<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Comments for entry "Modernizing the Constitution" at Dilbert.com Blog]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/844]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Regular thoughts and updates from Dilbert.com]]></description>
<language><![CDATA[en-us]]></language>
<generator><![CDATA[VPI.Net MyBlogAbout]]></generator>
<managingEditor><![CDATA[]]></managingEditor>
<webMaster><![CDATA[]]></webMaster>
<ttl><![CDATA[5]]></ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from KoutyTory]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1862676]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I find the best blog in here...keep up and Support you all the time!Hope you can also come with me to http://www.mmohome.com/.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCDTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1862676]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from DougOrleans]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1843949]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[You know the current Constitution says nothing about having two parties, right?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SunAMCDTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1843949]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from zhanbao28]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1841757]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[2012 comes, in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone  Welcome to ====  http://www.luckygrip.com ==
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
Jordan (1-22)&amp;2009 shoes $45
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&amp;G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18  
FREE SHIPPING
 http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com 

  http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com 
 http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com 

  http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1841757]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from zhanbao28]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1841752]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[2012 comes, in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone  Welcome to ====  http://www.luckygrip.com ==
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
Jordan (1-22)&amp;2009 shoes $45
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&amp;G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18  
FREE SHIPPING
 http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com 

  http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com 
 http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com 

  http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1841752]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from dsgweg]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1839214]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Hi buddy : 

in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone


 ===== http://www.netetrader.com   =====


 ===== http://www.netetrader.com   =====


$33 True Religion jeans, Ed Hardy jeans,LV,Coogi jeans,Affliction jeans 

$30 Air Jordan shoes,Shox shoes,Gucci,LV shoes

50%Discount winter fashion :Sandle,t-shirt,caps,jerseys,handbag and brand watches!!!

$15 Ed Hardy ,LV ,Gucci Bikini

$15 Polo, Ed Hardy, Gucci, LV, Lacoste T-shirts

$25 Coach,Gucci,LV,Prada,Juicy,Chanel handbag,

$10 Gucci,Ed Hardy sunglasses

$9 New Era caps.

give you the unexpected harvest


===== http://www.netetrader.com   =====


===== http://www.netetrader.com   =====


===== http://www.netetrader.com   =====


 ===== http://www.netetrader.com   =====


==== ( http://www.scnshop.com ) =====
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1839214]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from lyooser]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1839176]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[i've been to a &quot;Science Party,&quot; it's not as fun as it sounds.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1839176]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from dontagree]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1835100]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[So Scott based on your footnote you are in favor of more government and regulations ... you must be a liberal ... then again you also state to do this pruning thing by your self, which makes you a dictator ... I am not sure if these are good qualities for an EBL :-)
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1835100]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Mark Naught]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834531]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[So...  Explain again how the Science party does not end up being the ruling party?

Or...  How the Science party remains in power after the Liberals and Conservatives agree to write them out of the constitution because they have too much power?

Perhaps the founders knew that there are no easy answers for overcoming political gridlock, that debate and negotiation between opposing views is a good thing, and that time and general elections will eventually overcome political gridlock.

Oh, and good luck convincing the population at large that this is a good idea anyway.  Can you image the debate?  &quot;The Science Party doesn't care about you!  They care about atoms and electrons!  They think God is a particle and built the universe with Strange Quarks!  I don't know about you, but I'm in this for the people, not for spending millions and millions on Silly String Theories!&quot;

Liberal and conservative politicians may not be great at understanding science, but you've got to give them credit on the whole influencing people thing.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834531]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from lesaneace]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834482]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[How can safeguards be put in place to avoid &quot;moles&quot; in the science party?  What about the Paul Broun sitting on House Science, Space and Technology Committee mess.  He is a medical doctor, but holds opinions that do not agree with known science. How can something like that fiasco be avoided?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834482]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Drowlord]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834441]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I'd take most of what we have now, but...

Insist that all voting contests be ranked (a.k.a instant runoff voting, alternate voting), as our understanding of game theory unequivocably shows that First-past-the-post voting is detrimental.

I'd return senators to assignees from state legislators (instead of popular-vote positions -- the original intend was to protect individual state interests, and the senate has abysmally and utterly failed at this).

I'd also make our federal position on tax more practical and clear, specifically regards income, VAT, property, and estate taxes.  I think taxes were a colossal weakness on the part of the original constitution.  Particularly in light of taxation being their main issue at the time.  Their &quot;no federal taxes&quot; plan as codified in the original constitution was impractical enough as to guarantee that someone would eventually reverse that and then have free reign to pervert it into today's tax chaos.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834441]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from language]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834363]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@lanterio:

You totally had me up until you said better food on airplanes. You must be really good at telling ppl what they want to hear cuz I did not see that coming.

I dont &quot;get&quot; the impulse some ppl have to induce arbitrary pet peeves or favorite creature comforts into the power of govt. And its not just enshrining its value into the state. What this causes is the state to micromanage the bargains of private citizens. Now i cant buy a plane ticket without a 7 course meal, even if there is a market for low cost tickets, since govt prevents the commerce from occurring. All the cheapskates lose out. Im forced from changing the purpose of my ticket transaction. No longer is my purpose to get from point A to point B. Now im buying an experience (enjoyment/entertainment), that incidentally transports me as well.

I totally understand what its like to have a desire that is so underrepresented in society that there is no market created. It means my want wont get filled. Try living in another country, you will have the same effect when you go to the supermarket and look for your favorite brand of cereal.

