%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
Can you believe it? A 160‑word micro story needed 10 more words. Apparently even confabulation needs a little elbow room.
|
| Response to remainder of Reclaim the American Dream Agenda review IIE. The 25 smallest states do not have the same power as the other 25. Yes, each state has two Senators, but Congress has 535 members, not 100. The other 435 members are elected proportionally by population. And in the Electoral College, they get votes equal to 535, not 100. So, no. They don't have the same power. But this does protect, to a degree, the 17% minority from a supermajority of 83% — that embodies the essence of the rights off the individual. This is clearly explained in every middle school history book. Well. It used to be. The House is apportioned by population, but the Senate’s equal representation gives 17% of Americans the same blocking power as the other 83%. That imbalance becomes decisive because the Senate controls confirmations, treaties, judicial appointments, and filibuster thresholds—functions that shape national outcomes far beyond its proportional legitimacy. The agenda does not dispute the framers’ design; it highlights how modern population distribution has magnified an imbalance they could not foresee. Gerrymandering in the House compounds this distortion. When statewide vote totals diverge sharply from seat allocation—as in North Carolina and New York—the principle of representative government is weakened. The agenda argues for representation that tracks voter preference more closely, not for erasing minority protections. I tried my best to ignore the accompanying moral chest thumping to rationalize this, but most of the rest is a good idea. The agenda is grounded in structural analysis, not personal ideology. Where examples are cited, they illustrate measurable distortions in representation, not partisan preference. The goal is a system where outcomes reflect voter intent more faithfully, regardless of which party benefits. |
| I'm still haven't learned the ins-and-outs of the reviewing system. Here's a review of Reclaim the American Dream that seems to have disappeared. Reviewer remark is in regular font. My response is in italics Response to beginning comments. IIA. Who decides? We already have that. The States decide, through constitutional amendments. The 9th and 10th Amendments reserve unenumerated powers to the states and the people, but they do not authorize states to redefine fundamental rights. When a right is intrinsic to personhood—bodily autonomy, access to medicine, freedom of movement—its protection must be uniform across the nation. Otherwise, citizenship becomes geographically contingent. The agenda does not diminish state authority; it clarifies where federal coherence is required so that Americans do not lose rights by crossing a state line. That is not federal overreach. It is the minimum condition for a functioning federation. IIC. Constitutional ombudsman — the Constitution already provides that. They are called the US Attorney General. The Attorney General is the nation’s chief law‑enforcement officer, not an independent constitutional guardian. The AG reports to the President, represents federal agencies in court, and often defends the very officials accused of constitutional violations. A constitutional ombudsman serves a different function: rapid, independent review of alleged constitutional abridgments, insulated from executive influence and political delay. The AG enforces laws. An ombudsman enforces the Constitution itself. The agenda proposes a structural separation of these roles to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure timely constitutional review. |
| Whether you watched the State of the Union or skipped it entirely, I’ve posted something new in my portfolio that digs into the themes behind it. It might spark your interest — or your irritation — but hopefully your curiosity either way. A Civic Agenda for Renewal |
| I am not sure if you are interested, but have you looked at other democracies and how they cope with or have avoided some of the things you have mentioned in this? There are three things in your rather decent series of proposals that I feel are going to be an issue: 1) taxing religion is a huge issue (separation of Church & State, though the USA is one of the few democracies that eschews this in practice); 2) going to a 2-party system; even in countries with multiple parties (UK, Australia, NZ) there are two dominant ones; & 3) corporations are supposed to be independent in a democracy; forcing them to do what you propose is verging on pure socialism (in the real sense, not the corrupted modern sense). Still, this is well thought-out, as far as I can see, with limited knowledge (I live in another country), certainly worth thinking about. |
Kåre เลียม Enga  - Than k you for your note, I surely agree with the glum prognosis that if the people don't want a democratic republic it will cease. IMO the majority want the democratic republic, but the minority has the power and is using overt and covert force to retain their rule on minority principles. Numerous countries, unfortunately, have minority governments with suffering majorities. |
S🤦♂️  - Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I have looked at other countries, but my focus is US-centric, so I don't claim to know the nuances of multiparty governments. To your three main points: 1. Taxing religion organizations. They use the public facilities and infrastructure. It does not infringe on their religious beliefs to pay for what they use. BTW The separation of church and state amendment is violated routinely with legislative carve-outs promoting religious beliefs over the civil rights of their workers, e.g. Hobby Lobby. In addition, religious leaders exhort their congregations on who to vote for. 2. I don't believe multiparty governments are a panacea for all disputes, but having more than two options would be welcome. For instance, right now the slim majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives are doing nothing to stop the abrogations of the Constitution by executive orders. The heads of committees and progress of legislation is controlled by one of two parties. There is no administrative avenue for 3rd parties to be assigned to working groups, except if they align with either of the two major party. If there were five green party members or a handful of deficit hawks that could swing their allegiance, the US might not have such extreme changes of direction when an election shuffles the two-card deck. 3. Corporations are not discussed in the Constitution. Corporations use the infrastructure taxpayer's funded and also benefit from a personal liability shield upon incorporation. You think having a societal representation, one of four stakeholders, in the boardroom is socialism. That's a voice in the room. Not a majority mandating socialism. It's good to hear a once-removed perspective. |
| Whether you watched the State of the Union or skipped it entirely, I’ve posted something new in my portfolio that digs into the themes behind it. It might spark your interest — or your irritation — but hopefully your curiosity either way.
|
I failed twice to buy the laptop. So I wrote instead.
|
| Sometimes when I've bought something big online (funnily enough, it was once for a laptop), the bank's put a temporary block on the payment in order to contact me by phone or text and ensure that it was legit and not fraud. It's also happened on the rare occasions I've moved large amounts of my savings between accounts. |
Ðåvê R¥åñ  - did you have a theory of what was going on before the bank contacted you? That's a lot of diacritical marks in your pen name. |
A family myth in 200 words,
What family myths get told around your kitchen table? |
Have you ever wondered? Say so in a comment.
|
It took me awhile, but I learned enough ML that
|
I've revised
  constructive review. Also posted Scene 2 "Papi Insisted" for fans who enjoy strong personal interactions 200 years into the future. |
I've been floundering on Bayes' Theorem to increase my knowledge of how theories are made more certain. To break out of my doldrums, I wrote this flash story.
If it grabs you, let me know what you think. Thanks |
I've just edited an item in my portfolio:
If you're interested in chatbots, AI, or their impact on the workplace, pop over and give my essay a look. |
I've just added an item in my portfolio:
Give it a look. |
Thanks to The StoryMaster  for getting my refreshed story over a difficult step.
|
 What's a broadsheet? Otherwise, nice work. I'm glad he made some connections in the end. I especially like the connection to driving.  |
| Broadsheet, a bit slangy use, from broadsheet newspaper. A large print handout given to visitors at the mural exhibition. |
un: 
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Community Feed
Puzzle Hub
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
A. Wrong. Article 5 gives the States to collectively change the Constitution. There is no appeal to that, other than to repeal said changes. Changing the Constitution changes the calculus, which is actually what you are proposing, so ... you are contradicting yourself.
C. Wrong. Constitutionally, the AG is empowered to bring exactly the same actions to the Judiciary as you would have this extralegal ombudsman. Orwellian Doublespeak.
E. Wrong. You asserted that the 25 smallest states have the same power as the 25 largest states. They do not