Video: Paul McCartney Sings Yesterday with Original Scrambled Eggs Lyrics on Jimmy Fallon
Beatles fans know John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote placeholder lyrics for many of their songs. Yesterday was once Scrambled Eggs. Late night talk show host Jimmy Fallon got Macca to sing Yesterday with the original placeholder lyrics.
The second verse turned to waffle fries and then tofu wings in the third. Fallon tried to sing chicken wings, but Paul reminded him he was a vegetarian.
"Scrambled Eggs/Oh, my baby how I love your legs."
Video of Prince Charles Rolls Royce Attacked with Paint Bomb
I am not a fan of the royal family, but there is no need for this. Students angry over the government's decision to raise tuition led to students attacking Prince Charles Rolls Royce with paint. The students yell "off with their heads."
And they think Tea Bags are radical and dangerous?
Top Ten Lies Congress is Using to Push the Food Safety Act SB510 and HR875
Natural News exposes the top ten lies Congress is using to push the Food Safety Act through Congress. While the bill has passed both Houses of Congress, it appears there may be some rocky roads for the bill in reconciliation between the two houses. We have heard this before with Obamcare, and we know how they will wheel and deal to turn votes, and trust me, with names like Monsanto backing this bill, there will be plenty of money to turn votes and kill more freedom.
Here are the ten lies Natural News exposed:
Here are the ten biggest lies that have been promoted about S.510 by the U.S. Congress, the food industry giants and the mainstream media:
Here are the ten biggest lies that have been promoted about S.510 by the U.S. Congress, the food industry giants and the mainstream media:
Lie #1 - Most deaths from food poisoning are caused by fresh produce
Here's a whopper the mainstream media won't dare report: Out of the 1,809 people who die in America every year from food-borne pathogens (CDC estimate), only a fraction die from the manufacturer's contamination of fresh produce. By far the majority of food poisoning is caused by the consumption of spoiled processed foods, dead foods and animal-human transmission of pathogens.
For example, one of the largest food-borne killers according to the CDC is Toxoplasma gondii, a disease that people acquire from cat feces coming into contact with their food, which can happen right in their own homes (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/Vol5n...). Salmonella poisoning accounts for 553 deaths a year. As a reference for relative risk, over 42,000 people die each year from road accidents in the USA, meaning driving a car has a roughly 7600% higher chance of killing you than eating fresh produce. (http://www.driveandstayalive.com/in...)
In terms of food-borne illness, many of the deaths come from things like spoiled tomato sauce, spoiled canned foods and spoiled pasteurized milk. S 510, of course, does absolutely nothing to address these food contamination deaths, since those foods are considered "sterilized" at the time of sale.
Lie #2 - Under S.510, the FDA would only recall products it knows to be contaminated
Not true. S.510 merely requires the FDA to have "reason to believe" a food is contaminated. So right there, that means all raw milk will be targeted by the FDA because even without conducting any scientific tests at all, the FDA can say it has "reason to believe" the milk is contaminated merely because it is raw.
In other words, the FDA no longer needs science to outlaw a food product. It merely needs an opinion.
Is this "reason to believe" section really true? Yep, and here's how it was amended:
SEC. 208. ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION OF FOOD.
23 (a) IN GENERAL. - Section 304(h)(1)(A) (21 U.S.C.24 334(h)(1)(A)) is amended by
(1) striking ''credible evidence or information indicating'' and inserting ''reason to believe'';
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...)
In other words, in negotiating this bill, the U.S. Senate removed the requirement that the FDA needed "credible evidence" in order to recall a product and, instead, replaced that with the FDA only needing "reason to believe."
It is utterly amazing that the U.S. Congress would give the FDA to conduct large-scale product recalls and even imprison people based entirely on what the agency "has reason to believe."
Last time I checked, the FDA held some pretty bizarre (if not downright moronic) beliefs, including this jaw-dropping whopper: The FDA literally believes that there is no food, no herb, no vitamin or supplement that has any ability to prevent disease of any kind. They don't even believe limes can prevent scurvy, and you'd have to nutritionally illiterate to believe that.
The FDA believes foods are inert and that all the amazing phytonutrients in those foods (carotenoids, antioxidants, therapeutic fats like omega-3 and so on) are utterly useless for human biology.
This belief, held by the FDA that has now been put in charge of the food supply, is the belief system of an insane government agency that has completely lost touch with reality while abandoning nutritional science.
Lie #3 - They didn't tell you that nearly 70% of grocery store chickens are contaminated with salmonella every day
Yep, it's true: Amid all the fear-mongering over salmonella, everybody forgot to notice that the vast majority of fresh chickens sold at grocery stores every single day are widely contaminated with salmonella (http://www.naturalnews.com/028661_c...). Yet S 510 does absolutely nothing to address this. It's not even mentioned in the bill.
In fact, it is these contaminated chickens that end up cross-contaminating the fresh produce in many kitchens across America. So the so-called "food poisoning" that's often blamed on spinach or onions often originates with the contaminated chicken meat people bring home and slice on their kitchen cutting boards.
Lie #4 - S.510 will exclude and protect small farmers
The Tester Amendment, which was finally included in S.510, excludes farmers who sell less than $500,000 worth of food each year from the more onerous paperwork and compliance burdens described in the bill. But this dollar amount is not indexed to inflation, meaning that as the U.S. dollar continues to lose value due to the Federal Reserve counterfeiting machine running at full speed (more "quantitative easing," anyone?), food prices will continue to skyrocket -- and this will shift even small family farms into the $500,000 sales range within just a few years.
In fact, a single-family farm with just four people could easily sell $500,000 worth of fresh produce a year right now, even before inflation. Remember, $500,000 is not their profit, but rather the gross sales amount. The profits on that might be only $50,000 or even less.
Furthermore, this $500,000 threshold means that small, successful farms that are doing well and would like to expand will refuse to hire more people or expand their operations. To avoid the tyranny of S 510, small farms will try to stay small, and that means avoiding the kind of business expansion that would create new jobs.
Lie #5 - The FDA needs more power to enforce food safety
The FDA already has the power to effectively recall foods by publicly announcing a product has been found to be contaminated. The FDA already has the power to confiscate "misbranded" products, too, and it could easily use this power to halt the sale of contaminated food items.
But the FDA simply refuses to enforce the laws already on the books and, instead, has sought to expand its power by hyping up the e.coli food scares. The ploy apparently worked: Now in a reaction to the food scare-mongering, the FDA is being handed not just new powers, but more funding, too! And you can bet it will find creative new ways to put this power to work suppressing the health freedoms and food freedoms of the American people.
Lie #6 - Fresh produce is contaminated because of a lack of paperwork
There is no evidence that requiring farms to fill out more paperwork will make their food safer. The real cause of produce contamination is the existence of factory animal farms whose effluent output (huge rivers of cow feces, basically), end up in the water supply, soils and equipment that comes into contact with fresh produce.
The food contamination problem is an UPSTREAM problem where you've got to reform the factory animal operations that now dominate the American meat industry. S.510, however, does absolutely nothing to address this. Factory animal farms aren't even addressed in the bill!
Lie #7 - The American people are dying in droves from unsafe fresh food
The truth is that Americans are dying from processed food laced with toxic chemical additives, not from fresh, raw produce. Partially-hydrogenated oils, white sugar, aspartame, MSG and artificial food colors almost certainly kill far more people than bacterial contaminations.
The American public is also dying from pharmaceuticals -- anywhere from 100,000 to 240,000 people a year are killed by FDA-approved drugs (http://www.naturalnews.com/001894.html), most of which have been approved under the guise of blatantly fraudulent science and drug company trickery. The FDA doesn't seem to mind. In fact, it has been a willful co-conspirator in the scientific fraud carried out by Big Pharma in the name of "medicine." (http://www.naturalnews.com/027851_h...)
To think that the FDA -- the very same agency responsible for the Big Pharma death machine -- is now going to "save us" by controlling food safety is highly irrational.
Lie #8 - The FDA just wants to make food "safer"
Actually, the FDA wants to make the food more DEAD. Both the FDA and the USDA are vocal opponents of live food. They think that the only safe food is sterilized food, which is why they've supported the fumigation, pasteurization and irradiation efforts that have been pushed over the last few years.
California almond growers, for example, must now either chemically fumigate or pasteurize their almonds before selling them (http://www.naturalnews.com/021776.html). This has destroyed the incomes of U.S. almond farmers and forced U.S. food companies to buy raw almonds from Spain and other countries.
Lie #9 - Food smuggling is a huge problem in America
One of the main sections of S.510 addresses "food smuggling." Yep -- people smuggling food across the country. If you've never heard of this problem that's because it's not actually a problem.
Not yet anyway.
But there's a reason why they put this into the bill: Because they're probably planning on criminalizing fresh produce and then arresting people for transporting broccoli with the "intent to distribute."
Yep, farmers bringing fresh produce to sell at the weekend farmer's market could soon be arrested and imprisoned as if they were drug smugglers. Hence the need for the "food smuggling" provisions of S.510.
Soon, we will all have to meet in secret locations just to trade carrots for cash.
Lie #10 - S.510 will make America's food supply the safest in the world
Actually, even with S.510 in place, America's food supply is among the most chemically contaminated in the world, second only to China. You can find mercury in the seafood, BPA in the canned soup, yeast extract (MSG) in the "natural" potato chips, and artificial petrochemical coloring agents in children's foods.
Eating the "Standard American Diet" is probably the single most harmful thing a person can do for their health. It's the fastest way to get cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Every nation in the world that begins to consume the American diet starts to show record rates of degenerative disease within one generation. This is the "safe food" that the U.S. Senate is now pushing on everyone.
Remember, with S.510, SAFE = DEAD. And the FDA says it wants to keep everybody safe.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030587_Senate_Bill_510_Food_Safety.html#ixzz17iUhlkjI
Here are the ten lies Natural News exposed:
Here are the ten biggest lies that have been promoted about S.510 by the U.S. Congress, the food industry giants and the mainstream media:
Here are the ten biggest lies that have been promoted about S.510 by the U.S. Congress, the food industry giants and the mainstream media:
Lie #1 - Most deaths from food poisoning are caused by fresh produce
Here's a whopper the mainstream media won't dare report: Out of the 1,809 people who die in America every year from food-borne pathogens (CDC estimate), only a fraction die from the manufacturer's contamination of fresh produce. By far the majority of food poisoning is caused by the consumption of spoiled processed foods, dead foods and animal-human transmission of pathogens.
For example, one of the largest food-borne killers according to the CDC is Toxoplasma gondii, a disease that people acquire from cat feces coming into contact with their food, which can happen right in their own homes (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/Vol5n...). Salmonella poisoning accounts for 553 deaths a year. As a reference for relative risk, over 42,000 people die each year from road accidents in the USA, meaning driving a car has a roughly 7600% higher chance of killing you than eating fresh produce. (http://www.driveandstayalive.com/in...)
In terms of food-borne illness, many of the deaths come from things like spoiled tomato sauce, spoiled canned foods and spoiled pasteurized milk. S 510, of course, does absolutely nothing to address these food contamination deaths, since those foods are considered "sterilized" at the time of sale.
Lie #2 - Under S.510, the FDA would only recall products it knows to be contaminated
Not true. S.510 merely requires the FDA to have "reason to believe" a food is contaminated. So right there, that means all raw milk will be targeted by the FDA because even without conducting any scientific tests at all, the FDA can say it has "reason to believe" the milk is contaminated merely because it is raw.
In other words, the FDA no longer needs science to outlaw a food product. It merely needs an opinion.
Is this "reason to believe" section really true? Yep, and here's how it was amended:
SEC. 208. ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION OF FOOD.
