Archive for October, 2005

Life is going pretty well.

Sunday, October 30th, 2005

Things are actually going well. Sure things could be better, but in general, I would be okay with this for a while.

I am kept busy with a lot of work, but it keeps it interesting. I don’t hate any of my classes. Friends are good. There is the occasional mini-drama, but it generally seems to work out harmlessly. I sort of wish there was an 8th day of the week for some more time for things, but in all honesty, if something doesn’t get done, it is because I slacked a bit and I have no one to blame.

Things are good. People don’t say that enough.

Damnit Grant

Tuesday, October 25th, 2005

SluSignGuy: when is your mom’s wedding?
BigMac545: 21st
BigMac545: ur welcome to come if u want im sure
BigMac545: haha im the Maid of honor
SluSignGuy: you are fucking kidding me


Sunday, October 23rd, 2005

Well, since I need to probably pick up the pace some with Journal Entries for Creative Writing I will up the pace same with writings.

The following is somewhat obvious drivel, so forgive me.

In social science, there is often the assumption of perfect information for rational actors. However, there is never perfect information in the hands of rational actors.

No one is perfectly honest. The biggest dishonestly probably goes with hedging. People hedge around things all of the time. They hint at little things all the time, and if one catches the right hints, one can pry and figure things out. I often wonder how many times my hints are actually picked up. Then I wonder how many hints I miss. Then there are those hints in which you think you notice, but they aren’t actually hints at all. They were likely you hoping that something have hinted about is being hinted back at you. So it is in fact, a false hint.

I always feel best when I am 100% honest, but I am never fully honest. Maybe because the things I am honest about are those that I am comfortable being honest about. Well, there is a no shit statement for you. Basically, my belief that honesty does make one feel the best is only based on biased examples. Therefore, I don’t necessarily know it is the best policy. I am not justifying lying. However, if one were completely truthful….They would likely have few friends.

For example….
…Do you be honest about something you know about one actor that could potentially positively affect another while hurting the first? When you as an actor have very negative gains from this honesty?

…Do you be honest about your thoughts with actors regarding things that they may not necessarily want to hear, but in your opinion it would be good for them to hear? In this case the gains for you as an actor are extremely uncertain.

These two things are basically saying the same thing…If one thinks about it, there are actually very few actors in which have long term affects on you as an actor. Therefore you could potentially help these other actors, take the negative affects from these actors hurting yourself. However, their net gain is greater in the long run. In the short run for you, it is negative but in the long run it it negible.

Well, no one has perfect information. So no one really knows… And I end my drivel.

I do admit, this was pretty much drivel.

Feedback Please

Friday, October 21st, 2005

Okay Political Nerds, give me feedback on the following proposal (It is a first draft)

Problem Statement:
The States’ representation on the Federal level of the US government was removed with the passage of the seventeenth amendment to the US Constitution. Thereby, removing “the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.”
In the previous century, while the State legislatures lost their power over Senate appointments, they were granted influential power, exercised by the redistricting process, over the US House of Representatives during the Reapportionment Revolution of the 1960s. From the end of Reconstruction through 1960, there was an average of 40 seats gained or lost each election by each of the major two parties. This average fell to 16 in the elections from 1962 to 2004. Since the House’s expansion to 435 members and passage of the 17th amendment , the differential, comparative responsiveness between the House and Senate dropped from 3.43% until 1960 to .53% after 1960 . Partially due to political redistricting, the designed democratic responsive nature of the House has diminished.

Proposed Solution:
Amend the US Constitution, initiated by “a Convention for proposing Amendments” with the following :
Amendment XXVIII
Section 1. The seventeenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. Should a State divide its Representatives by geographic boundaries, such boundaries are to be created and approved by a majority of an appointed group of persons within each State. This group, of an even number, is to be appointed, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, by the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Section 3. No State shall send a Representative to the House of Representatives if such Representative is not elected in accordance with this amendment.

Major Obstacles/Implementation Problems:
Constituent Objections:
Voters likely will respond negatively to the repeal of the constitutionally mandated direct election of Senators. However, the State Legislatures can individually establish this democratic process, as at least 29 states had done prior to the 17th amendment’s adoption. Therefore, they can pressure their state level governments for the reestablishment of the process.
Voters also likely will be wary of Section 3 fearing losing their representation in the US House. However, if their State Legislature cannot come to an agreement upon a successful group, the voters can punish their state legislature via election, which adds incentive for the legislature to come to an agreement.

Elected Official Objections:
US House Representatives will probably dislike the actions taken against political redistricting because it will reduce their electoral prospect certainty. However, by going through “a Convention for proposing Amendments”, the House of Representatives is bypassed in the amendment process.
US Senators will likely oppose the amendment because their constituency could change from the voters to the state legislators. While this is unlikely, because of the expected results from voters’ objections, it is a reduced concern because the Senate is also bypassed in the amendment process.
Senators and Representatives could politically pressure state legislators to oppose the Amendment and depress its prospects for passage. However, the state legislators, prominent political figures in their respective states, would most likely benefit from Section 2 as their chances for successfully challenging and winning a US House seat improve. Therefore curbing this pressure.

Implementation Problems
The largest implementation problem will likely be in the calling of the Convention, since this has never been done before. However, an agreeable procedure could be established through by deliberation of the Speakers of legislatures.

Internet Happiness

Sunday, October 16th, 2005

Well this hurts the Gore Theory

Wednesday, October 12th, 2005

STOCKHOLM, Sweden — Former Vice President Al Gore (search) said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again.”I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again,” said Gore, who lost the 2000 election to President Bush (search).

However, Gore did not completely shut the door to political endeavors.

“I don’t completely rule out some future interest, but I don’t expect to have that,” he said during a visit to Swede

1968 = 2008 Addendum

Tuesday, October 4th, 2005

Well, last night my Nixon=Gore / JFK &LBJ=Bush was on fire last night. I hadn’t realized how few people I told it to before last night. Anyway, that inspired me to add some Addendums.

FIRST: Storms
The last two major Hurricanes to destroy New Orleans:

Hurricane Betsy & Hurricane Katrina

Respective Years:

1965 & 2005

Which Equate to:

JFK/LBJ 1st Year of Term 2 & GWB 1st Year of Term 2

SECOND: Supreme Court
Nominees to the Supreme Court Associate Justice:

Bush chose Harriet Myers, his one time legal counsel, as his nominee to the Supreme Court.

LBJ chose Abe Fortas, his one time legal counsel, as his nominee to the Supreme Court.

Respective Years:

2005 & 1965.

Interestingly, Abe Fortas took his seat on the bench….
………………………………………….40 Years Ago Today

heh, imagine if I actually researched these parallels and not just made them as I pick things up from News or History Classes.