We are the largest, most prosperous states. We have the bulk of the country's population. Every year we get bleed more and every year we accept that the Southern and rural states have "super voter" status that give them a functional veto over everything and forces us to accept that they are the "real Americans" and their values are the authentic ones.

One way or another, that's got to change. A good start would be for Democratic senators and representatives to refuse to vote for budget appropriations if red states receive more from the federal government than the pay in taxes and also to demand that federal and military institutions should not be located in the South. That would be a good start.

I'm sure that the Republican congress, which is terrified of its white nationalist fascist base, will not be appointing a special prosecutor to do anything except prosecute Hillary or Obama.

Equally, it would take an awfully brave person to oppose Trump, at this point. Remember that during the campaign, he unleashed his troll army on quite a few people and turned their lives into living nightmares. Even Fox News had to cajole Donald into turning down the heat by point out that if would look bad if he instigated the murder of Megyn Kelly.

It may not have fully sunk in yet but the fact that someone as rich, famous and supposedly well connected/beloved by conservatives basically had to go to Trump Tower and beg for her life is a real game changer. I think Trump's studied Gamergate and also how well Putin has done for himself by arranging for his political enemies to meet horrific deaths so I also think that he had a pretty clear idea of what he was saying when he threatened to unleash his "beautiful Twitter account" on Megyn Kelly.

This is the future of politics in America:
http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/11/23/megy...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/business/media/...

I think that, realistically, Donald Trump's debts are now backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Whether he uses the power of the federal government to bludgeon his creditors into forgiving or at least rescheduling his debts on immensely favorable terms or he finagles the money to pay them out of the treasury, two things seem very clear. One is that, by hook or by crook, the Donald's debts will be paid or taken care of in some way by the US government.

The second is that while Donald Trump probably wasn't really a billionaire, I think it is very safe to assume that he will leave office as one of the richest men in the world.

Also, the one thing that I would add to Katja's response above, is that as far as Donald Trump is concerned an attack on him is an attack on the United States and would be responded to with everything at the president's disposal. L’état, c’est Donald!

Mark,

While we're on the subject, I'm really kind of curious about the object of this post. I can't imagine why anyone commencing a serious effort to persuade Bernie's supporters would begin by calling them "overgrown children" and making sneering reference to "moral purity". If this wasn't a flaunting of your own moral purity, perhaps it might be better not to insult your prospective recruits in future efforts.

My point is that the needs and interests of society as a whole should be paramount. Obviously, I agree that the kinds of external costs you are discussing should generally be priced into products and activities, rather than be foisted off upon the public. Sometimes this can be done by a tax but sometimes an activity should be regulated or proscribed regardless of its profitability.

What I objected to was the idea that people would have a license to engaged in harmful activity, so long as they were prepared to bear the external costs. An example would be Ford deciding to sell Pintos even after learning that the fuel tanks were defective. Ford's bean counters correctly calculated that it would be more profitable to allow people to be killed or horribly maimed and then deal with the external costs, than to recall the defective cars. My calculus of values says that knowingly selling defective products is unacceptable even if doing so would be profitable even after paying the external costs.

It's a minor quibble but one that needs to be addressed.

I think you have it backwards. We should primarily regulate to prohibit socially undesirable or destructive activities regardless of whether there is a profit remaining after pricing in the involuntary costs that have been inflicted on other people. Not everything important to a society can be reduced to its economic value.

I think the headline needs some revision. The Air Force apparently did see not the error of its way and do the right thing. It was ordered to change by the Dept of Defense's lawyers and it seems to have grudgingly relented.

The Air Force has been infiltrated and taken over by radical Christianists loyal to the Republican Party. If we can't figure out a way to reverse this process, we are headed down the same path as Pakistan.

In all fairness to HRH, I don't think Crown privilege is being claimed by any of these government organizations to avoid accountability for civil liberties violations. I believe the British are now following the American example by making blanket claims of "national security".

Also, I have seen a number of others making this argument, too. I would like you or somebody who is saying this to explain why the "constitutional housecleaning" you envision would lead to any better outcome from the perspective of civil liberties. I think the changes you foresee would lead to an even more Americanized government structure with significantly less oversight than exists today. It seems to me that the problem isn't the constitutional structure but rather the increasingly Americanized belief that claims of "national security" are not reviewable and trump all other concerns.

I would also note that for all the shots people take at the House of Lords, they have consistently been more liberal and shown greater regard for individual rights than has the Commons, which has raced to rubber-stamp every proposal by the government to restrict civil rights. Surprisingly, the movement to restrict people's rights and expand the national surveillance state has come from the three main political parties and not from hereditary peers. The current bunch of Thatcheriate clowns who are running the "Labour Party" have, not surprisingly, been leading the pack to show have conservative they can be in all things.

Nobody seems to know what the queen's role, if any, will be. Sometimes the SNP says Scotland will keep the status quo queen, sometime the queen will be a vestige like in Australia or Canada, sometimes Scotland will be a republic. Why not toss a Stuart restoration into the mix?

Apparently, the question of Scotland's form of government has been put in the big pile of stuff, great and small, to be worked out starting on Friday (currency, who gets oil revenues, whether the UK gets repaid for development costs, Scotland's share of the national debt,membership in NATO, membership in EU, status of Scottish people in the rump UK, open borders or not, viability of a Scottish NHS,etc).

I agree. Not only would I favor banning heading the ball but it seems to me that the game has become too physical. I remember a time when football wasn't a contact sport.