23 (a) IN GENERAL. - Section 304(h)(1)(A) (21 U.S.C.24 334(h)(1)(A)) is amended by
(1) striking ''credible evidence or information indicating'' and inserting ''reason to believe'';
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...)
In other words, in negotiating this bill, the U.S. Senate removed the requirement that the FDA needed "credible evidence" in order to recall a product and, instead, replaced that with the FDA only needing "reason to believe."
It is utterly amazing that the U.S. Congress would give the FDA to conduct large-scale product recalls and even imprison people based entirely on what the agency "has reason to believe."
Last time I checked, the FDA held some pretty bizarre (if not downright moronic) beliefs, including this jaw-dropping whopper: The FDA literally believes that there is no food, no herb, no vitamin or supplement that has any ability to prevent disease of any kind. They don't even believe limes can prevent scurvy, and you'd have to nutritionally illiterate to believe that.
The FDA believes foods are inert and that all the amazing phytonutrients in those foods (carotenoids, antioxidants, therapeutic fats like omega-3 and so on) are utterly useless for human biology.
This belief, held by the FDA that has now been put in charge of the food supply, is the belief system of an insane government agency that has completely lost touch with reality while abandoning nutritional science.
Lie #3 - They didn't tell you that nearly 70% of grocery store chickens are contaminated with salmonella every day
Yep, it's true: Amid all the fear-mongering over salmonella, everybody forgot to notice that the vast majority of fresh chickens sold at grocery stores every single day are widely contaminated with salmonella (http://www.naturalnews.com/028661_c...). Yet S 510 does absolutely nothing to address this. It's not even mentioned in the bill.
In fact, it is these contaminated chickens that end up cross-contaminating the fresh produce in many kitchens across America. So the so-called "food poisoning" that's often blamed on spinach or onions often originates with the contaminated chicken meat people bring home and slice on their kitchen cutting boards.
Lie #4 - S.510 will exclude and protect small farmers
The Tester Amendment, which was finally included in S.510, excludes farmers who sell less than $500,000 worth of food each year from the more onerous paperwork and compliance burdens described in the bill. But this dollar amount is not indexed to inflation, meaning that as the U.S. dollar continues to lose value due to the Federal Reserve counterfeiting machine running at full speed (more "quantitative easing," anyone?), food prices will continue to skyrocket -- and this will shift even small family farms into the $500,000 sales range within just a few years.
In fact, a single-family farm with just four people could easily sell $500,000 worth of fresh produce a year right now, even before inflation. Remember, $500,000 is not their profit, but rather the gross sales amount. The profits on that might be only $50,000 or even less.
Furthermore, this $500,000 threshold means that small, successful farms that are doing well and would like to expand will refuse to hire more people or expand their operations. To avoid the tyranny of S 510, small farms will try to stay small, and that means avoiding the kind of business expansion that would create new jobs.
Lie #5 - The FDA needs more power to enforce food safety
The FDA already has the power to effectively recall foods by publicly announcing a product has been found to be contaminated. The FDA already has the power to confiscate "misbranded" products, too, and it could easily use this power to halt the sale of contaminated food items.
But the FDA simply refuses to enforce the laws already on the books and, instead, has sought to expand its power by hyping up the e.coli food scares. The ploy apparently worked: Now in a reaction to the food scare-mongering, the FDA is being handed not just new powers, but more funding, too! And you can bet it will find creative new ways to put this power to work suppressing the health freedoms and food freedoms of the American people.
Lie #6 - Fresh produce is contaminated because of a lack of paperwork
There is no evidence that requiring farms to fill out more paperwork will make their food safer. The real cause of produce contamination is the existence of factory animal farms whose effluent output (huge rivers of cow feces, basically), end up in the water supply, soils and equipment that comes into contact with fresh produce.
The food contamination problem is an UPSTREAM problem where you've got to reform the factory animal operations that now dominate the American meat industry. S.510, however, does absolutely nothing to address this. Factory animal farms aren't even addressed in the bill!
Lie #7 - The American people are dying in droves from unsafe fresh food
The truth is that Americans are dying from processed food laced with toxic chemical additives, not from fresh, raw produce. Partially-hydrogenated oils, white sugar, aspartame, MSG and artificial food colors almost certainly kill far more people than bacterial contaminations.
The American public is also dying from pharmaceuticals -- anywhere from 100,000 to 240,000 people a year are killed by FDA-approved drugs (http://www.naturalnews.com/001894.html), most of which have been approved under the guise of blatantly fraudulent science and drug company trickery. The FDA doesn't seem to mind. In fact, it has been a willful co-conspirator in the scientific fraud carried out by Big Pharma in the name of "medicine." (http://www.naturalnews.com/027851_h...)
To think that the FDA -- the very same agency responsible for the Big Pharma death machine -- is now going to "save us" by controlling food safety is highly irrational.
Lie #8 - The FDA just wants to make food "safer"
Actually, the FDA wants to make the food more DEAD. Both the FDA and the USDA are vocal opponents of live food. They think that the only safe food is sterilized food, which is why they've supported the fumigation, pasteurization and irradiation efforts that have been pushed over the last few years.
California almond growers, for example, must now either chemically fumigate or pasteurize their almonds before selling them (http://www.naturalnews.com/021776.html). This has destroyed the incomes of U.S. almond farmers and forced U.S. food companies to buy raw almonds from Spain and other countries.
Lie #9 - Food smuggling is a huge problem in America
One of the main sections of S.510 addresses "food smuggling." Yep -- people smuggling food across the country. If you've never heard of this problem that's because it's not actually a problem.
Not yet anyway.
But there's a reason why they put this into the bill: Because they're probably planning on criminalizing fresh produce and then arresting people for transporting broccoli with the "intent to distribute."
Yep, farmers bringing fresh produce to sell at the weekend farmer's market could soon be arrested and imprisoned as if they were drug smugglers. Hence the need for the "food smuggling" provisions of S.510.
Soon, we will all have to meet in secret locations just to trade carrots for cash.
Lie #10 - S.510 will make America's food supply the safest in the world
Actually, even with S.510 in place, America's food supply is among the most chemically contaminated in the world, second only to China. You can find mercury in the seafood, BPA in the canned soup, yeast extract (MSG) in the "natural" potato chips, and artificial petrochemical coloring agents in children's foods.
Eating the "Standard American Diet" is probably the single most harmful thing a person can do for their health. It's the fastest way to get cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Every nation in the world that begins to consume the American diet starts to show record rates of degenerative disease within one generation. This is the "safe food" that the U.S. Senate is now pushing on everyone.
Remember, with S.510, SAFE = DEAD. And the FDA says it wants to keep everybody safe.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030587_Senate_Bill_510_Food_Safety.html#ixzz17iUhlkjI
More Americans Want the Federal Reserve Abolished
The rEVOLution is growing. According to Bloomberg, the anger at the Federal Reserve is increasing across the United States and more Americans are hoping to see the Fed abolished.
From Bloomberg:
A majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation’s independent central bank, saying the U.S. Federal Reserve should either be brought under tighter political control or abolished outright, a poll shows
The survey, conducted Dec. 4-7, also shows deep skepticism, especially among Republicans, over the Fed’s Nov. 3 announcement that it would buy bonds in an attempt to bring down unemployment and prevent deflation. More than half say the purchases won’t help the economy.
The policy, known as quantitative easing, was the target of criticism in Washington and overseas. That prompted Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke to appear in an interview on CBS television’s “60 Minutes” program on Dec. 5 to defend his actions.
Americans across the political spectrum say the Fed shouldn’t retain its current structure of independence. Asked if the central bank should be more accountable to Congress, left independent or abolished entirely, 39 percent said it should be held more accountable and 16 percent that it should be abolished. Only 37 percent favor the status quo.
Republicans and independents are more likely to support ending the Fed, with 19 percent of independents, 16 percent of Republicans, and 12 percent of Democrats wanting to do away with the central bank. Among those who identify themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement, which wants to rein in government, 21 percent want to abolish the Fed.
From Bloomberg:
A majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation’s independent central bank, saying the U.S. Federal Reserve should either be brought under tighter political control or abolished outright, a poll shows
The survey, conducted Dec. 4-7, also shows deep skepticism, especially among Republicans, over the Fed’s Nov. 3 announcement that it would buy bonds in an attempt to bring down unemployment and prevent deflation. More than half say the purchases won’t help the economy.
The policy, known as quantitative easing, was the target of criticism in Washington and overseas. That prompted Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke to appear in an interview on CBS television’s “60 Minutes” program on Dec. 5 to defend his actions.
Americans across the political spectrum say the Fed shouldn’t retain its current structure of independence. Asked if the central bank should be more accountable to Congress, left independent or abolished entirely, 39 percent said it should be held more accountable and 16 percent that it should be abolished. Only 37 percent favor the status quo.
Republicans and independents are more likely to support ending the Fed, with 19 percent of independents, 16 percent of Republicans, and 12 percent of Democrats wanting to do away with the central bank. Among those who identify themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement, which wants to rein in government, 21 percent want to abolish the Fed.
Transforming into Good Socialists: Young Entrepreneurs Buy Into the Redistribution of Wealth
Some of the richest young people in the United States have bought into the Marxist belief that redistribution of wealth is good. If there is only one good thing about this story, it's the fact the government didn't force them by confiscation, but still...
There are 16 billionaires who have signed the "giving pledge." The pledge requires them to turn a majority of their wealth over. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook signed it. As well Steve Case of AOL has signed it too, so has Star Wars' George Lucas (although he isn't very young anymore).
Look at the liberals who are behind the giving pledge from the Wall Street Journal:
The Giving Pledge is an effort organized by software mogul Bill Gates and investor Warren Buffett to persuade the world's rich to boost their giving.
"I view this as a call to others who might in their thirties or forties use some of their creativity to get involved in philanthropy earlier in life," Mr. Milken, 64, said of the pledge.
Those pledging are part of a broader shift in philanthropy, in which successful business people—often entrepreneurs—are giving more of their money to charity far earlier than their predecessors. It was a trend that was helped along by Mr. Gates, who started his foundation while still leading Microsoft Corp.
Make no dobut about it. Charity is good, but the giving pledge promotes the redistribution of wealth with looney libs smiling as they give away their hard work.
There are 16 billionaires who have signed the "giving pledge." The pledge requires them to turn a majority of their wealth over. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook signed it. As well Steve Case of AOL has signed it too, so has Star Wars' George Lucas (although he isn't very young anymore).
Look at the liberals who are behind the giving pledge from the Wall Street Journal:
The Giving Pledge is an effort organized by software mogul Bill Gates and investor Warren Buffett to persuade the world's rich to boost their giving.
"I view this as a call to others who might in their thirties or forties use some of their creativity to get involved in philanthropy earlier in life," Mr. Milken, 64, said of the pledge.
Those pledging are part of a broader shift in philanthropy, in which successful business people—often entrepreneurs—are giving more of their money to charity far earlier than their predecessors. It was a trend that was helped along by Mr. Gates, who started his foundation while still leading Microsoft Corp.
Make no dobut about it. Charity is good, but the giving pledge promotes the redistribution of wealth with looney libs smiling as they give away their hard work.
Child Porn Barbie: The FBI Issues a Warning for the Toy
I'm not kidding. New video Barbie made the FBI's warning list. The FBI says the small, low quality camera within the Barbie could be used for child pornography.
“The alert’s intent was to ensure law enforcement agencies were aware that the doll, like any other video-capable equipment, could contain evidence and to not disregard such an item during a search,” the FBI explained in a statement.
Like not one terrorist has been found by the TSA groping children, the video Barbie has yet to be connected with one arrested pervert.
