.

Apparently the organizing principle is this laundry list of reforms. Ok I’ll look for something I like. Redistricting reform. Definitely needed. I’m on board. But it is an indicator of how insubstantial this illusion of a plurality of independent voters really is, when you note that California, a state with a lot of Independent voters, sent redistricting reform to a crushing defeat, because it was supported and promoted by a Republican Governor.

Finally, changing the very nature of how our country iwas organized and founded, while undermining a core concept in the framework of the constituion should not be attempted as an “end-around”. You want to change the Electoral College. Amend the constitution or convene a new constitutional convention. I would remind Marcia, that we are called the United States of America and not the United State of America. Despite its steady erosion over the decades, the concept of this country is still a federation of States, based on the premise that the closer government is to the people, the better. Laws not specifically allocated to the Federal Government were supposed to fall to the semi-Independent States. Under our Constitution the Executive is not intended to serve as the President of the Populus, but instead as the President of the United States.

There should be enough support to change the Constitution on the electoral college if the NPV’s claim of 70% support is to be believed. So thenwhy the “end-around”? Do it the right way. Amend the constitution. I’ll oppose it, but if gets through that process, so be it.

Perhaps a little less grandiose agenda might actually get something done. Let see if we can fix redistricting. Everyone knows that is a mess. It is a pure Independent v. Partisan wedge issue. If Independents cannot get that done, they got nothin’.

There’s nothing “Independent” about a National Vote — it is either a total misunderstanding or ideological distaste of our constitutional republic.

With all due respect Marcia, doesn’t one to some extent cease to be “independent” when one adhers to a political “platform.” If this is the Independents platform, a guess I am an Independent independent from the Independent platform. Good luck with all this.

I support somewhat lower thresholds for ballot access, and I support redistricting reform. That’s about it.

• Term limits won’t work. Why? Two words…unelected staffers.

• Open primaries may be a good idea, but that’s for each state to decide. And if any state does it, they have to allow any given party to opt out of public financing and run its own primary as it sees fit. Otherwise, waht’s the point of having a political party of like minded folks? Imagine if the green party was ordered to run an open primary to elect its candidate, and there was an exxon refinery down the street, and everyone decided to show up?

• Campaign finance reform? Crying about cost is the easy part. Coming up with good ideas to change it is the challenge no one has met. And anyone shopping public financing on the day my taxes are due gets laughed out of the box. I could not be MORE opposed to having “the government” pay for political campaigns.

•The electoral college is here to stay. Doing an “end around” will fail for the same reason the proper path (amending the constitution) will fail. There aren’t enough states whose power will be INCREASED by changing the rules. Not to mention the fact that the end-around being proposed may not even be legal. It’s called sovereignty, folks, and it can’t be easily bargained away. Such a chnage would be tied up in courts for decades, and rightfully so. That makes it a HUGE waste of energy.