Is Bannon right about this one thing?

[xxlt]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/06/lenin-white-house-steve-bannon

Bannon was quoted as saying he wants to bring everything crashing down and destroy the establishment.

Now, that may sound a bit like Charlie Manson's Helter Skelter fantasy... and who knows what Bannon envisions after the crash (but I imagine the fantasy is similar to Charlie's...)

But, the what happens in the aftermath not withstanding, serious question. With the current state of "dysfunction" so many have remarked on in our national government do you support bringing it crashing down? Marvin Lewis called it "blowing the whole thing up" in coach speak a few years ago, and Pat Riley called the same thing "core cracking" in one of his books. Sometimes in sports you just have to start over and build a new team and system from scratch. Does the same thing happen to governments? Has the US painted itself into a corner it can't get out of? Does it need to be trashed and rebuilt?

[Belsnickel]

As someone that has expressed my desire for a new constitution, I hate to say that I agree with him on the broad idea. We have the oldest written constitution still in use, today. I get that we have pride in this but this document was written when global trade took months, not seconds. It was written when 6-8 shots in a minute was the fastest you were going to to see someone pull of, when news took hours, days, or even weeks to reach the common person. The industrial revolution hadn't happened and we had an agrarian society. All of these have changed our society in ways the framers of our government could not have dreamed.

My point is, why do we debate the original intent of laws written by politicians that had no concept of the world we live in today to apply them to the world today? It just seems to me like a new constitution would better serve the people, and with it we need to set up a more representative government. I think a parliamentary system would be better, but there is also just the number of representatives as well.

There are 630 members of the Bundestag in Germany. Almost 200 more representatives in their lower house than we have. A country that has 3% of our land mass, about 25% of our population, and 18% of our nominal GDP has a representative body that is 144% the size of what we have. When I see things like this, not just in Germany, it makes me feel like we are grossly underrepresented in our federal government. This isn't even getting into how we hold elections, which is a whole other story.

Anyway, I feel like we hold onto the system we have and glorify it because our history isn't centuries old as it is in Europe. Jefferson said that a constitution naturally expires at the end of 19 years, so why are we holding onto a 228 year old constitution with such fervor?

[Yojimbo]

Either blow it up or make two changes to the Constitution to end the current establishment system.
1) Money does not equal free speech
2) Corporations are not granted the same rights as citizens.

Our current status quo is not a democracy/constitutional republic. Two Supreme Court rulings, Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC, changed us into an oligarchy.

[Benton]

The problem is there isn't a clear path forward after. There's not a majority consensus on a plan, just one minority on one side, one on the other and a majority in the middle running back and forth with each rock of the sinking ship.

[Belsnickel]

(02-22-2017, 06:20 PM)Benton Wrote: The problem is there isn't a clear path forward after. There's not a majority consensus on a plan, just one minority on one side, one on the other and a majority in the middle running back and forth with each rock of the sinking ship.

Well, maybe this is the time to do it. Hopefully not in as violent a manner as before. I have heard constitutional scholars say that the reconstruction amendments essentially created a new constitution as it made the states also liable to uphold the rights and liberties of the people. We are as divided now as we were leading up to that. I don't want it to be a war fought over the idea, but maybe division is a good time to look at these sorts of things? Hard to say, really.

[Rotobeast]

I'm for the idea (somewhat), but not in a "blow it up" manner.

However, if we did..... so much for "our" debt.

Anyway, I have been thinking about this.
I was kind of prompted by this....

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/society-is-too-complicated-to-have-a-president-complex-mathematics-suggest

[hollodero]

Are you people rooting for the Joker?

Steve Bannon Wrote:Darkness is good. Dick Cheney, Darth Vader, Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing.

