On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue.



Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh
is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this
and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's
tax returns from 60 years ago.

Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know?



Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender
Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will
have to pay the piper.


Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes
last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture
on the structure of our government with particular attention to the
Senate.Â* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers
as being "wrong" in the structure of government.Â* Much
like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general
population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there
fore created the representative form of government with the chosen
few ruling.



Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport
yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of
North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and
ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of
population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states
each to have two U.S. Senators.

So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one
man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but
not the Senate.

North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a
million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is
represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000
persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont,
Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a
population of 40 million.

Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness
matters, states with less than a million people should only have one
U.S. Senator.

It all had to do with the idea that the rural population should not be
serfs to the people in the castle (cities). Since that was really
still a thing in Europe in recent memory to the framers of the
constitution it was important to them.
We still have the same divide. The people in the cities still want to
impose their will and their cultural standards on people out in the
countryside. Thank god we still have the senate and the electoral
college or the whole country would be like our fetid cities. It is bad
enough that "citiots" move out into the country and bring their big
city ideas with them.
They move out of the city to "get away from it all", then they want to
bring "it all" with them.

My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South
Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more
than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who
lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to
differentiate them.

You could say the same thing about West Virginia, the Carolinas or the
whole Acela corridor.
Is there really any difference between New Jersey, New York, Rhode
Island. Connecticut or Massachusetts?
It sure looks the same to me.

She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids.
Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere.

A worthy pursuit but the medical community really need to look within.
Virtually all of these opioid addictions started on a prescription pad
in Dr Feelgood's office.
The next addiction they need to look at is benzodiazepines and that is
a doctor inflicted disease too.