This way of thinking (solve annoyance issues by power of govt) honestly feels like alien technology to me. its foreign and makes no sense to me. Enough ppl think that way that i must ask myself what am i missing? Are ppl with reasonable worldviews of govts role suggesting this?

I saw a movie trailer last night for the new Tom Hanks movie. The narrative started with something like &quot;We dont belong to ourselves, we belong to society&quot;, immediately Im replaying &quot;you didnt build that&quot; in my mind. Seems fitting that the movie is named so closely to Atlas Shrugged. maybe tom hanks is secretly obama's speech coach...

To me the airplane food and the collectivism are 1 and the same argument. I thought we already worked that out centuries ago with separation of church and state. govt provides for fair treatment via force, religion motivates ppl to do good voluntarily. they are 2 social institutions that have separate purposes and means to an end. combining moral worldview with (institution of) force is just bad policy. imo leftwing social agenda qualifies as a moral worldview such as religion. we are mismatching purposes and forms of coercion.

can we plz stop trying to sneak &quot;brands of morality&quot; into law? if you think a carbon tax is a science measure ive got a bridge to sell you. listen to the justification narrative. it has villains and victims, its a story of hubris and &quot;right and wrong&quot;. If you want to take my money by force, dont sell it to me on moral grounds. i dont share your morals, and i dont want them forced upon me. Use all the morality arguments you want for voluntary telethon fundraising, maybe ill voluntarily adopt those values.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834363]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from WATYF1]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834351]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[As usual, a technocrat's idea of &quot;progress&quot; is to limit freedom to assume that &quot;science&quot; is somehow inherently incorruptible.

Two fixed parties (which many people don't even identify with) isn't the solution.

A &quot;science&quot; party (that can just as easily be corrupted or biased as any other party) isn't the solution.

The Constitution doesn't need to be &quot;modernized&quot;. It need to be followed according to its original intent.

WATYF

[Is slavery in or out? I just want to understand your argument. -- Scott]]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834351]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from tinyhands]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834315]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I actually liked Bill O'Reilly's comment from the Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium, that Americans should only be allowed to vote if they were eligible and voted in the last election.

And naturally (by my previous discussion, for which I apologize if that's responsible for your note) I'm in favor of a 3rd party as deadlock-breakers, but I'd be fine with more than 3 and I definitely don't like the 'collective vote' idea. I think it entirely eliminates representative democracy.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834315]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Kingdinosaur]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834313]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Here's a moist robot tangent: what would the women (and men) of the science party look like?  UCLA released an interesting study about 6 weeks ago that showed a minor correlation between facial features and political party.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/the-gop-has-a-feminine-face-finds-238867.aspx


I suspect many will be wearing glasses and have an Einstein haircut.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834313]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from RavenBlack]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834288]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[&quot;One bill, one issue&quot; should already be the case, the question is really how do you *enforce* that? Just saying &quot;it must be so&quot; isn't enough to make it happen, you need punishments or restrictions that make it so. Also sometimes a single issue may have more than one part.

I would suggest instead that the purpose[s] of a bill must be clearly enumerated in its first page, which page cannot be amended once proposed except by introduction of a new bill, and anything beyond that first page may only clarify or make more specific things from that first page. Anything on subsequent pages that does not qualify as a clarification of the first page is not only not legally binding, but is permanently removed from the document (even after it's been ratified) upon being ruled &quot;not a clarification&quot;.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834288]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from whtllnew]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834238]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@language

If you didn't think Merlisk was really advocating killing the elderly why were you going on about the benefits having elderly in your society in a post directed at him?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834238]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from jgold57]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1833350]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Another change I would love to see is an automatic expiration date on all new laws. That probably sounds pretty radical but I think it would fix a big problem.  We've got this group of lobbyists and legislators constantly passing new laws.  Over time the federal register has gotten so big that I bet almost everything a human being can do is now illegal.

A new law should go through an experimental stage that last for, lets say, five years.  At that time it expires.  If it's working, it would have to go through the political process again and be re-passed and re-signed.  That would give it another five years.  Only if it gets passed a third time does it become permanent.

Think of how great this would be!  The politicians could keep passing their big piles of crap every year based on whatever the current political hot button is.  In five years it all goes away unless it's important enough to still get enough political support to pass. If it can do it again, it's probably important enough to qualify as a good law.

Of course this would also require the single bill, single subject change.  It would make the passing of laws less efficient but it would also make learning and obeying the laws much simpler and that would benefit everyone.

]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1833350]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from jgold57]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1833349]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[One flaw in the constitution is that it only means whatever the 9 justices of the Supreme Court say it means.  This has led to some pretty twisted rulings and a concentration of power at the federal level.

I'd allow Supreme Court decisions to be overturned by the state Supreme Courts. It would work like this. If a controversial decision was made by the Supreme Court, each state's Supreme Court could decide to hear the case and vote to uphold or overturn it.  The Supreme Court decision would be overturned if 2/3's of the states overrule it.  I'm not sure what ratio would be best.  Maybe a simple majority would work.  Whatever the ratio, the ability of the states to overrule the federal court would tend to keep them honest.

]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1833349]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from daducuo]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1833245]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the helpful stuffs, it was really helpful to me too.

http://e07.net]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1833245]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from RSaunders]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1833176]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I'm going to second the suggestion that the ballot should have about 20 &quot;control&quot; questions before the candidates and other measures.  Everybody has to vote, and if you miss 3 of the control questions, your vote just doesn't count. The control questions must be fact based, and designed by the Science party to select against voters that think that religious leader opinions on global climate change are roughly equivalent to analytic results.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1833176]]></guid>
</item>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></lastBuildDate></channel></rss>