Democrat Heard Saying, "F*%k the President": Democrats Angry at Obama
Funny, Democrats are mad at Obama for wanting to extend the tax cuts where as many Republicans (not all) are jumping on board with Obama despite the additional $900 billion in deficit spending that will occur under Obama's compromise. Are you paying attention Tea Parties? In other words, Democrats don't want the tax cuts extended for all Americans, and many Republicans are willing to give Obama stimulus II providing the tax cuts get extended. This is all showing everyone the true colors of both parties. That's not the story here.
The story is one unidentified Democrat was heard saying, "f*%k the President," angry that Obama would compromise with the GOP and give them the tax cuts they want. Representative Shelley Berkley confirmed that it was said.
Breitbart also writes that Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) was heard saying that "we can't trust him [Obama]." As the chant "just say no" was heard throughout the House floor.
An Interesting Note About a Sarah Steelman and Jim Talent Battle for the United States Senate
In early May, former Senator Jim Talent drove down to Rolla to lunch with Sarah Steelman about the 2010 campaign and the future of their party.
Over sushi at Kyoto on Bishop Avenue, Steelman and Talent conversed for a few minutes about how best to rebuild and rebrand the wounded G.O.P before the former state Treasurer made a surprising proposition.
"If you run, I'll support you and step aside," Steelman said to Talent, according to a source who paraphrased the conversation and stressed the move was genuine. "You're the right kind of candidate," Steelman went on.
The right kind of candidate? So will this conversation mean anything in 2011 or 2012? Surely, Talent hasn't done anything to tarnish his image in just over a year has he? He got kudos from me when I heard him speak earlier this year.
Of course, this may be all trivial. I believe Sarah Steelman is the chosen one, which is why she is already being courted by numerous GOP members and conservative organizations. What seemed like a sure thing with Jim Talent has him on the fence like Steelman was in 2009. Missouri Political News reported sources are saying Talent is now 50/50 on whether he will run or not, so bringing this up may be a moot point.
Hiking in Busiek State Park: Day Four The Eastern Yellow Trail
Today's hike meant four river crossings. Luckily the temperatures are still mild and the river water hasn't cooled to unbearable levels. As well, if you look around, it's easy to find shallows where your feet stay most dry, especially with a good pair of Gortex boots. I love mine. However, there is one crossing on the back end of the yellow trail that puts you in deeper water that will submerge your feet, while I won't recommend tresspassing, if you cross the barb wire fence and walk 25 yards are so, there is an easy crossing where you will stay dry. Luckily, today's hike will be the last time I required to cross the river, unless the silver trail has a surprise. Considering the location of the trail, it's possible, but I am not sure yet. I guess I will know later this week providing the weather doesn't turn. You could feel a chill in the air today towards the end, and we have rain, freezing rain, and snow in the forecast for the weekend.
I got 4.7 miles in today. This adds to the seven I did on Monday, the five on Tuesday, and the eight on Wednesday, which means I am just shy of 25 miles this week. I have been using CardioTrainer for Android to mark my trails and progress. I know I don't have to tell you having a GPS in the woods gives you an extra sense of security, and CardioTrainer does a great job of providing details like elevation climbed as well.
Kayleigh went today, and she was a dirty water dog before the day was over. Here are some of the videos I took of her having fun.
Here's my dirty water dog:
 |
| Horse owners aren't held to the same responsibilities as dog owners when it comes to poop on the trails. |
 |
| Looking off a bluff. You can see the trail from many miles ago if you look for that triangular brown patch near the center. |
 |
| Always has her tongue out flapping along. |
Can a Woman be Too Hot to be Elected? Sarah Steelman? Are You Kidding Me?
The Riverfront Times has an article discussing how attractive Sarah Steelman is. They ask the question is Sarah Steelman too hot for politics. Here's a sample:
On Twitter, Reardon called the interview a "disaster." And, as politico.com reports, on air, the host huffed that, although Steelman is hot, she "isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer."
Which got us wondering: Just how hot is Sarah Steelman? Is she Sarah Palin hot? Nikki Haley hot? Or -- be still our hearts! -- Kirsten Gillibrand hot?
For the record, we don't believe women should be judged on the basis of their looks, or lack thereof. Nor do we think that, just because she's hot, she's automatically stupid. Steelman holds a master's degree in economics; she also served as state treasurer, which is way beyond the abilities of this Daily RFT correspondent.
But, based on Reardon's response to their brief chat, Steelman's looks are clearly gonna be an issue. (Call it the curse of the hot chick: Like Rodney Dangerfield, they can't get no respect.)
So, readers: What do you think?
Is Sarah Steelman too hot for politics -- or do we only think she's hot because she's a relatively attractive woman in a profession that, until recent years, had few of them?
Are Sarah Steelman's good looks causing her to be unfairly labeled as dim -- or are her looks a big part of what's gotten her this far?
First let's get this out of the way. Looks doesn't have anything to do with her being unfairly labeled as dim. Watch the following videos and you will see she earns that title.
Now let's examine the Riverfront Times question, "Is Sarah Steelman too hot for politics?"
Let's get real. Sarah Steelman hasn't aged well at all, yet she still tries to pass off herself as the hot politician in the miniskirt, which you can see in the above videos. It doesn't work. She is well past her prime to be wearing miniskirts. If she gets to the Senate, do you want to be represented by a 54 year old woman who hasn't grown out of the need to show lots of legs to quickly climb up the ladder?
Yeah, maybe twenty years ago, Sarah Steelman was hot. Take a look.
In 2010, Sarah Steelman isn't hot. To compare her with Sarah Palin, who is librarian hot, well take a look these days.
It gets a little better when she takes time to do her makeup, but she isn't what everyone is making her out to be. I sure don't get it.
However, a liberal Web site with a feminist section has rushed to Steelman's defense. Change.org is upset at the Riverfront Times for even asking the question.
In all seriousness, a story called "How Hot is Sarah Steelman anyway?" -- a piece judging the attractiveness of potential 2012 Missouri Senate candidate Sarah Steelman -- is a good example of the unequal treatment of political women in the newsroom and our political discourse at large. Inspired by a radio host who called her "hot" but not intelligent, the Riverfront Times ran with the story: "Just how hot is Sarah Steelman? Is she Sarah Palin hot? Nikki Haley hot? Or -- be still our hearts! -- Kirsten Gillibrand hot?"
Reporter Sarah Fenske actually justifies the fact that she's discussing a candidate's looks before launching a call for reader feedback on Steelman's hotness quotient: "For the record, we don't believe women should be judged on the basis of their looks, or lack thereof...[but] Steelman's looks are clearly gonna be an issue." Okay, it's unfortunate that the political discourse immediately trends towards judging women's looks rather than, rather than discussing their policy positions. But -- tempting as it is to join in the hot-or-not-fun -- here are a few directions the author could have gone in instead:
Instead of assessing the opinions and policy positions of potential Missouri Senate candidate Sarah Steelman, pundits are commenting on her looks.
Even if everyone else is talking about Sarah Steelman's looks, here is the real low-down on the potential Republican nominee.
Potential Senate candidate Sarah Steelman is the latest victim of our sexist political discourse, which judges women based on their looks, rather than their record.
As this latest example of sexist punditry demonstrates, female candidates don't get a fair shake -- and the sexist coverage damages their campaigns.
But no, the Riverfront Times had to join in the fun and start demeaning female candidates by eagerly discussing their political fortunes as a function of their looks. Congratulations, you are now part of the problem since studies have shown sexist punditry actually damages women's campaigns. Next time the Riverfront Times faces a similar editorial decision, I hope they take a look at the calendar; it's 2010 for Chrissake.
Well, at least Steelman has a few new liberal buddies thanks to Mark Reardon. They can meet for tea and discuss how to play the victim card. Steelman is quite good at it from watching her sit on the fence trying to decide whether or not she wanted to be a Senator last year. Amazing how political deals work. She is obviously the chosen one in 2012, and all because she backed down from her challenge of Roy Blunt in 2012.
On Twitter, Reardon called the interview a "disaster." And, as politico.com reports, on air, the host huffed that, although Steelman is hot, she "isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer."
Which got us wondering: Just how hot is Sarah Steelman? Is she Sarah Palin hot? Nikki Haley hot? Or -- be still our hearts! -- Kirsten Gillibrand hot?
For the record, we don't believe women should be judged on the basis of their looks, or lack thereof. Nor do we think that, just because she's hot, she's automatically stupid. Steelman holds a master's degree in economics; she also served as state treasurer, which is way beyond the abilities of this Daily RFT correspondent.
But, based on Reardon's response to their brief chat, Steelman's looks are clearly gonna be an issue. (Call it the curse of the hot chick: Like Rodney Dangerfield, they can't get no respect.)
So, readers: What do you think?
Is Sarah Steelman too hot for politics -- or do we only think she's hot because she's a relatively attractive woman in a profession that, until recent years, had few of them?
Are Sarah Steelman's good looks causing her to be unfairly labeled as dim -- or are her looks a big part of what's gotten her this far?
First let's get this out of the way. Looks doesn't have anything to do with her being unfairly labeled as dim. Watch the following videos and you will see she earns that title.
Now let's examine the Riverfront Times question, "Is Sarah Steelman too hot for politics?"
Let's get real. Sarah Steelman hasn't aged well at all, yet she still tries to pass off herself as the hot politician in the miniskirt, which you can see in the above videos. It doesn't work. She is well past her prime to be wearing miniskirts. If she gets to the Senate, do you want to be represented by a 54 year old woman who hasn't grown out of the need to show lots of legs to quickly climb up the ladder?
Yeah, maybe twenty years ago, Sarah Steelman was hot. Take a look.
In 2010, Sarah Steelman isn't hot. To compare her with Sarah Palin, who is librarian hot, well take a look these days.
However, a liberal Web site with a feminist section has rushed to Steelman's defense. Change.org is upset at the Riverfront Times for even asking the question.
In all seriousness, a story called "How Hot is Sarah Steelman anyway?" -- a piece judging the attractiveness of potential 2012 Missouri Senate candidate Sarah Steelman -- is a good example of the unequal treatment of political women in the newsroom and our political discourse at large. Inspired by a radio host who called her "hot" but not intelligent, the Riverfront Times ran with the story: "Just how hot is Sarah Steelman? Is she Sarah Palin hot? Nikki Haley hot? Or -- be still our hearts! -- Kirsten Gillibrand hot?"
Reporter Sarah Fenske actually justifies the fact that she's discussing a candidate's looks before launching a call for reader feedback on Steelman's hotness quotient: "For the record, we don't believe women should be judged on the basis of their looks, or lack thereof...[but] Steelman's looks are clearly gonna be an issue." Okay, it's unfortunate that the political discourse immediately trends towards judging women's looks rather than, rather than discussing their policy positions. But -- tempting as it is to join in the hot-or-not-fun -- here are a few directions the author could have gone in instead:
Instead of assessing the opinions and policy positions of potential Missouri Senate candidate Sarah Steelman, pundits are commenting on her looks.
Even if everyone else is talking about Sarah Steelman's looks, here is the real low-down on the potential Republican nominee.
Potential Senate candidate Sarah Steelman is the latest victim of our sexist political discourse, which judges women based on their looks, rather than their record.
As this latest example of sexist punditry demonstrates, female candidates don't get a fair shake -- and the sexist coverage damages their campaigns.
But no, the Riverfront Times had to join in the fun and start demeaning female candidates by eagerly discussing their political fortunes as a function of their looks. Congratulations, you are now part of the problem since studies have shown sexist punditry actually damages women's campaigns. Next time the Riverfront Times faces a similar editorial decision, I hope they take a look at the calendar; it's 2010 for Chrissake.