...but honestly, I don't even know how to seriously start on this one. Which might mean I don't get it. Your society did ok, what's up with that talk? Greatest economical, militaristic and cultural power, creation of great wealth (maybe the distribution is a bit of a problem) while letting half the world produce for you. Why there's a necessity to let everything descent to chaos, I wouldn't know. It's not like these things just stay on hold until you've figured it out. It's not like you're Lenin's desperate war-struck Czar-ran Russia. It's not like what followed after Lenin looks too compelling. It's not like... ah Jeez I don't even know what's up here. Are you going insane?

If you dissolve into chaos, certain evil extremists sure would feel like they won, though. And who knows who would take over the world while you're gone. So please don't leave us. We even buy Ivanka's boring dresses if we must. I don't want to learn Chinese. Please don't go...

The "dysfunction", by all means, came along with Trump. Sure, major things are seriously flawed - like parts of your constitution. Yeah Belsnickel is right on that one. I see the urgent, urgent, urgent necessity to fundamentally change the voting system and the structure of government (for starters), but that can be done evolutionary. Political movement. I don't know. I don't have kids, I heard if you have those you don't want to leave them a dystopian world. Again, are you going insane?

Splitting into a coastal and a bible-belty country would even make more sense than Bannon-style mayhem.

[Rotobeast]

(02-23-2017, 01:15 AM)hollodero Wrote: I see the urgent, urgent, urgent necessity to fundamentally change the voting system and the structure of government (for starters), but that can be done evolutionary. Political movement. I don't know. I don't have kids, I heard if you have those you don't want to leave them a dystopian world.

This.... work, shape, evolve.

I'm definitely trying and it IS for my daughter.
I only hope it holds together, until we can get people somewhat unified and on the right track.

[*michaelsean*]

6-8 shots a minute? Not on their best day.

[Belsnickel]

(02-23-2017, 09:41 AM)michaelsean Wrote: 6-8 shots a minute? Not on their best day.

one every eight to ten seconds? Doable, not accurately, but doable.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2017, 10:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: one every eight to ten seconds? Doable, not accurately, but doable.

   The British were by far the best and they did 3 with the best doing 4.  I guess you could say 5 if you started the clock at the 1st shot, but that would only work the 1st minute.

[Belsnickel]

(02-23-2017, 10:48 AM)michaelsean Wrote:    The British were by far the best and they did 3 with the best doing 4.  I guess you could say 5 if you started the clock at the 1st shot, but that would only work the 1st minute.

That's ordered firing in ranks. A bit different when it's just firing at will.

Regardless of all of this, even if it is 3-5, that makes my point even more.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2017, 10:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's ordered firing in ranks. A bit different when it's just firing at will.

Regardless of all of this, even if it is 3-5, that makes my point even more.

I know it does.  Anyway Zona will be along soon to give us the real scoop on 18th century firing capability.

[*wildcats forever*]

(02-22-2017, 06:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, maybe this is the time to do it. Hopefully not in as violent a manner as before. I have heard constitutional scholars say that the reconstruction amendments essentially created a new constitution as it made the states also liable to uphold the rights and liberties of the people. We are as divided now as we were leading up to that. I don't want it to be a war fought over the idea, but maybe division is a good time to look at these sorts of things? Hard to say, really.

I believe it is time to start thinking about how to do it at least. Trump very well may be the culmination of all that's wrong with our system, as he does seem to exhibit major traits that show us how not to be. One (of many) question is who do we entrust to make such major changes? Certainly not those who perpetuate the problems we have now. It seems this intervention needs to be led by outsiders who have no vested interest beyond the betterment for all. Such an effort requires flawless organization and complete transparency.

[*michaelsean*]

I'm good with the current constitution. Yeah we ***** and moan, but I think we are doing quite well in the grand scheme of things. I think a special group of people, flaws and all, came together to make this Constitution, and I don't think we have anyone close to that caliber around these days.

[Belsnickel]

(02-23-2017, 11:38 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm good with the current constitution. Yeah we ***** and moan, but I think we are doing quite well in the grand scheme of things. I think a special group of people, flaws and all, came together to make this Constitution, and I don't think we have anyone close to that caliber around these days.

