"their ability to axe democratically determined laws with essentially no consequence is problematic"

Are you referring to Roe v. Wade?

To some degree, yes - I think that decision came too soon and the country would have been better off if abortion had been legalized through the legislative process (it's worth pointing out that it was already legal in many states before Roe v. Wade).  I feel much the same way about the current gay marriage case that's being argued in California - I believe it's too soon, and if they do win the backlash will outweigh the gains.  If they lose, the precedent will set their cause back even further.  Generally speaking, I think that the courts should respect legislative intent, unless there is a blindingly egregious disconnect between the legislation and settled constitutional law.  I also, however, think that legislation should be both easier to pass and easier to overturn than it generally is in the US (as I've mentioned before, I would favor some sort of modified parliamentary system, which would place much more power in the hands of the majority party).

Maybe because no one is proposing any popular constutional amendments. It's not supposed to be easy to pass unpopular amendments.

I think the failure of the ERA killed the desire to attempt any more amendments.  Despite the fact that it was very popular* and ratified by 60% of the states (including almost all the major population centers, putting the population total approving it well above that percentage - and if you include the states that later rescinded their ratification, that total goes up to 70%), it could not reach the threshold required for ratification.  Requiring 38 states to ratify basically means that state legislatures that represent as little as 5% of the population of the United States (the combined population of the 13 smallest states) can derail an amendment.  Perversely, on the flip side, since the 12 most populous states make up 60% of the US population, it would actually be possible to pass a constitutional amendment with just a minority of the US population approving of it (if the 12 most populous refused to ratify, but the rest did, then it would have been approved by legislatures representing only 40% of the country's population), particularly if the amendment was proposed by calling a new Constitutional Convention (which needs the votes of only 2/3 of the state legislatures, which could represent as little as 30% of the US population).  I find it hard to believe that the founding fathers intended anything like this - when the constitution was written, the 5 smallest states (5 being the number needed to derail an amendment or ratification), represented about 15% of the US population (and as a percentage of the voting population, even more than that, since total US census numbers include slaves from the southern states who couldn't vote, therefore inflating the totals).  In 1780 the smallest state (Delaware) had 8% of the population of the largest (Virginia).  Today the smallest state (Wyoming) has just 1.5% of the population of the largest, and a full 19 states have less than 8% of California's population.  These demographic imbalances have moved us well beyond the spirit of the Great Compromise.  Small states have far more power now to block or implement constitutional change than was ever intended.

*If you don't have access to jstor, the article has a chart of public opinion polls that shows the ERA never dropping below 52%, and for most of the time under consideration (from 1974 to 1982) between 55% and 74% of the public supported it, depending on the year.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

The failure of faddish nonsense like the ERA to pass shows the process is working.

Yes, an Amendment that maintained the support of more than 50% of the population (and often had the support of more than 2/3 of the population) for 8 years in a row was clearly a fad.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Disco had a lot of popular support during those 8 years, too.  

There hasn't been a whole lot of recent polling data (at least that I could find), but evidence suggests that such an amendment would still be favored by a majority.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Maybe Obama should make it the centerpiece of his 2012 re-election campaign.

If we had a rational presidential election system, where a majority of votes was all that was required to get you elected, then yeah, I'd say he should.  Since he has to win votes in small population reactionary backwaters, unfortunately it's not an option.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Obama won't run for re-election.

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

He won't run for re-election unless something dramatic occurs to improve his status.

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

You don't find it problematic that Congress occasionally passes unconstitutional laws?

No, because I don't think the laws they pass are blatantly unconstitutional most of the time.  Ricci and Citizens United probably both would have been decided differently under the court of the 1990s, for example.  Indeed the court explicitly reversed precedent in the Citizens United decision.  The problem there wasn't Congress, the problem was that the court changed its mind.

What amendment are you proposing?

Well, I think a campaign finance reform amendment would be a no-brainer, since time and again finance reform has been passed into law only to be overturned by the Supreme Court.  Finally pass the ERA.  Although I would be on the other side of the potential outcome (as I oppose gun control, but I think a majority of the US population probably favors stricter controls than I do), I think it would be fair to put the 2nd Amendment up for clarification as to its meaning vis-a-vis the right of individuals to own guns for personal use.  More broadly, I'd propose some of the changes I've mentioned in the past, but that aren't even on the radar because they would be impossible to ratify (things like changing the way Congress works, making representation more in line with population, etc.).

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

The problem there wasn't Congress, the problem was that the court changed its mind

The problem was a court that was willing to ignore the plain language of the Constitution in order to further their own ideology.

I think a campaign finance reform amendment would be a no-brainer...

Sounds complicated. What's the text?

...pass the ERA

That sure would keep the courts busy. Anyway, why is the ERA needed when we have the 14th Amendment?