Well, at least Steelman has a few new liberal buddies thanks to Mark Reardon. They can meet for tea and discuss how to play the victim card. Steelman is quite good at it from watching her sit on the fence trying to decide whether or not she wanted to be a Senator last year. Amazing how political deals work. She is obviously the chosen one in 2012, and all because she backed down from her challenge of Roy Blunt in 2012.
Diplomatic Immunity Doesn't Matter to TSA: Indian Ambassador Meera Shanka Gets Groped
The Ambassador was attending an event in Mississippi State University and was flying back to Baltimore. It is believed she was flagged for wearing traditional Indian dress. She alerted the State Department and will file another complaint to add to the thousands already filed against the TSA.
"She is a very strong woman, but you could see in her face that she was humiliated," Tan Tsai, a research associate at MSU's International Security Studies center who witnessed the screening, told The Clarion-Ledger. "The Indian culture is very modest."
"The way they pat them down, it was so humiliating," Tsai added, "Anybody who passed by could see it."
Janos Radvanyi, Chair of the MSU's International Studies Department was quoted as saying, "She said, "I will never come back here." We are sending her a letter of apology,"
Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna has described the incident as "unacceptable".
"Let me be frank, this is unacceptable to India. We are going to take it up with the government of US that such unpleasant incidents do not recur," Krishna told reporters outside parliament. He said that there were "certain well-established conventions, well-established practices as to how members of diplomatic corps are treated in a given country."
"I am rather surprised by the way the Indian ambassador to the US has been treated. This has happened for a second time in three months," he said.
Not acceptable in India, and it shouldn't be acceptable in the United States.
Senate Dems Put Dream Act on the Shelf: Don't Have the 60 Votes
While some Republicans turned in the House and supported the Dream Act, the Dems in the Senate don't have the votes. It appears Democrats are shelfing the Dream Act for now because they don't have the votes according to the AP.
WASHINGTON – Democrats have delayed a showdown vote on legislation carving out a path to legal status for foreign-born youngsters brought to this country illegally.
Facing GOP objections, Democrats are putting aside the so-called Dream Act. They're short of the 60 votes needed to advance the measure.
Democratic officials say they'll try to move a House-passed version after the Senate acts on funding the government and extending tax cuts. Republicans have said they won't agree to consider anything else until those issues are addressed.
The bill grants hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children a chance to gain legal status if they enroll in college or join the military.
Why wouldn't you enroll in college with all the federal money available. Good grief!
WASHINGTON – Democrats have delayed a showdown vote on legislation carving out a path to legal status for foreign-born youngsters brought to this country illegally.
Facing GOP objections, Democrats are putting aside the so-called Dream Act. They're short of the 60 votes needed to advance the measure.
Democratic officials say they'll try to move a House-passed version after the Senate acts on funding the government and extending tax cuts. Republicans have said they won't agree to consider anything else until those issues are addressed.
The bill grants hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children a chance to gain legal status if they enroll in college or join the military.
Why wouldn't you enroll in college with all the federal money available. Good grief!
Republican Sarah Steelman has a Masters Degree in Economics: So Why Can't She Have an Intelligent Conversation in Free Trade?
Sarah Steelman is a graduate of the University of Missouri and has a Masters of Arts degree in Economics. As well, she is now a teacher at Missouri State University where she teaches similar subject matter.
Now there is a debate in Missouri going on right now about whether or not Steelman has the substance required to serve as a member of the United States Senate after an interview conducted a few days ago on KMOX, where Mark Reardon concluded Steelman "isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer."
I find it interesting, based on Steelman's educational background and desire to create jobs and improve the economy, she can't even have an intelligent conversation on free trade to prove worthy knowledge to get past her basic talking points. See for yourself:
Now there is a debate in Missouri going on right now about whether or not Steelman has the substance required to serve as a member of the United States Senate after an interview conducted a few days ago on KMOX, where Mark Reardon concluded Steelman "isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer."
I find it interesting, based on Steelman's educational background and desire to create jobs and improve the economy, she can't even have an intelligent conversation on free trade to prove worthy knowledge to get past her basic talking points. See for yourself:
The Sarah Steelman "Not the Sharpest Knife in the Drawer" KMOX Interview
Listening to this interview, which Sarah Steelman gave to KMOX's Mark Reardon, you begin to figure out why Steelman endorsed Billy Long. Politics to both these deceptiCONs isn't about substance. It's about talking points.
At the end of the interview Reardon says he was perplexed by the interview, comparing Steelman to the empty suit Russ Carnahan saying she isn't the "sharpest knife in the drawer."
As I said earlier, I am afraid Steelman is the chosen one, and this is already a done deal as key elements surrounding the GOP sound ready to endorse her. She bowed out of the 2010 race against Roy Blunt and was promised 2012 if she waited. I believe we are seeing proof of that. She is just another dolt that can be told how to vote.
The Green Bay Packer Cheerleaders: Please Return the Real Golden Girls, Packerettes or Whatever
"If You See Something, Say Something" The Messages You Will Soon See at Walmart and Everywhere
The above is one of the messages planned by the Department of Homeland Security that will soon be viewed in your neighborhood Walmart checkout line. The message promotes the idea of reporting your neighbors to the federal government. This is the message that currently airs at the Mall of American in Minneapolis.
It's not just Walmart. It turns out the Department of Homeland Security's rhetoric will be all over the place. As well as Walmart, the messages will be seen at major sporting events, federal buildings, and throughout communities around the United States. Homeland Security has announced funding for 10,000 locations to install the necessary network of computers and monitors to air these messages.
“In the coming weeks, “If You See Something, Say Something” public awareness materials designed to help America’s businesses, communities and citizens remain vigilant and play an active role in keeping our homeland safe will be posted in approximately 9,000 federal buildings throughout the country,” states a DHS press release. “Signage will appear at FPS guard stations at each facility, and any calls reporting suspicious activity will be directed to the existing national network of FPS call centers, which operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”
They are all designed to make you think the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA, the people who brought you the full body pat downs and naked body scans are essential to life in America as they continue to push this idea of freedom killing illusion of security.
American Tax Payers Will Continue to Subsidize Inefficient Ethanol and Biodiesel Thanks to the GOP
Ethanol is the ultimate scam. It is not an efficient fuel, there is debate on its impact on the environment, and it obviously impacts the world's food supply as an efficient corn crop is turned into an inefficient fuel. To add insult to injury, the United States taxpayers subsidize every gallon of ethanol produced at the rate of 45 cents on the gallon. That subsidy was getting ready to end, but U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) happily announced that the GOP's agreement with Obama includes a 2011 subsidy of ethanol, and if there is any good news this, which there really isn't, it's been reduced by nine cents a gallon to 36 cents.
As well biodiesel, which subsidy lapsed, will once again receive its $1 per gallon subsidy, and if that isn't bad enough, they are going to make the extension of the subsidy retroactive. In other words, they are going to take your tax dollars and pay for the period of the lapse as well.
This is Republicans supporting this. Instead of drill baby drill, we are going to continue down this path of paying billions of dollars for inefficient green energy, and Republicans are pushing this along with Obama and the Democrats.
There were 17 Senators who wrote letters to Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell opposing the subsidies.
As well biodiesel, which subsidy lapsed, will once again receive its $1 per gallon subsidy, and if that isn't bad enough, they are going to make the extension of the subsidy retroactive. In other words, they are going to take your tax dollars and pay for the period of the lapse as well.
This is Republicans supporting this. Instead of drill baby drill, we are going to continue down this path of paying billions of dollars for inefficient green energy, and Republicans are pushing this along with Obama and the Democrats.
There were 17 Senators who wrote letters to Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell opposing the subsidies.
David Hume: Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth from 1754
IDEA OF A PERFECT COMMONWEALTH
David Hume 1754
Edited and rendered into HTML by Jon Roland
IT is not with forms of government, as with other artificial contrivances; where an old engine may be rejected, if we can discover another more accurate and commodious, or where trials may safely be made, even though the success be doubtful. An established government has an infinite advantage, by that very circumstance of its being established; the bulk of mankind being governed by authority, not reason, and never attributing authority to any thing that has not the recommendation of antiquity. To tamper, therefore, in this affair, or try experiments merely upon the credit of supposed argument and philosophy, can never be the part of a wise magistrate, who will bear a reverence to what carries the marks of age; and though he may attempt some improvements for the public good, yet will he adjust his innovations, as much as possible, to the ancient fabric, and preserve entire the chief pillars and supports of the constitution.
The mathematicians of Europe have been much divided concerning that figure of a ship, which is the most commodious for sailing; and Huygens, 1 who at last determined the controversy, is justly thought to have obliged the learned, as well as commercial world; though Columbus had sailed to America, and Sir Francis Drake made the tour of the world, 2 without any such discovery. As one form of government must be allowed more perfect than another, independent of the manners and humours of particular men; why may we not enquire what is the most perfect of all, though the common botched and inaccurate governments seem to serve the purposes of society, and though it be not so easy to establish a new system of government, as to build a vessel upon a new construction? The subject is surely the most worth curiosity of any the wit of man can possibly devise. And who knows, if this controversy were fixed by the universal consent of the wise and learned, but, in some future age, an opportunity might be afforded by reducing the theory to practice, either by a dissolution of some old government, or by the combination of men to form a new one, in some distant part of the world? In all cases, it must be advantageous to know what is most perfect in the kind, that we may be able to bring any real constitution or form of government as near it as possible, by such gentle alterations and innovations as may not give too great disturbance to society.
All I pretend to in the present essay is to revive this subject of speculation; and therefore I shall deliver my sentiments in as few words as possible. A long dissertation on that head would not, I apprehend, be very acceptable to the public, who will be apt to regard such disquisitions both as useless and chimerical.
All plans of government, which suppose great reformation in the manners of mankind, are plainly imaginary. Of this nature, are the Republic of Plato, and the Utopia of Sir Thomas More. 3 The Oceana is the only valuable model of a commonwealth, that has yet been offered to the public. 4
The chief defects of the Oceana seem to be these. First, Its rotation is inconvenient, by throwing men, of whatever abilities, by intervals, out of public employments. Secondly, Its Agrarian is impracticable. Men will soon the art, which was practiced in ancient Rome, of concealing their possessions under other people's name; till at last, the abuse will become so common, that they will throw off even the appearance of restraint. Thirdly, The Oceana provides not a sufficient security for liberty, or the redress of grievances. The senate must propose, and the people consent; by which means, the senate does not have a negative upon the people, but, what is of much greater consequence, their negative goes before the votes of the people. Were the King's negative of the same nature in the English constitution, and could he prevent any bill from coming into parliament, he would be an absolute monarch. As his negative follows the votes of the houses, it is of little consequence: Such a difference is there in the manner of placing the same thing. When a popular bill has been debated in parliament, is brought to maturity, all its conveniencies and inconveniencies, weighed and balanced; if afterwards it be presented for the royal assent, few princes will venture to reject the unanimous desire of the people. But could the King crush a disagreeable bill in embryo (as was the case, for some time, in the Scottish parliament, by means of the lords of the articles 5 ), the British government would have no balance, nor would grievances ever be redressed: And it is certain, that exorbitant power proceeds not, in any government, from new laws, so much as from neglecting to remedy the abuses, which frequently rise from the old ones. A government, says Machiavel, must often be brought back to its original principles. 6 It appears then, that, in the Oceana, the whole legislature may be said to rest in the senate; which Harrington would own to be an inconvenient form of government, especially after the Agrarian is abolished.
Here is a form of government, to which I cannot, in theory, discover any considerable objection.
