It's just my opinion, I could be wrong

This is another installment of "big picture ideas", aka political philosophical exploration... Democratic society, at its fundamental level, works on the basis of automatic self-correction, as do many other systems (evolution, various computerized automatic organization algorithms, neural networks, etc.). The basic idea is that you have some direct input into the results of the system (in the case of democracy, that's voting), and to that extent you somewhat control the outcomes. By observing the outcomes, and evaluating their benefit/harm to yourself, you adjust your inputs in the future, so as to influence the system to produce more beneficial results. These systems work fairly well... with some rather large caveats. One problem is timing: change is slow, and there can be painful missteps along the way. To compensate, many of these systems allow/encourage biasing the input based on the expectations of results; ie: voting for a politician because of campaign promises, et...

I've blogged about this before , but since it's tax time once again, and in light of the ever increasing spending and wealth redistribution programs of the Obama administration, as well as the ballooning unfunded long-term entitlement programs we're actually growing in total asinine willful ignorance of long-term national solvency, I'd like to revisit my thought/plan for taxes in the US. It might be overly optimistic to wish that someone with real political power would grasp onto this plan, but I still consider it one of the best political ideas I've blogged about, and one which, if somehow enacted, would be a great contribution to the long-term health of the country and the people (for example, I'd consider it more worthwhile a goal than any of the stated short-sighted Tea Party pledge objectives). In short, the plan would be to cap the maximum amount the government collected in taxes from every individual in the country to a fixed percentage of their income; ...

I've been thinking a lot more recently about the problems with governments in general, and the government of the US in particular. I'm sure that's largely motivated by the huge expansion of socialist government control recently, but the problem is not confined to just the Socialist party currently in power; there were many issues with the previous Republican party as well, and with the government in general. It would certainly behoove the American people to address the recent egregious government abuses (and throw out as many of the responsible Congress-scum as possible), but it's also worthwhile to look at the bigger picture, and see what can be done to address the more systemic problems. For example, one of the challenges in a representative democracy is that the leadership, and by extension the actions of the leadership, are limited by how intelligent and informed the voting populace is. In an ideal world, you get direct representation, and a government which works f...

A random thought I had recently: The liberal media has been relentless in their portrayal of anyone opposed to the massive influx of socialist agenda propagated by the Obamanation and the rest of the Socialist party (regardless of affiliation, but predominantly Republicans) as members of the Party of No. Their thinking, if I can speculate, is that the American people want change and reform, and by labeling the opposition as standing in the way of that change, ie: the people saying 'no', they can galvanize opposition to their overhaul of the concept of the US into their socialist ideal. I think the Republicans, and their "enemy of our enemy" friends, should turn the tables a bit, so to speak, and adopt the Party of No as the unofficial moniker for the Tea Party movement. After all, what is the Tea Party if not the Party of No to socialist takeovers? ... of No to putting up with backroom deals, corruption, and Washington politics as usual? ... of No to out-of-control go...

Sen Jim Bunning (Kentucky) deserves some thanks today; he's temporarily stalling the Obamanation from wasting more of our money ($10,000,000,000 this time) on extending various government support programs, which, although popular, are the continuing bane of America's long-term well-being (being as the largest long-term problem America has is the culture of entitlement, and nothing feeds the culture of entitlement as much as more government spending on entitlement programs). Granted, it's only a temporary setback; the money will be printed/spent soon anyway; and the objection is not to spending the money, but rather a statement about the blatant hypocrisy of Congress proposing the unfunded waste just days after approving "pay as you go" rules for new spending (which this clearly violates in concept, although not in letter). Still, I have to approve of someone in the cesspool of Congress doing the right thing for the country, since it's such a rarity these days....