Really, you don't think that is reaching pretty far? I hardly think an Alzheimer patient can be trusted to properly medicate himself, whether it is once a day or 2-3 times a day. Big deal. Either way, he needs a care giver, the absence of which is simple neglect. The difference in resources between taking 10 seconds once a day, or 2-3 times a day to medicate the patient is very slight.

I freely admit to being absolutely mystified how the social compact of a supposedly enlightened civilization does not include basic nutrition, shelter, schooling and health care for all without direct charge. I am serious. I don't get it. With regard to the topic, this should include medical research including development of drugs, absent repulsive features such as some getting rich off the misfortunes of others.

If you don't think society, with today's robotics, can afford to provide basic nutrition, shelter, schooling and health care for all without crass commercialism and people falling through the cracks, IMO you are an idiot; an ass. I say this as a believer in TRUE free enterprise (not necessarily corporatism with all the sickening corruption that goes with it). I just think these three necessities trump everything else, and a society is not worth having if it spurns providing them.

Please note, when I say basic, I mean basic. The nutrition would be in the form of cost free provision of healthy but plain foods PICKED FOR the user and SERVED TO him. Shelter would be in the form of shared communal or semi-communal barracks. The health care would be limited to necessities for health. There would be no limit for what is truly needed, including dental and vision, but no pampering. If you want contact lenses instead of glasses, cosmetic surgery, sex change BULLSHIT, go ahead and pay for that shit yourself, but fuck you if you expect the pampering. If you want TV, cell phone, car and other pure luxuries, you pay. For free you would get lending libraries and communal computers.

If you raise specific objections, for example the living spaces would not be respected because they are free, and people would let them become decrepit, there are ways to deal with this. I won't belabor the details here; I think it is fairly obvious given any serious thought given to the matter.

You can be goddam sure there would still be a sizable worth ethic for those who desire more than the basics. Probably as much as, or more than, there is in the USA today. As it is, with provision of raw money to the "needy", some get to enjoy luxuries without working for them, while others fall through the cracks completely.

I don't really think this makes me a "communist". "From each according to his ability" is pretty obsolete given the state of robotics today. And if you want o cede "to each according to his needs" to the communists, tell me why. I certainly don't see why the rest of us should cede the high moral ground.

Language and clear thought matter. If you don't think clearly, you end up with tripe like "oh, well they MADE me betray my ethics and principles, I didn't WANT to".

Neither the Attorney General nor anyone else, nor any agency, can "force" anyone to reveal anything. All they can do is coerce and demand in an ATTEMPT to get him to reveal something, and failing that, punish him for not revealing it. Yes, the coercion can be very powerful, but no one can train a magic ray on you and make your lips and larynx form words you don't want to form.

First, we're talking about the Senate, not the House. Second, after a voice vote, one member can "request" what is called a "division of the assembly", in which members rise in turn by aye or nay to be counted - but NOT named. It takes 20% of the members to demand a true recorded vote. Good luck with the first, and particularly the last, before the consideration is gaveled closed.

And you didn't pay very close attention to what I said. The Constitution does not specify what the procedural rules are. It doesn't talk about a voice vote. At most it spells out that rules can be made by the houses of Congress to govern themselves, without any specificity or bounds. The President of the Senate is not normally such a fine figure as Harry Carey was in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. What if these boobs get together and change the rules in such a way that nobody can challenge a voice vote? What recourse is there then? What if Rule 22 (Cloture) is changed to require 80 votes (or 51 votes) instead of 60? What if the rule permitting the interruption of the floor to call for a cloture vote were removed? Keep in mind that the Constitution set up the Senators to be elected by their respective state legislatures, not by popular vote. The House of Representatives was already the body which represented the people directly. Why have two such bodies? Morons made the change via the 17th Amendment. That opened the door to making the Senate a body of lowly politically-motivated self-serving assholes.

My current vehicle is now 15 years old and I have never been happier. Not just for being loan free for 10 years, but because not long after 1999 all cars became shittier in various ways, notably mechanically. Engine design is now so compromised by the ridiculously stringent emissions fetish that all other attributes are down the toilet: notably cost, longevity, and maintenance.

Parent's is a very thoughtful post. I'll just add some figures. The following represents regulations for NOX emissions by new cars in grams per mile.
1975: 3.1
1977: 2.0
1981: 1.0
1994: 0.6
1999: 0.3
2004-2009: 0.07

What I can't find is, what were typical emissions prior to the EPA - i.e., prior to 1970. Clearly the 1975 figure of 3.1 already represents a reduction; likely a significant one.

Essentially all of the pickup was in place by 1999. Everything since then has been an exhibition of EPA masturbation. It's become nothing but a fetish. This is nationally; the extra stringent California regulations are just ludicrous. It's beyond masturbation.

Nobody is going to feel sorry for you because you choose to live in a STUPID location and then complain that the location is excessively prone to trapping/concentrating pollution.

Yeah, plenty can see better than 20/20, but a whole lot can't even see 20/20 with correction. I would guess maybe 1/3 the population is significantly below 20/20.

Ban the fucking voice vote, goddammit. It's only a rule of the Senate that allows it. The term does not occur in the Constitution.

Slam dunk.

It's an interesting fantasy, and it would make a superb story. But note that the Chief Executive controls the FBI and the prisons.

OTOH, while a President who is a participant in an evil government gone rogue, as all for at least the last 100 years have been, makes a fearsome tyrant, at the same time a truly patriotic and true President who has a powerful enough strength of character and persuasive/organizational powers to keep just 1/3 of the Senate from impeaching him, could be the only credible source of salvation.

The Declaration of Independence is an apologia in the true and noble sense of the word, but it does not convey any legal framework. The Constitution does that. So yes, the people are the source of power and the recourse when the government has gone rogue, but note well that they then act extra-Constitutionally and absent any legal foundation - just as the agents of the Revolution did. And they are subject to perfectly legal prosecution for treason - just as the agents of the Revolution were. It takes a hell of a lot of guts and determination.

But he controls NSA. He tells them what to do and what not to do. Hell, a President (Truman) created NSA without any say-so from Congress. That's why they call him the Chief Executive. Congress could arguably ban the NSA completely, but in the absence of something it will never do, its participation in setting up the NSA was never required, and its participation in the NSA's continuing existence is not required now.

As for the Supreme Court, how many legions of law enforcement and, in the ultimate rubber-meets-the-road, military do they control? I'll tell you. Zero. The Executive Branch holds that control. The difference between the Republic set up by the Constitution and a totalitarian state is not that great. All the Constitution did to mitigate the President's absolute power is to set up the toy rattle of impeachment, knowing goddam well nobody would ever have the guts to use it.

So he can just tell the NSA they SHALL NOT invade privacy without warrants and they have to comply. But we all know none of the puppets of at least the last hundred years would have ever done that, and most goddam certainly not Bush or Obama or whoever the successor puppet is chosen to be by our masters.

And before I get lectured, yes, I realize full well nobody in Washington DC has the real power. They are all just puppets. And the public is a bunch of brainwashed zombies. I have merely described the formal legalities.

Not by vocation, but it was pretty easy to learn enough to get by just fine. As it happens I did "get something usable" running in not much time at all.

Where do you even find a CPU that old? Get a real CPU. Not like the cost has to be anything more than trivial.