Mmm... did you read the article? I agree, the sensationalist title is, well, sensational and overdramatic, but the reporting itself seems pretty much spot on. What portions did you have exception with?
I know this was intended as a humorous comment (and I gave you a "funny" vote), but still I had a moment of cognitive dissonance as I realized that is exactly the feeling I get from almost all of our legislators lately.
"Most of all I feel enormously privileged to have been born in 1943 and not 1983, to have been around when there was a music business and the takeover of Silicon Valley hadn't happened and, in consequence, you could still make a living writing and recording songs and playing them to people,” the bass guitarist and singer said.
Too bad he wasn't born back in the good old days, when he would have been a wandering minstrel and would get paid every time he played... and only when he played... by people tossing coins at him *while* he played.
It amazes me how entitled "artists" are now. I wish they would take a couple of history classes so they would know how incredibly lucky they are to be living and working in this day and age.
Was going to say the same: internet services will need to block all access to/from France. Microsoft, Google, Twitter, etc. should put out an immediate press-release to that effect, and let the backlash do its work.
"It would increase the amount of power in the hands of the unelected bureaucrats that don't have terms at all."
I don't see how that follows. There would be no overall reduction in the amount of power that Congress wields, just a shorter duration for any particular person to wield it. Less time worrying about re-election campaigns. Less time redrawing district maps. In general, less time to get up to the shenanigans that has essentially broken our method of government.
I have to disagree: first, there wouldn't be any more congress critters, the way you and I mean it. No more professional politicians. Just people that come in, do a job for a short while, and then go back to their own job. I also think it would reduce the effect of lobbying, in that the good ol' boys network would not have enough time to grow strong.
I have a simpler idea: congressional term limits. Three terms, lifetime total, per person. That is, John Doe can only ever have up to three combined (not necessarily back to back) terms in the Senate and House of Representatives. This one simple change would eliminate vast swaths of corruption and hypocrisy. And please, no one spout that crap about not having enough time to "learn the job", you see what happens when they have enough time to learn the job... they never leave! This is not what our founding fathers intended. In fact, serving in Congress was supposed to be an obligation similar to jury duty, not seen as a benefit or plus in any way.
I'm going to join your partial derailment here. I too support jury nullification. However, there are a couple of major problems with the concept.
First, judges hate it. They won't discuss it, they won't allow it to be discussed, and in fact most judges' instructions could be read to deny the very existence of jury nullification.
Second, it takes a pattern of nullification for a particular law to be seen as needing change. How many cases have you heard of lately that were resolved on the basis of jury nullification? None? Yeah, me too.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that jury nullification is one of the best kept secrets of judiciary, and is likely to remain that way.