An ugly First Lady

Keep it classy Kenny-boy.  Nothing like insulting a women with a terminal illness who's going through a painful public separation with her husband to prove your manhood.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Have you ever heard anything good about either John Edwards or his wife? Neither have I.

Do you think that most people feel that way?

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

Sadly I think on any given day around 50%(+/-3 or 4%) of the electorate does feel exactly that way. I think that's how Obama got the job in the first place.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

You might be right...but there is a silver lining, after all.  If things continue on the way they're going, he won't get to keep the job.  We only have three years to go.  That's far less than what he had to endure with Shrub.  

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

Of course I want a president whose IQ is on the rightmost 10% of the bell curve. I would hazard a guess that pretty much every guy who has held the office (with the possible exception of Shrub and maybe a couple of the more obscure 19th century one-termers) has met that standard.

I would also hazard a guess that every regular poster to this site also meets that standard. You certainly do.

I'm not talking about measured intelligence in this context as much as I am attitude. The concept of humility seems to escape this guy. The events of the past few months might have led a more humble guy to a conclusion like "Perhaps I am trying to change too much too fast." For Obama, it's "Obviously I didn't do a good enough job explaining this to you. I remain confident that when you get it, you'll agree with me."

Ummm no, Barry. We do get it and we don't agree.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

For Obama, it's "Obviously I didn't do a good enough job explaining this to you. I remain confident that when you get it, you'll agree with me."

Ummm no, Barry. We do get it and we don't agree.

I'm not sure that's the case (I'm not talking about you specifically - I believe you understand the legislation - but of people in general).  Take healthcare reform.  When polled, people overwhelmingly support the details of Obama's plan.  People want this kind of reform.  The question is, why isn't it popular?  Partly, because a certain chunk of people oppose it from the left because they don't think it goes part enough.  Partly, because it is popular, but since it takes 60% of the Senate to pass the damn thing, the opinions of people who are a minority in the country overall, but who make up a majority in certain key states, have hamstrung the Senate effort.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

I disagree. I think people overwhelmingly support the results that Obama claims that this legislation will produce: Lower out-of-pocket costs, better care, cheaper drugs, portability, and at least a partial elimination of the "pre-existing condition" gotcha.

Hell I support all that.

What people increasingly don't believe (and rightly so) is that either version of this bill as it now stands will achieve any of those goals.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

Do you honestly believe that the Democrat's bills, as currently written, will lower the deficit, insure more people, and allow you to keep your current plan if you wish?

You aren't concerned about having a dishonest president?

Exactly, Lou.

I didn't like it any better when Shrub said it, either.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

Obama was a law student at the time.  How is that relevant to anything?

I'll concur that it's not.  I've been footnoted as a research assistant for two or three books.  I didn't write a word of them and didn't really contribute any original ideas either - mostly just corrected footnotes and that sort of thing.  It's hardly meaningful at all.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

It's not relevant to anything: Tribe is a liberal.

The first half of it was definitely in the speech at the portion where he talked about the recent SCOTUS decision, but I couldn't find the 2nd part.

Never compromise.

You're not implying that Gerry made that up, are you?

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

OK then. The quotes threw me off for a bit. The first part is bad enough but had the second part been true I probably would have a blood pressure of 200bp.

It was entirely possible that I missed it as I turned the speech off after the first 45 minutes. The combination of demanding fiscal conservatism after spending the first 20 minutes talking about increased spending plans coupled with Nancy Pelosi's retarded seal-like antics (best description evar!) made it unfun to watch.

Never compromise.

Obama did not say contributions.  I think he parsed his words rather carefully.

As to why he brought it up, it's been a huge issue in public discussions in the last week.  It's timely, and an issue.  He could, and possibly for politic reasons should, have skipped the first half of his first sentence.  But the call for reform and the danger of elections controlled by corporate entities is real and is an issue of note.

I do not believe that Kennedy is either so small minded or so easily influenced that pique at the President will make him change any of his views.  Maybe you disagree.

Obama did not say contributions.  I think he parsed his words rather carefully.

Obama said: "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." The operative phrase is bankrolled elections. If he parsed his words carefully, it was with a deliberate attempt to mislead the public about the nature of the decision.

I do not believe that Kennedy is either so small minded or so easily influenced that pique at the President will make him change any of his views.  Maybe you disagree.

I don't. I think Kennedy is a professional. But it's not an either/or case of principles vs. spite. There's not a secret pre-ruling to every potential case in Kennedy's head which he then pulls out during decisions, or chooses to disregard. It's his (and the other eight justices) job to weigh conflicting factors, then decide. Obama went out of his way to put Kennedy in a position where subtle shading of dislike might now be a factor where it wasn't before. For that reason alone, it was stupid.

