A Bridge Over Troubled Waters

More Political Nonsense

Let me explain another thing:

We are the "United ... States ... of America."  An ongoing philosophical debate is "States' Rights" versus "Federal Rights."

Philosophically speaking, I'm staunchly in favor of both: strong State governments — AND — a strong Federal government.

That stated, the Federal government does — not — need to micromanage ... EVERYTHING!!!

1)   We already have state IDs and "mandatory?" social security numbers.  Then there are passports.

Do we really NEED federal, picture IDs?

So that we can travel -—within — the United States?  Like we've been doing for over 200 years?

2)  Do we NEED The War Powers Act?  Is the US Constitution truly insufficient in stating such matters?

3)  Or The Patriot Act?  Which, by the way, is a civil rights abomination:

•  calling it as I see it.

No disrespect, but "Nine-Eleven" is no longer a super recent event.  Is it not prudent that we carefully review every response, law, and protocol that we hurriedly put into effect?

We can do better.  We can be both honorable and staunch, respectful and vigilant.  We are Americans.  Let's act like that actually MEANS — something!! — more than ONLY our flag and our national real-estate.

As for "Homeland Security" being "necessary" to coordinate interagency, national security protocols:

A)  Tell the top, 20 to 30 people in each applicable agency that they have 30 days to figure out, and then carry out, protocols for swift and efficient interagency cooperation...

OR THEY'RE FIRED FROM GOVERNMENT SERVICE ... LIKELY PERMANENTLY.

B)  If they fail, fire them ... irrespective of any labor union objections.

C)  After 2 weeks, tell the next, 50 to 70 applicable "top people" the same thing.

D)  Repeat as often as is necessary.  (Voila: instant interagency cooperation:  Just.  Add.  Water.  Before nuking it in a microwave oven.)  Dinner.  Is.  Served.

Hence, do we really NEED another huge bureaucracy to do what the previous, multiple bureaucracies were created to do?

2)  Does the Federal government NEED to be concerned about marijuana to the degree that it is?

•  This is — neither — an endorsement nor a condemnation of marijuana.

Since it is "legal" now in several states, is it then "necessary" for the Federal government to criminalize it ... as a general policy?

Now, when it comes to special, federal jobs (military, FBI special agents, etc.), the Federal government should weigh in.  Likewise for interstate marijuana policies, ... especially ... between states that have different drug laws.

PLUS:

Marijuana entering and/or exiting US national borders.

•  This is the Federal government doing its constitutional duty — without micromanaging it.

"Strong Federal.  Strong States.  Both avoiding micromanaging things."  Macbeth Raymondovich

How many other situations, topics, procedures, etc., could this philosophy both simplify and streamline?

~•~

Um.  Anybody know who said, "Shout softly, but carry a big enchilada?"

¿Anybody, por favor?

~•~

Excuse me whilst I go set up my medications, including my antipsychotic medication.

[Um...  You do understand that I am a professional crazy person, don't you?]

Oh.  By the way: relax.  We...

Meaning "The American Public":

Would NEVER elect a lunatic for public office...  And certainly never as President...  No...  Not us...

We insist that our politicians are sane, logical, kind, generous, intelligent, well mannered...

***

Wait.

I just described the perfect poodle.

Never mind.

😛

***

"Macbeth?  You really are a horrible person, aren't you?"

You have no idea.  You haven't a clue.  😶