Let Great Britain and Ireland, or any territory of equal extent, be divided into 100 counties, and each county into 100 parishes, making in all 10,000. If the country, proposed to be erected into a commonwealth be of more narrow extent, we may diminish the number of counties; but never bring them below thirty. If it be of greater extent, it were better to enlarge the parishes, or throw more parishes into a county, than increase the number of counties.
Let all the freeholders of twenty pounds a-year in the county, and all the householders worth 500 pounds in the town parishes, meet annually in the parish church, and chuse, by ballot, some freeholder of the county for their member, whom we shall call the county representative.
Let the 100 county representatives, two days after their election, meet in the county town, and chuse by ballot, from their own body, ten county magistrates, and one senator. There are, therefore, in the whole commonwealth, 100 senators, 1100 county magistrates, and 10,000 county representatives. For we shall bestow on all senators the authority of county magistrates, and on all county magistrates the authority of county representatives.
Let the senators meet in the capital, and be endowed with the whole executive power of the commonwealth; the power of peace and war, of giving orders to generals, admirals, and ambassadors, and, in short, all the prerogatives of a British King, except his negative.
Let the county representatives meet in their particular counties, and possess the whole legislative power of the commonwealth; the greater number of counties deciding the question; and where these are equal, let the senate have the casting vote.
Every new law must first be debated in the senate; and though rejected by it, if ten senators insist and protest, it must be sent down to the counties. The senate, if they please, may join to the copy of the law their reasons for receiving or rejecting it.
Because it would be troublesome to assemble all the county representatives for every trivial law, that may be requisite, the senate have their choice of sending down the law either to the county magistrates or county representatives.
The magistrates, though the law be referred to them, may, if they please, call the representatives, and submit the affair to their determination.
Whether the law be referred by the senate to the county magistrates or representatives, a copy of it, and of the senate's reasons, must be sent to every representative eight days before the day appointed for the assembling, in order to deliberate concerning it. And though the determination be, by the senate, referred to the magistrates, if five representatives of the county order the magistrates to assemble the whole court of representatives, and submit the affair to their determination, they must obey.
Either the county magistrates or representatives may give, to the senator of the county, the copy of a law to be proposed to the senate; and if five counties concur in the same order, the law, though refused by the senate, must come either to the county magistrates or representatives, as is contained in the order of the five counties.
Any twenty counties, by a vote either of their magistrates or representatives, may throw any man out of all public offices for a year. Thirty counties for three years.
The senate has a power of throwing out any member or number of members of its own body, not to be re-elected for that year. The senate cannot throw out twice in a year the senator of the same county.
The power of the old senate continues for three weeks after the annual election of the county representatives. Then all the new senators are shut up in a conclave, like the cardinals; and by an intricate ballot, such as that of Venice 7 or Malta, they chuse the following magistrates; a protector, who represents the dignity of the commonwealth, and presides in the senate; two secretaries of state; these six councils, a council of state, a council of religion and learning, a council of trade, a council of laws, a council of war, a council of the admiralty, each council consisting of five persons; together with six commissioners of the treasury and a first commissioner. All these must be senators. The senate also names all the ambassadors to foreign courts, who may either be senators or not.
The senate may continue any or all of these, but must re-elect them every year.
The protector and two secretaries have session and suffrage 8 in the council of state. The business of that council is all foreign politics. The council of state has session and suffrage in all other councils.
The council of religion and learning inspects the universities and clergy. That of trade inspects everything that may affect commerce. That of laws inspects all the abuses of law by the inferior magistrates, and examines what improvements may be made of the municipal law. That of war inspects the militia and its discipline, magazines, stores, &c. and when the republic is at war, examines into the proper orders of generals. The council of admiralty has the same power with regard to the navy, together with the nomination of the captains and all inferior officers.
None of these councils can give orders themselves, except where they receive such powers from the senate. In other cases, they must communicate every thing to the senate.
When the senate is under adjournment, any of the councils may assemble it before the day appointed for its meeting.
Besides these councils or courts, there is another called the court of competitors; which is thus constituted. If any candidates for the office of senator have more votes than a third of the representatives, that candidate, who has most votes, next to the senator elected, becomes incapable for one year of all public offices, even of being a magistrate or representative: But he takes his seat in the court of competitors. Here then is a court which may sometimes consist of a hundred members, sometimes have no members at all; and by that means, be for a year abolished.
The court of competitors has no power in the commonwealth. It has only the inspection of public accounts, and the accusing of any man before the senate. If the senate acquit him, the court of competitors may, if they please, appeal to the people, either magistrates or representatives. Upon that appeal, the magistrates or representatives meet on the day appointed by the court of competitors, and chuse in each county three persons, from which number every senator is excluded. These, to the number of 300, meet in the capital, and bring the person accused to a new trial.
The court of competitors may propose any law to the senate; and if refused, may appeal to the people, that is, to the magistrates or representatives, who examine it in their counties. Every senator, who is thrown out of the senate by a vote of the court, takes his seat in the court of competitors.
The senate possesses all the judicative authority of the house of Lords, that is, all the appeals from the inferior courts. It likewise appoints the Lord Chancellor, and all the officers of the law.
Every county is a kind of republic within itself, and the representatives may make bye-laws; which have no authority 'till three months after they are voted. A copy of the law is sent to the senate, and to every other county. The senate, or any single county, may, at any time, annul any bye-law of another county.
The representatives have all the authority of the British justices of peace in trials, commitments, &c.
The magistrates have the appointment of all the officers of the revenue in each county. All causes with regard to the revenue are carried ultimately by appeal before the magistrates. They pass the accounts of all the officers; but must have their own accounts examined and passed at the end of the year by the representatives.
The magistrates name rectors or ministers to all the parishes.
The Presbyterian government is established; and the highest ecclesiastical court is an assembly or synod of all the presbyters of the county. The magistrates may take any cause from this court, and determine it themselves.
The magistrates may try, and depose or suspend any presbyter.
The militia is established in imitation of that of Swisserland, which being well known, we shall not insist upon it. 9 It will only be proper to make this addition, that an army of 20,000 men be annually drawn out by rotation, paid and encamped during six weeks in summer; that the duty of a camp may not be altogether unknown.
The magistrates appoint all the colonels and downwards. The senate all upwards. During war, the general appoints the colonel and downwards, and his commission is good for a twelvemonth. But after that, it must be confirmed by the magistrates of the county, to which the regiment belongs. The magistrates may break any officer in the county regiment. And the senate may do the same to any officer in the service. If the magistrates do not think proper to confirm the general's choice, they may appoint another officer in the place of him they reject.
All crimes are tried within the county by the magistrates and a jury. But the senate can stop any trial, and bring it before themselves.
Any county may indict any man before the senate for any crime.
The protector, the two secretaries, the council of state, with any five or more that the senate appoints, are possessed, on extraordinary emergencies, of dictatorial power for six months.
The protector may pardon any person condemned by the inferior courts.
In time of war, no officer of the army that is in the field can have any civil office in the commonwealth.
The capital, which we shall call London, may be allowed four members in the senate. It may therefore be divided into four counties. The representatives of each of these chuse one senator, and ten magistrates. There are therefore in the city four senators, forty-four magistrates, and four hundred representatives. The magistrates have the same authority as in the counties. The representatives also have the same authority; but they never meet in one general court: They give their votes in their particular county, or division of hundreds.
When they enact any bye-law, the greater number of counties or divisions determines the matter. And where these are equal, the magistrates have the casting vote.
The magistrates chuse the mayor, sheriff, recorder, and other officers of the city.
In the commonwealth, no representative, magistrate, or senator, as such, has any salary. The protector, secretaries, councils, and ambassadors, have salaries.
The first year in every century is set apart for correcting all inequalities, which time may have produced in the representative. This must be done by the legislature.
The following political aphorisms may explain the reason for these orders.
The lower sort of people and small proprietors are good judges enough of one not very distant from them in rank or habitation; and therefore, in their parochial meetings, will probably chuse the best, or nearly the best representative: But they are wholly unfit for county-meetings, and for electing into the higher offices of the republic. Their ignorance gives the grandees an opportunity of deceiving them.
Ten thousand, even though they were not annually elected, are a basis large enough for any free government. It is true, the nobles in Poland are more than 10,000, and yet these oppress the people. But as power always continues there in the same persons and families, this makes them, in a manner, a different nation from the people. Besides the nobles are there united under a few heads of families.
All free governments must consist of two councils, a lesser and greater; in other words, of a senate and people. The people, as Harrington observes, 4 would want wisdom, without the senate: The senate, without the people, would want honesty.
A large assembly of 1000, for instance, to represent the people, if allowed to debate, would fall into disorder. If not allowed to debate, the senate has a negative upon them, and the worst kind of negative, that before resolution.
Here therefore is an inconvenience, which no government has yet fully remedied, but which is the easiest to be remedied in the world. If the people debate, all is confusion: If they do not debate, they can only resolve; and then the senate carves for them. Divide the people into many separate bodies; and then they may debate with safety, and every inconvenience seems to be prevented.
Cardinal de Retz says, 10 that all numerous assemblies, however composed, are mere mob, and swayed in their debates by the least motive. This we find confirmed by daily experience. When an absurdity strikes a member, he conveys it to his neighbor, and so on, till the whole be infected. Separate this great body, and though every member be only of middling sense, it is not probable, that any thing but reason can prevail over the whole. Influence and example being removed, good sense will always get the better of bad among a number of people.
There are two things to be guarded against in every senate: Its combination, and its division. Its combination is most dangerous. And against this inconvenience we have provided the following remedies. 1. The great dependence of the senators on the people by annual elections; and that not by an undistinguishing rabble, like the English electors, but by men of fortune and education. 2. The small power they are allowed. They have few offices to dispose of. Almost all are given by the magistrates in the counties. 3. The court of competitors, which must be composed of men that are their rivals, next to them in interest, and uneasy in their present situation, will be sure to take all advantages against them.
The division of the senate is prevented, 1. By the smallness of their number. 2. As faction supposes a combination in a separate interest, it is prevented by their dependence on the people. 3. They have a power of expelling any factious member. It is true, when another member of the same spirit comes from the county, they have no power of expelling him: Nor is it fit they should; for that shows the humour to be in the people, and may possibly arise from some ill conduct in public affairs. 4. Almost any man, in a senate so regularly chosen by the people, may be supposed fit for any civil office. It would be proper, therefore, for the senate to form some general resolutions with regard to the disposing of offices among the members: Which resolutions would not confine them in critical times, when extraordinary parts on the one hand, or extraordinary stupidity on the other, appears in any senator; but they would be sufficient to prevent intrigue and faction, by making the disposal of the offices a thing of course. For instance, let it be a resolution, That no shall enjoy any office, till he has sat four years in the senate: That, except ambassadors, no man shall be in office two years following: That no man shall attain the higher offices but through the lower: That no man shall be protector twice, &c. The senate of Venice governs themselves by such resolutions.
In foreign politics the interest of the senate can scarcely ever be divided from that of the people; and therefore it is fit to make the senate absolute with regard to them; otherwise there could be no secrecy or refined policy. Besides, without money no alliance can be executed; and the senate is still sufficiently dependant. Not to mention, that the legislative power being always superior to the executive, the magistrates or representatives may interpose whenever they think proper.
The chief support of the British government is the opposition of interests; but that, though in the main serviceable, breeds endless factions. In the foregoing plan, it does all the good without any of the harm. The competitors have no power of controlling the senate: They have only the power of accusing, and appealing to the people.
It is necessary, likewise, to prevent both combination and division in the thousand magistrates. This is done sufficiently by the separation of places and interests.
But lest that should not be sufficient, their dependence on the 10,000 for their elections, serves the same purpose.
Nor is that all: For the 10,000 may resume the power whenever they please; and not only when they all please, but when any five of a hundred please, which will happen upon the very first suspicion of a separate interest.