And if we're wrong? Then it's really stupid. There is no recourse whatsoever short of murder that Obama can take if Kennedy decides to fuck him for the remainder of this term.

Actually Microsoft is a perfect example of what Milo is talking about.  They almost always have an incremental approach to software development.  They maintain backwards compatibility (sometimes to a fault) and even when they revamp major components, there's always a base of the old left around.

Despite your clueless claims about Vista, this is an extremely successful approach to software development.  The annals of software history are littered with the corpses of companies that attempted a 'from scratch' re-write of their software.  On the other hand MS has profited handsomely by acquiring code from others and then incrementally advancing it.

There is a rather significant counter example however - the move from Mac OS to OS X on the Mac.  Note that it wasn't a totally clean break.  They created Mac OS like programming APIs to ease converting software from the old platform to the new.  Those APIs are still around and used extensively today.  Had they not done this, OS X would have been a complete and utter failure.

There is a rather significant counter example however - the move from Mac OS to OS X on the Mac.

I disagree. OS X is the rule that proves the rule, not the exception. There's no question that Apple did some remarkable graphical interface development, but the core of OS X is Linux, with a parentage running almost a decade longer than MS DOS.

...the core of OS X is Linux...

FreeBSD, not Linux.

Whoops. Yeah, you're right. The larger point remains.

If management is smart, they will insist on incremental changes (in most cases). But I think you missed the point of what I was saying. Adding features to ugly code will, usually, make the code uglier. The "refactoring" part is the important part (and the part you glossed over). Making incremental improvements to right (or improve) the architecture is an important first part in the process.

Let's take your Windows Vista example. The problem with Vista is that they took a (likely) hairy codebase and slapped on a bunch of fancy features. And they did a crappy job. They realized their mistake. Windows 7 was more of a stability enhanced version of Windows. What they likely did was a lot of "refactoring" under the covers to improve things. (Though I don't know, I don't work there). In any case, anyone can make a crappy product even if they do incremental changes or refactoring.

But you seem to think Vista would have been better off if they had thrown out all the Windows XP code and started from scratch. In that case what likely would have happened is: Vista would have been 10 years late (and been canceled long before completed) and if it somehow did ship, all your old Windows software wouldn't work. Yeah, you might have cleaner code (though maybe not, it's a complex system) but you probably would have killed Windows in the process.

-milo-

In that case what likely would have happened is: Vista would have been 10 years late (and been canceled long before completed) and if it somehow did ship, all your old Windows software wouldn't work.

This is truer than you think. This iteration of the Windows core started life as Windows NT (for "New Technology"). Microsoft went through three internal versions before having one workable enough to release -- and it took another five years and two relaunches before widespread adoption as XP.

Vista failed because the refactoring of the security model was completely unworkable to the end user. Windows 7 is succeeding because it successfully modified Vista's failures, based on three years of "field testing".

We can now add "computer software" to the long list of things you are deeply ignorant about.

My two cents: I work for a multimedia company, and for 4 years we've been running with a template designed to handle synchronized video and animation in a Flash swf.

Due to some "prophetic" (read: moronic) executive decisions, the template was built using a Flash first-gen slide-template (the next version of Flash updated this and accounted for some of the functionality we built from scratch but in a non-slide format) and for what we needed it to do... it was OK.

4 years later, the same code base is still powering several of our templates, while 3/4 of the codebase (literally) is wired to support unused features no sensible person wants or needs. We've removed what we could, but there's a wealth of fundamental code and platform issues that prevent very simple tasks from being performed in the template - things that customers actually want and are perplexed when we tell them it's not possible.

Moral of the story: A ground-up re-coding is necessary, sometimes. Sometimes it's not. This software analogy is not as simple as anyone wants it to be. Whether the systems Obama wants to change need incremental or fundamental changes is up for debate, but this idea of software ALWAYS requiring incremental changes is a joke. It depends on the situation, which should be obvious.

Whether the systems Obama wants to change need incremental or fundamental changes is up for debate...

Indeed. Check out the latest news about the federal deficit: things need changing, but in precisely the opposite direction where Obama is pointed at the moment.

Microsoft reports $6.66b Q1 net profit, Windows 7 'fastest selling OS in history'.  Windows 7 - whassat?  Total rewrite?  Or an incremental improvement of that big hairy mess.

And incremental improvement on a big hairy mess.  Actually, a noticeable improvement from the total pile of garbage that was Windows Vista, but still mostly shitty.  At least the took out some of the "features" they were planning for, so it actually doesn't crash nearly as often as Vista did.  Then again, I knew few places that updated from XP to Vista.  So by skipping a generation (Vista was mostly a loss) they can now claim that Windows7 is a winner because people want to upgrade from an OS that was first released in 2001.  Tell me again how this proves Microsoft knows what it is doing.