I think we do. I've heard/seen outstanding work on constitutional law and political science that would be on par with what we saw in the beginning. The problem that I see is that the people in politics these days are less willing to compromise and have too much loyalty to their party. We have the minds available to us, we just need them to have an open, logical, honest discussion.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2017, 11:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think we do. I've heard/seen outstanding work on constitutional law and political science that would be on par with what we saw in the beginning. The problem that I see is that the people in politics these days are less willing to compromise and have too much loyalty to their party. We have the minds available to us, we just need them to have an open, logical, honest discussion.

The people who framed the constitution were also in large part leaders at the time.  You need the minds and the leadership.  

And to be quite honest, I'm not sure I'd like what a new Constitution has to say.   I think it would be far more limiting in speech people don't like to hear.  The 2nd amendment would be toast.  I think we'd get freedom from religion.  

[hollodero]

(02-23-2017, 11:20 AM)wildcats forever Wrote: One (of many) question is who do we entrust to make such major changes? Certainly not those who perpetuate the problems we have now. It seems this intervention needs to be led by outsiders who have no vested interest beyond the betterment for all. Such an effort requires flawless organization and complete transparency.

I would be free.

[Belsnickel]

(02-23-2017, 11:55 AM)michaelsean Wrote: And to be quite honest, I'm not sure I'd like what a new Constitution has to say.   I think it would be far more limiting in speech people don't like to hear.  The 2nd amendment would be toast.  I think we'd get freedom from religion.  

I don't think you're right on the speech front. I think it would end the idea that money equals speech and I think it would take away the idea that corporations are people as far as rights, but speech would still be free. The second wouldn't be toast, it could never be. It may specify limitations, but the right to bear arms will never be removed entirely. I think SOCAS would be codified, but that's not the same as freedom from religion and I don't think freedom from religion would happen. Over 50% of Americans still believe that being Christian is a big part of the American identity.

[Bengalzona]

(02-23-2017, 09:41 AM)michaelsean Wrote: 6-8 shots a minute?  Not on their best day.

(02-23-2017, 10:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: one every eight to ten seconds? Doable, not accurately, but doable.

(02-23-2017, 10:48 AM)michaelsean Wrote:    The British were by far the best and they did 3 with the best doing 4.  I guess you could say 5 if you started the clock at the 1st shot, but that would only work the 1st minute.

(02-23-2017, 10:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's ordered firing in ranks. A bit different when it's just firing at will.

Regardless of all of this, even if it is 3-5, that makes my point even more.

(02-23-2017, 11:12 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I know it does.  Anyway Zona will be along soon to give us the real scoop on 18th century firing capability.

About 4 shots per minute would be sustainable.





As you can see from the video, you had to do a lot to prep those things to fire. Particularly pulling out the ramrod, ramming the charge and ball round into the chamber, and then replacing the ramrod to its place. Perhaps someone could shave a handful of seconds off of each shot time by just having the ramrod out already. That might get you to 5 shots per minute. But that wasn't prescribed by the manual of arms at the time as it was thought (rightfully so) that more troops would damage or lose the ramrods over time, especially if the troops had to advance or retreat (which they usually did at some point).

But increasing the individual rate of fire wasn't the name of the game at the time. It was more important to produce a volley, or wall of fire, due to the inaccuracy of the weapons. Rate of fire was was increased by having multiple ranks alternate between firing and reloading. This was a system the West had already been using for hundreds of years before with crossbowmen, and it was effective.

BTW - If you've ever gone to see an orchestra concert, you may notice that there are like 40 violin players but only a handful of each wind instrument. That is because stringed instruments like violins, acoustic guitars, etc. generally only play at one volume level. Therefore, if you want the to play something louder, you increase the number of violins playing that line. And vice versa if you want them to play something softer.