The 10,000 are two large a body either to unite or divide, except when they meet in one place, and fall under the guidance of ambitious leaders. Not to mention their annual election, by the whole body of the people, that are of any consideration.
A small commonwealth is the happiest government in the world within itself, because every thing lies under the eye of the rulers: But it may be subdued by great force from without. This scheme seems to have all the advantages both of a great and a little commonwealth.
Every county-law may be annulled either by the senate or another county; because that shows an opposition of interest: In which case no part ought to decide for itself. The matter must be referred to the whole, which will best determine what agrees with general interest.
As to the clergy and militia, the reasons of these orders are obvious. Without the dependence of the clergy on the civil magistrates, and without a militia, it is in vain to think that any free government will ever have security or stability.
In many governments, the inferior magistrates have no rewards but what arise from their ambition, vanity, or public spirit. The salaries of the French judges amount not to the interest of the sums they pay for their offices. The Dutch burgo-masters have little more immediate profit than the English justices of peace, or the members of the house of commons formerly. But lest any should suspect, that this would beget negligence in the administration (which is little to be feared, considering the natural ambition of mankind), let the magistrates have competent salaries. The senators have access to so many honourable and lucrative offices, that their attendance needs to be bought. There is little attendance required of the representatives.
That the foregoing plan of government is practicable, no one can doubt, who considers the resemblance that it bears to the commonwealth of the United Provinces, 11 a wise and renowned government. The alterations in the present scheme seem all evidently for the better. 1. The representation is more equal. 2. The unlimited power of the burgo-masters in the towns, which forms a perfect aristocracy in the Dutch commonwealth, is corrected by a well-tempered democracy, in giving to the people the annual election of the county representatives. 3. The negative, which every province and town has upon the whole body of the Dutch republic, with regard to alliances, peace and war, and the imposition of taxes, is here removed. 4. The counties, in the present plan, are not so independent of each other, nor do they form separate bodies so much as the seven provinces; where the jealousy and envy of the smaller provinces and towns against the greater, particularly Holland and Amsterdam, have frequently disturbed the government. 5. Larger powers, though of the safest kind, are intrusted to the senate than the States-General possess; by which means, the former may become more expeditious, and secret in their resolutions, than it is possible for the latter.
The chief alterations that could be made on the British government, in order to bring it to the most perfect model of limited monarchy, seem to be the following. First, The plan of Cromwell's parliament ought to be restored, by making the representation equal, and by allowing none to vote in the county elections who possesses not a property of 200 pounds value. Secondly, As such a house of Commons would be too weighty for a frail house of Lords, like the present, the Bishops and Scotch Peers ought to be removed: The number of the upper house ought to be raised to three or four hundred: Their seats not hereditary, but during life: They ought to have the election of their own members; and no commoner should be allowed to refuse a seat that was offered him. By this means the house of Lords would consist entirely of the men of chief credit, abilities, and interest in the nation; and every turbulent leader in the house of Commons might be taken off, and connected by interest with the house of Peers. Such an aristocracy would be an excellent barrier both to the monarchy and against it. At present, the balance of our government depends in some measure on the abilities and behaviour of the sovereign; which are variable and uncertain circumstances.
This plan of limited monarchy, however corrected, seems still liable to three great inconveniencies. First, It removes not entirely, though it may soften, the parties of court and country. Secondly, The king's personal character must still have great influence on the government. Thirdly, The sword is in the hands of a single person, who will always neglect to discipline the militia, in order to have a pretence for keeping up a standing army.
We will conclude this subject, with observing the falsehood of the common opinion, that no large state, such as France or Great Britain, could ever be modelled into a commonwealth, but that such a form of government can only take place in a city or small territory. The contrary seems probable. Though it is more difficult to form a republican government in an extensive country than in a city; there is more facility, once when it is formed, of preserving it steady and uniform, without tumult and faction. It is not easy, for the distant parts of a large state to combine in any plan of free government; but they easily conspire in the esteem and reverence for a single person, who, by means of this popular favour, may seize the power, and forcing the more obstinate to submit, may establish a monarchical government. On the other hand, a city readily concurs in the same notions of government, the natural equality of property favours liberty, and the nearness of habitation enables the citizens mutually to assist each other. Even under absolute princes, the subordinate government of cities is commonly republican; while that of counties and provinces is monarchical. But these same circumstances, which facilitate the erection of commonwealths in cities, render their constitution more frail and uncertain. Democracies are turbulent. For however the people may be separated or divided into small parties, either in their votes or elections; their near habitation in a city will always make the force of popular tides and currents very sensible. Aristocracies are better adapted for peace and order, and accordingly were most admired by ancient writers; but they are jealous and oppressive. In a large government, which is modelled with masterly skill, there is compass and room enough to refine the democracy, from the lower people, who may be admitted into the first elections or first concoction of the commonwealth. to the higher magistrates, who direct all the movements. At the same time, the parts are so distant and remote, that it is very difficult, either by intrigue, prejudice, or passion, to hurry them into any measures against the public interest.
It is needless to enquire, whether such a government would be immortal. I allow the justness of the poet's exclamation on the endless projects of human race, Man and for ever! 12 The world itself probably is not immortal. Such consuming plagues may arise as would leave even a perfect government a weak prey to its neighbors. We know not to what length enthusiasm, or other extraordinary movements of the human mind, may transport men, to the neglect of all order and public good. Where difference of interest is removed, whimsical and unaccountable factions often arise, from personal favour or enmity. Perhaps, rust may grow to the springs of the most accurate political machine, and disorder its motions. Lastly, extensive conquests, when pursued, must be the ruin of every free government; and of the more perfect governments sooner than the imperfect; because of the very advantages which the former possess above the latter. And though such a state ought to establish a fundamental law against conquests; yet republics have ambition as well as individuals, and present interest makes men forgetful of their posterity. It is a sufficient incitement to human endeavours, that such a government would flourish for many ages; without pretending to bestow, on any work of man, that immortality, which the Almighty seems to have refused to his own productions.
1. [Christian Huygens (1629-1695), Dutch scientist and inventor, was recruited by Colbert to work on navigation and shipbuilding problems for Louis XIV of France.]
2. [Sir Francis Drake (1545-1595), made a voyage around the world for Elizabeth I of England from 1577 to 1580, and was knighted for it.]
3. [Sir Thomas More (1478-1535), beheaded by Henry VIII while he served as Lord Chancellor. Utopia was the tale of a journey to an island by that name (literally, "no place") which had a government similar to that of Plato's Republic in having a community of goods and a rule by the wise.]
4. [James Harrington, Commonwealth of Oceana, presented a model which avoided extremes of rich and poor by an Agrarian Law that prevented the concentration of landed property in a few hands by requiring equal inheritance by all male heirs. The government had two legislative branches, a senate of persons elected for their excellence to propose legislation, and an assembly representing the people to enact it, and it had an executive branch of magistrates elected for one or three years to execute the laws. One third of the members of the senate and assembly were elected each year. Magistrates might not serve consecutive terms, but might be re-elected after being out of office for the period they were in office.]
5. [David Hume, History of England, Ch. 55. No motion could be made in the Scottish parliament without the prior consent of the Lords of the Articles, a committee chosen from the three estates of nobility, clergy, and commons, which was first abolished in 1641 and finally in 1690.]
6. [Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses, bk. 3, chap. 1.]
7. [See George B. McClellan, The Oligarchy of Venice, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1904, pp. 159-60, for a description of the method by which the Great Council of Venice elected magistrates: "Three urns were placed in front of the ducal throne, those on the right and left containing half as many balls each as there were members present, all the balls being white with the exception of thirty in each urn which were of gold. In the middle urn were sixty balls, thirty-six gold and twenty-four white. The office to be filled having been announced to the Great Council, the members drew from the urns on the right and left. Those who drew white resumed their seats, the sixty who drew gold drew again from the middle urn. Of the sixty, the twenty-four who drew white resumed their seats, the thirty-six who drew gold became electors. They then divided themselves by lot into four groups of nine each. The groups retired separately, and each nominated a candidate for the vacant office, six votes being required for nomination. The four candidates thus nominated were then presented to the Great Council and voted on by that body, a plurality electing. No two members of any family were permitted to serve as electors for the same vacancy. If all four groups of electors agreed on the same candidate, he was declared elected without the formality of a ballot." John Adams describes the Venetian ballot in his Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol. 1, chap. 2, as "a complicated mixture of choice and chance". Harrington adopted the Venetian Ballot in his Commonwealth of Oceana. The use of chance in such balloting was intended to avoid factional divisions and combinations and prevent logrolling of votes.]
8. ["Session" is the right to hold a seat, "suffrage" the right to vote.]
9. [The Swiss Confederation of cantons pledged their militias for mutual defense since the late thirteenth century, and maintained the principle that all able-bodied male citizens were liable for military service and were to have arms and regular training. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that the appropriate military system for a republic was a militia on the Swiss model in Considerations on the Government of Poland, chap. 12.]
10. [See Jean-Francois-Paul de Gondi (1614-1679), Memoires (1717, English tr. 1723), published in Oeuvres, Paris: Hachette, 1870-96, 2:422. After becoming cardinal in 1652, he styled himself Cardinal de Retz.]
11. [Precursor to the Netherlands.]
12. [Possibly paraphrase of Horace, Satires 2.8.62, or Lucretius, The Nature of Things 2.76 or 5.1430-31.]
David Hume 1754
Edited and rendered into HTML by Jon Roland
The mathematicians of Europe have been much divided concerning that figure of a ship, which is the most commodious for sailing; and Huygens, 1 who at last determined the controversy, is justly thought to have obliged the learned, as well as commercial world; though Columbus had sailed to America, and Sir Francis Drake made the tour of the world, 2 without any such discovery. As one form of government must be allowed more perfect than another, independent of the manners and humours of particular men; why may we not enquire what is the most perfect of all, though the common botched and inaccurate governments seem to serve the purposes of society, and though it be not so easy to establish a new system of government, as to build a vessel upon a new construction? The subject is surely the most worth curiosity of any the wit of man can possibly devise. And who knows, if this controversy were fixed by the universal consent of the wise and learned, but, in some future age, an opportunity might be afforded by reducing the theory to practice, either by a dissolution of some old government, or by the combination of men to form a new one, in some distant part of the world? In all cases, it must be advantageous to know what is most perfect in the kind, that we may be able to bring any real constitution or form of government as near it as possible, by such gentle alterations and innovations as may not give too great disturbance to society.
All I pretend to in the present essay is to revive this subject of speculation; and therefore I shall deliver my sentiments in as few words as possible. A long dissertation on that head would not, I apprehend, be very acceptable to the public, who will be apt to regard such disquisitions both as useless and chimerical.
All plans of government, which suppose great reformation in the manners of mankind, are plainly imaginary. Of this nature, are the Republic of Plato, and the Utopia of Sir Thomas More. 3 The Oceana is the only valuable model of a commonwealth, that has yet been offered to the public. 4
The chief defects of the Oceana seem to be these. First, Its rotation is inconvenient, by throwing men, of whatever abilities, by intervals, out of public employments. Secondly, Its Agrarian is impracticable. Men will soon the art, which was practiced in ancient Rome, of concealing their possessions under other people's name; till at last, the abuse will become so common, that they will throw off even the appearance of restraint. Thirdly, The Oceana provides not a sufficient security for liberty, or the redress of grievances. The senate must propose, and the people consent; by which means, the senate does not have a negative upon the people, but, what is of much greater consequence, their negative goes before the votes of the people. Were the King's negative of the same nature in the English constitution, and could he prevent any bill from coming into parliament, he would be an absolute monarch. As his negative follows the votes of the houses, it is of little consequence: Such a difference is there in the manner of placing the same thing. When a popular bill has been debated in parliament, is brought to maturity, all its conveniencies and inconveniencies, weighed and balanced; if afterwards it be presented for the royal assent, few princes will venture to reject the unanimous desire of the people. But could the King crush a disagreeable bill in embryo (as was the case, for some time, in the Scottish parliament, by means of the lords of the articles 5 ), the British government would have no balance, nor would grievances ever be redressed: And it is certain, that exorbitant power proceeds not, in any government, from new laws, so much as from neglecting to remedy the abuses, which frequently rise from the old ones. A government, says Machiavel, must often be brought back to its original principles. 6 It appears then, that, in the Oceana, the whole legislature may be said to rest in the senate; which Harrington would own to be an inconvenient form of government, especially after the Agrarian is abolished.