Ah, I see you drink strongly of the anti-MS kool-aid.  Surprised we didn't see you going on about how all the DRM slows things down.  Vista doesn't crash frequently, not any more frequently than XP - and in my personal experience less frequently.  Though I can count on one hand the number of times my XP/Vista machines have outright crashed in the last 10 years - so it's an admittedly small sample size.

In your personal experience, what about Windows 7 do you feel is shitty?  What was shittier in Windows Vista?

"So by skipping a generation (Vista was mostly a loss) they can now claim that Windows7 is a winner because people want to upgrade from an OS that was first released in 2001. "

#1 - you are basically admitting how damned successful XP was here.  XP was the result of incremental improvements on the NT 4 code base.  It's basically NT 4 with a new user interface.  #2 - The major reason Vista was so late was that MS tried to do too much.  If anything the tale of Vista proves the point that you should never attempt such a major overhaul.  If they'd not cut bait and dropped all those 'missing features' we'd probably still be waiting.  MS has basically admitted that it tried to do too much between releases, and has committed to a faster release cycle with more incremental change - the result?  Windows 7.

I use XP at work, downgraded from Vista.  When I was running Word, Outlook, and Visio on my Vista system I was crashing about once a day, assuming I wasn't using any macros (with macros I was crashing about every hour).  Sinc neither Outlook nor Visio are particularly good at saving state, and a reboot takes 5 minutes, this was a real problem.  With XP I have to reboot about every 2 days, or my system slows down to a crawl.  Maybe I've drunk of the anti-MS koolaid, but my dislike of Windows has more to do with experience than with unsupported biases.  I spend a lot of my time using MS products (Word, Excel, Visio, Outlook are all MS products).  The counter-intuitive UI and crap stability pretty much are the reason I hate MS.

The problem with the incremental upgrades of Windows is that it now takes half my drive space just to install the damn thing.  It runs enough background processes that I have to upgrade my computer every time I upgrade the OS or it will stop working.  The only upside is that Intel and AMD processor improvements have kept up with the Windows bloat well enough that my computer still runs.

I use XP at work, downgraded from Vista.  When I was running Word, Outlook, and Visio on my Vista system I was crashing about once a day, assuming I wasn't using any macros (with macros I was crashing about every hour).  Sinc neither Outlook nor Visio are particularly good at saving state, and a reboot takes 5 minutes, this was a real problem.

That sounds more like a problem with your macros or something being misconfigured (or perhaps a virus).  My experiences with Vista (and now 7) have been that they're quite stable (although I didn't start using Vista until after SP2 came out).  Vista was definitely a lot slower than XP, but seemed comparable from a stability standpoint.  Windows 7 is much faster than Vista, particularly when it comes to boot-time (although a bit slower than XP), and its stability has been pretty solid as well.  For my desktop I still prefer Linux (mainly because Gnome supports virtual desktops out of the box - I know there are Windows add-ons that give similar functionality, but they often aren't very well integrated), but I've come to mostly use Windows 7 on my laptop (since I do less multitasking on it), and I use XP on my media center PC (mostly because Windows based software offers the best support for running HD video on old hardware).  It's just a matter of using the right tool for the right job.  Windows has its ups and downs, but so does every OS, and a lot of them (particularly the vulnerability to viruses) come more from its position as the dominant OS than any inherent flaws.  My guess is that if you had a similar setup on a Mac or Linux (with equally buggy macros, or whatever the problem is), you'd be crashing just as often.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Christ, Windows 3.1 didn't crash that frequently, and I've never experienced anything like your crash frequency with XP/Vista over almost a dozen machines at home and with various employers.

Windows 7 takes about about 10GB on a fresh install.  If that's half your drive space, you've got some issues.  One of the design targets of Win7 was to decrease the number of running services, as there were a large number of them launched and just waiting for rare events.  These now launch only when needed.

Sometimes when people describe unbelievably crazy things happening to them it's because they happen to have been unlucky. Sometimes it means they're mentally deranged.

Did you run the same set of concurrent apps I do?  Because I'm pretty sure the problem is a DLL in Visio is not particularly compatible with a DLL that runs in the background on Outlook, and triggers on some previews.  Not that I've managed to fix the problem.

Well, a visio dll crashing windows is not impossible, but it is unlikely.  I'd guess that it's a problem with your hardware.

She's pretty sure it's a dll.

Fastest Selling OS in History

:::translation:::

Quick get that Vista crap off of our systems. (If only we didn't get rid of our xp disks!)

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

I would like working with you so much more than most of the monkeys I work with now ;)

Keep the faith...

-milo-