Here is a form of government, to which I cannot, in theory, discover any considerable objection.
Let Great Britain and Ireland, or any territory of equal extent, be divided into 100 counties, and each county into 100 parishes, making in all 10,000. If the country, proposed to be erected into a commonwealth be of more narrow extent, we may diminish the number of counties; but never bring them below thirty. If it be of greater extent, it were better to enlarge the parishes, or throw more parishes into a county, than increase the number of counties.
Let all the freeholders of twenty pounds a-year in the county, and all the householders worth 500 pounds in the town parishes, meet annually in the parish church, and chuse, by ballot, some freeholder of the county for their member, whom we shall call the county representative.
Let the 100 county representatives, two days after their election, meet in the county town, and chuse by ballot, from their own body, ten county magistrates, and one senator. There are, therefore, in the whole commonwealth, 100 senators, 1100 county magistrates, and 10,000 county representatives. For we shall bestow on all senators the authority of county magistrates, and on all county magistrates the authority of county representatives.
Let the senators meet in the capital, and be endowed with the whole executive power of the commonwealth; the power of peace and war, of giving orders to generals, admirals, and ambassadors, and, in short, all the prerogatives of a British King, except his negative.
Let the county representatives meet in their particular counties, and possess the whole legislative power of the commonwealth; the greater number of counties deciding the question; and where these are equal, let the senate have the casting vote.
Every new law must first be debated in the senate; and though rejected by it, if ten senators insist and protest, it must be sent down to the counties. The senate, if they please, may join to the copy of the law their reasons for receiving or rejecting it.
Because it would be troublesome to assemble all the county representatives for every trivial law, that may be requisite, the senate have their choice of sending down the law either to the county magistrates or county representatives.
The magistrates, though the law be referred to them, may, if they please, call the representatives, and submit the affair to their determination.
Whether the law be referred by the senate to the county magistrates or representatives, a copy of it, and of the senate's reasons, must be sent to every representative eight days before the day appointed for the assembling, in order to deliberate concerning it. And though the determination be, by the senate, referred to the magistrates, if five representatives of the county order the magistrates to assemble the whole court of representatives, and submit the affair to their determination, they must obey.
Either the county magistrates or representatives may give, to the senator of the county, the copy of a law to be proposed to the senate; and if five counties concur in the same order, the law, though refused by the senate, must come either to the county magistrates or representatives, as is contained in the order of the five counties.
Any twenty counties, by a vote either of their magistrates or representatives, may throw any man out of all public offices for a year. Thirty counties for three years.
The senate has a power of throwing out any member or number of members of its own body, not to be re-elected for that year. The senate cannot throw out twice in a year the senator of the same county.
The power of the old senate continues for three weeks after the annual election of the county representatives. Then all the new senators are shut up in a conclave, like the cardinals; and by an intricate ballot, such as that of Venice 7 or Malta, they chuse the following magistrates; a protector, who represents the dignity of the commonwealth, and presides in the senate; two secretaries of state; these six councils, a council of state, a council of religion and learning, a council of trade, a council of laws, a council of war, a council of the admiralty, each council consisting of five persons; together with six commissioners of the treasury and a first commissioner. All these must be senators. The senate also names all the ambassadors to foreign courts, who may either be senators or not.
The senate may continue any or all of these, but must re-elect them every year.
The protector and two secretaries have session and suffrage 8 in the council of state. The business of that council is all foreign politics. The council of state has session and suffrage in all other councils.
The council of religion and learning inspects the universities and clergy. That of trade inspects everything that may affect commerce. That of laws inspects all the abuses of law by the inferior magistrates, and examines what improvements may be made of the municipal law. That of war inspects the militia and its discipline, magazines, stores, &c. and when the republic is at war, examines into the proper orders of generals. The council of admiralty has the same power with regard to the navy, together with the nomination of the captains and all inferior officers.
None of these councils can give orders themselves, except where they receive such powers from the senate. In other cases, they must communicate every thing to the senate.
When the senate is under adjournment, any of the councils may assemble it before the day appointed for its meeting.
Besides these councils or courts, there is another called the court of competitors; which is thus constituted. If any candidates for the office of senator have more votes than a third of the representatives, that candidate, who has most votes, next to the senator elected, becomes incapable for one year of all public offices, even of being a magistrate or representative: But he takes his seat in the court of competitors. Here then is a court which may sometimes consist of a hundred members, sometimes have no members at all; and by that means, be for a year abolished.
The court of competitors has no power in the commonwealth. It has only the inspection of public accounts, and the accusing of any man before the senate. If the senate acquit him, the court of competitors may, if they please, appeal to the people, either magistrates or representatives. Upon that appeal, the magistrates or representatives meet on the day appointed by the court of competitors, and chuse in each county three persons, from which number every senator is excluded. These, to the number of 300, meet in the capital, and bring the person accused to a new trial.
The court of competitors may propose any law to the senate; and if refused, may appeal to the people, that is, to the magistrates or representatives, who examine it in their counties. Every senator, who is thrown out of the senate by a vote of the court, takes his seat in the court of competitors.
The senate possesses all the judicative authority of the house of Lords, that is, all the appeals from the inferior courts. It likewise appoints the Lord Chancellor, and all the officers of the law.
Every county is a kind of republic within itself, and the representatives may make bye-laws; which have no authority 'till three months after they are voted. A copy of the law is sent to the senate, and to every other county. The senate, or any single county, may, at any time, annul any bye-law of another county.
The representatives have all the authority of the British justices of peace in trials, commitments, &c.
The magistrates have the appointment of all the officers of the revenue in each county. All causes with regard to the revenue are carried ultimately by appeal before the magistrates. They pass the accounts of all the officers; but must have their own accounts examined and passed at the end of the year by the representatives.
The magistrates name rectors or ministers to all the parishes.
The Presbyterian government is established; and the highest ecclesiastical court is an assembly or synod of all the presbyters of the county. The magistrates may take any cause from this court, and determine it themselves.
The magistrates may try, and depose or suspend any presbyter.
The militia is established in imitation of that of Swisserland, which being well known, we shall not insist upon it. 9 It will only be proper to make this addition, that an army of 20,000 men be annually drawn out by rotation, paid and encamped during six weeks in summer; that the duty of a camp may not be altogether unknown.
The magistrates appoint all the colonels and downwards. The senate all upwards. During war, the general appoints the colonel and downwards, and his commission is good for a twelvemonth. But after that, it must be confirmed by the magistrates of the county, to which the regiment belongs. The magistrates may break any officer in the county regiment. And the senate may do the same to any officer in the service. If the magistrates do not think proper to confirm the general's choice, they may appoint another officer in the place of him they reject.
All crimes are tried within the county by the magistrates and a jury. But the senate can stop any trial, and bring it before themselves.
Any county may indict any man before the senate for any crime.
The protector, the two secretaries, the council of state, with any five or more that the senate appoints, are possessed, on extraordinary emergencies, of dictatorial power for six months.
The protector may pardon any person condemned by the inferior courts.
In time of war, no officer of the army that is in the field can have any civil office in the commonwealth.
The capital, which we shall call London, may be allowed four members in the senate. It may therefore be divided into four counties. The representatives of each of these chuse one senator, and ten magistrates. There are therefore in the city four senators, forty-four magistrates, and four hundred representatives. The magistrates have the same authority as in the counties. The representatives also have the same authority; but they never meet in one general court: They give their votes in their particular county, or division of hundreds.
When they enact any bye-law, the greater number of counties or divisions determines the matter. And where these are equal, the magistrates have the casting vote.
The magistrates chuse the mayor, sheriff, recorder, and other officers of the city.
In the commonwealth, no representative, magistrate, or senator, as such, has any salary. The protector, secretaries, councils, and ambassadors, have salaries.
The first year in every century is set apart for correcting all inequalities, which time may have produced in the representative. This must be done by the legislature.
The following political aphorisms may explain the reason for these orders.
The lower sort of people and small proprietors are good judges enough of one not very distant from them in rank or habitation; and therefore, in their parochial meetings, will probably chuse the best, or nearly the best representative: But they are wholly unfit for county-meetings, and for electing into the higher offices of the republic. Their ignorance gives the grandees an opportunity of deceiving them.
Ten thousand, even though they were not annually elected, are a basis large enough for any free government. It is true, the nobles in Poland are more than 10,000, and yet these oppress the people. But as power always continues there in the same persons and families, this makes them, in a manner, a different nation from the people. Besides the nobles are there united under a few heads of families.
All free governments must consist of two councils, a lesser and greater; in other words, of a senate and people. The people, as Harrington observes, 4 would want wisdom, without the senate: The senate, without the people, would want honesty.
A large assembly of 1000, for instance, to represent the people, if allowed to debate, would fall into disorder. If not allowed to debate, the senate has a negative upon them, and the worst kind of negative, that before resolution.
Here therefore is an inconvenience, which no government has yet fully remedied, but which is the easiest to be remedied in the world. If the people debate, all is confusion: If they do not debate, they can only resolve; and then the senate carves for them. Divide the people into many separate bodies; and then they may debate with safety, and every inconvenience seems to be prevented.
Cardinal de Retz says, 10 that all numerous assemblies, however composed, are mere mob, and swayed in their debates by the least motive. This we find confirmed by daily experience. When an absurdity strikes a member, he conveys it to his neighbor, and so on, till the whole be infected. Separate this great body, and though every member be only of middling sense, it is not probable, that any thing but reason can prevail over the whole. Influence and example being removed, good sense will always get the better of bad among a number of people.
There are two things to be guarded against in every senate: Its combination, and its division. Its combination is most dangerous. And against this inconvenience we have provided the following remedies. 1. The great dependence of the senators on the people by annual elections; and that not by an undistinguishing rabble, like the English electors, but by men of fortune and education. 2. The small power they are allowed. They have few offices to dispose of. Almost all are given by the magistrates in the counties. 3. The court of competitors, which must be composed of men that are their rivals, next to them in interest, and uneasy in their present situation, will be sure to take all advantages against them.
The division of the senate is prevented, 1. By the smallness of their number. 2. As faction supposes a combination in a separate interest, it is prevented by their dependence on the people. 3. They have a power of expelling any factious member. It is true, when another member of the same spirit comes from the county, they have no power of expelling him: Nor is it fit they should; for that shows the humour to be in the people, and may possibly arise from some ill conduct in public affairs. 4. Almost any man, in a senate so regularly chosen by the people, may be supposed fit for any civil office. It would be proper, therefore, for the senate to form some general resolutions with regard to the disposing of offices among the members: Which resolutions would not confine them in critical times, when extraordinary parts on the one hand, or extraordinary stupidity on the other, appears in any senator; but they would be sufficient to prevent intrigue and faction, by making the disposal of the offices a thing of course. For instance, let it be a resolution, That no shall enjoy any office, till he has sat four years in the senate: That, except ambassadors, no man shall be in office two years following: That no man shall attain the higher offices but through the lower: That no man shall be protector twice, &c. The senate of Venice governs themselves by such resolutions.
In foreign politics the interest of the senate can scarcely ever be divided from that of the people; and therefore it is fit to make the senate absolute with regard to them; otherwise there could be no secrecy or refined policy. Besides, without money no alliance can be executed; and the senate is still sufficiently dependant. Not to mention, that the legislative power being always superior to the executive, the magistrates or representatives may interpose whenever they think proper.
The chief support of the British government is the opposition of interests; but that, though in the main serviceable, breeds endless factions. In the foregoing plan, it does all the good without any of the harm. The competitors have no power of controlling the senate: They have only the power of accusing, and appealing to the people.
It is necessary, likewise, to prevent both combination and division in the thousand magistrates. This is done sufficiently by the separation of places and interests.
But lest that should not be sufficient, their dependence on the 10,000 for their elections, serves the same purpose.
Nor is that all: For the 10,000 may resume the power whenever they please; and not only when they all please, but when any five of a hundred please, which will happen upon the very first suspicion of a separate interest.
The 10,000 are two large a body either to unite or divide, except when they meet in one place, and fall under the guidance of ambitious leaders. Not to mention their annual election, by the whole body of the people, that are of any consideration.
A small commonwealth is the happiest government in the world within itself, because every thing lies under the eye of the rulers: But it may be subdued by great force from without. This scheme seems to have all the advantages both of a great and a little commonwealth.
Every county-law may be annulled either by the senate or another county; because that shows an opposition of interest: In which case no part ought to decide for itself. The matter must be referred to the whole, which will best determine what agrees with general interest.
As to the clergy and militia, the reasons of these orders are obvious. Without the dependence of the clergy on the civil magistrates, and without a militia, it is in vain to think that any free government will ever have security or stability.
In many governments, the inferior magistrates have no rewards but what arise from their ambition, vanity, or public spirit. The salaries of the French judges amount not to the interest of the sums they pay for their offices. The Dutch burgo-masters have little more immediate profit than the English justices of peace, or the members of the house of commons formerly. But lest any should suspect, that this would beget negligence in the administration (which is little to be feared, considering the natural ambition of mankind), let the magistrates have competent salaries. The senators have access to so many honourable and lucrative offices, that their attendance needs to be bought. There is little attendance required of the representatives.
That the foregoing plan of government is practicable, no one can doubt, who considers the resemblance that it bears to the commonwealth of the United Provinces, 11 a wise and renowned government. The alterations in the present scheme seem all evidently for the better. 1. The representation is more equal. 2. The unlimited power of the burgo-masters in the towns, which forms a perfect aristocracy in the Dutch commonwealth, is corrected by a well-tempered democracy, in giving to the people the annual election of the county representatives. 3. The negative, which every province and town has upon the whole body of the Dutch republic, with regard to alliances, peace and war, and the imposition of taxes, is here removed. 4. The counties, in the present plan, are not so independent of each other, nor do they form separate bodies so much as the seven provinces; where the jealousy and envy of the smaller provinces and towns against the greater, particularly Holland and Amsterdam, have frequently disturbed the government. 5. Larger powers, though of the safest kind, are intrusted to the senate than the States-General possess; by which means, the former may become more expeditious, and secret in their resolutions, than it is possible for the latter.
The chief alterations that could be made on the British government, in order to bring it to the most perfect model of limited monarchy, seem to be the following. First, The plan of Cromwell's parliament ought to be restored, by making the representation equal, and by allowing none to vote in the county elections who possesses not a property of 200 pounds value. Secondly, As such a house of Commons would be too weighty for a frail house of Lords, like the present, the Bishops and Scotch Peers ought to be removed: The number of the upper house ought to be raised to three or four hundred: Their seats not hereditary, but during life: They ought to have the election of their own members; and no commoner should be allowed to refuse a seat that was offered him. By this means the house of Lords would consist entirely of the men of chief credit, abilities, and interest in the nation; and every turbulent leader in the house of Commons might be taken off, and connected by interest with the house of Peers. Such an aristocracy would be an excellent barrier both to the monarchy and against it. At present, the balance of our government depends in some measure on the abilities and behaviour of the sovereign; which are variable and uncertain circumstances.
This plan of limited monarchy, however corrected, seems still liable to three great inconveniencies. First, It removes not entirely, though it may soften, the parties of court and country. Secondly, The king's personal character must still have great influence on the government. Thirdly, The sword is in the hands of a single person, who will always neglect to discipline the militia, in order to have a pretence for keeping up a standing army.
We will conclude this subject, with observing the falsehood of the common opinion, that no large state, such as France or Great Britain, could ever be modelled into a commonwealth, but that such a form of government can only take place in a city or small territory. The contrary seems probable. Though it is more difficult to form a republican government in an extensive country than in a city; there is more facility, once when it is formed, of preserving it steady and uniform, without tumult and faction. It is not easy, for the distant parts of a large state to combine in any plan of free government; but they easily conspire in the esteem and reverence for a single person, who, by means of this popular favour, may seize the power, and forcing the more obstinate to submit, may establish a monarchical government. On the other hand, a city readily concurs in the same notions of government, the natural equality of property favours liberty, and the nearness of habitation enables the citizens mutually to assist each other. Even under absolute princes, the subordinate government of cities is commonly republican; while that of counties and provinces is monarchical. But these same circumstances, which facilitate the erection of commonwealths in cities, render their constitution more frail and uncertain. Democracies are turbulent. For however the people may be separated or divided into small parties, either in their votes or elections; their near habitation in a city will always make the force of popular tides and currents very sensible. Aristocracies are better adapted for peace and order, and accordingly were most admired by ancient writers; but they are jealous and oppressive. In a large government, which is modelled with masterly skill, there is compass and room enough to refine the democracy, from the lower people, who may be admitted into the first elections or first concoction of the commonwealth. to the higher magistrates, who direct all the movements. At the same time, the parts are so distant and remote, that it is very difficult, either by intrigue, prejudice, or passion, to hurry them into any measures against the public interest.
It is needless to enquire, whether such a government would be immortal. I allow the justness of the poet's exclamation on the endless projects of human race, Man and for ever! 12 The world itself probably is not immortal. Such consuming plagues may arise as would leave even a perfect government a weak prey to its neighbors. We know not to what length enthusiasm, or other extraordinary movements of the human mind, may transport men, to the neglect of all order and public good. Where difference of interest is removed, whimsical and unaccountable factions often arise, from personal favour or enmity. Perhaps, rust may grow to the springs of the most accurate political machine, and disorder its motions. Lastly, extensive conquests, when pursued, must be the ruin of every free government; and of the more perfect governments sooner than the imperfect; because of the very advantages which the former possess above the latter. And though such a state ought to establish a fundamental law against conquests; yet republics have ambition as well as individuals, and present interest makes men forgetful of their posterity. It is a sufficient incitement to human endeavours, that such a government would flourish for many ages; without pretending to bestow, on any work of man, that immortality, which the Almighty seems to have refused to his own productions.
1. [Christian Huygens (1629-1695), Dutch scientist and inventor, was recruited by Colbert to work on navigation and shipbuilding problems for Louis XIV of France.]
2. [Sir Francis Drake (1545-1595), made a voyage around the world for Elizabeth I of England from 1577 to 1580, and was knighted for it.]
3. [Sir Thomas More (1478-1535), beheaded by Henry VIII while he served as Lord Chancellor. Utopia was the tale of a journey to an island by that name (literally, "no place") which had a government similar to that of Plato's Republic in having a community of goods and a rule by the wise.]
4. [James Harrington, Commonwealth of Oceana, presented a model which avoided extremes of rich and poor by an Agrarian Law that prevented the concentration of landed property in a few hands by requiring equal inheritance by all male heirs. The government had two legislative branches, a senate of persons elected for their excellence to propose legislation, and an assembly representing the people to enact it, and it had an executive branch of magistrates elected for one or three years to execute the laws. One third of the members of the senate and assembly were elected each year. Magistrates might not serve consecutive terms, but might be re-elected after being out of office for the period they were in office.]
5. [David Hume, History of England, Ch. 55. No motion could be made in the Scottish parliament without the prior consent of the Lords of the Articles, a committee chosen from the three estates of nobility, clergy, and commons, which was first abolished in 1641 and finally in 1690.]
6. [Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses, bk. 3, chap. 1.]
7. [See George B. McClellan, The Oligarchy of Venice, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1904, pp. 159-60, for a description of the method by which the Great Council of Venice elected magistrates: "Three urns were placed in front of the ducal throne, those on the right and left containing half as many balls each as there were members present, all the balls being white with the exception of thirty in each urn which were of gold. In the middle urn were sixty balls, thirty-six gold and twenty-four white. The office to be filled having been announced to the Great Council, the members drew from the urns on the right and left. Those who drew white resumed their seats, the sixty who drew gold drew again from the middle urn. Of the sixty, the twenty-four who drew white resumed their seats, the thirty-six who drew gold became electors. They then divided themselves by lot into four groups of nine each. The groups retired separately, and each nominated a candidate for the vacant office, six votes being required for nomination. The four candidates thus nominated were then presented to the Great Council and voted on by that body, a plurality electing. No two members of any family were permitted to serve as electors for the same vacancy. If all four groups of electors agreed on the same candidate, he was declared elected without the formality of a ballot." John Adams describes the Venetian ballot in his Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol. 1, chap. 2, as "a complicated mixture of choice and chance". Harrington adopted the Venetian Ballot in his Commonwealth of Oceana. The use of chance in such balloting was intended to avoid factional divisions and combinations and prevent logrolling of votes.]
8. ["Session" is the right to hold a seat, "suffrage" the right to vote.]
9. [The Swiss Confederation of cantons pledged their militias for mutual defense since the late thirteenth century, and maintained the principle that all able-bodied male citizens were liable for military service and were to have arms and regular training. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that the appropriate military system for a republic was a militia on the Swiss model in Considerations on the Government of Poland, chap. 12.]
10. [See Jean-Francois-Paul de Gondi (1614-1679), Memoires (1717, English tr. 1723), published in Oeuvres, Paris: Hachette, 1870-96, 2:422. After becoming cardinal in 1652, he styled himself Cardinal de Retz.]
11. [Precursor to the Netherlands.]
12. [Possibly paraphrase of Horace, Satires 2.8.62, or Lucretius, The Nature of Things 2.76 or 5.1430-31.]
Staind's Aaron Lewis is an Unapologetic Patriotic Conservative: The Andrew Wilkow Interview
Country Boy is is his country crossover hit which includes George Jones. Here is the official video.
In the video, you can see Lewis's support of the troops and the Second Amendment and even a references to the Gadsden Flag.
In the interview, Lewis begins discussing Lady Gaga and why she is wrong. Lewis says it bothers him how the record companies treat an artist who leans right but celebrates an artist that pushes the left. Lewis is an outdoorsman like Ted Nugent and is an advocate for the Second Amendment. Be sure to check out the interview because Lewis is unapologetic on where he stands. He has a great respect for the troops, including going to some of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan to perform for the troops. Enjoy the interviews.
Here are the links to hear Andrew Wilkow's interview with Aaron Lewis:
http://addictedtostaind.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/part1.mp3
http://addictedtostaind.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/part2.mp3
http://addictedtostaind.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/part3.mp3
http://addictedtostaind.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/part4.mp3
http://addictedtostaind.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/part5.mp3
http://addictedtostaind.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/part6.mp3
http://addictedtostaind.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/part7.mp3
http://addictedtostaind.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/part8.mp3
http://addictedtostaind.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/part9.mp3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
