Thoughts from the Universal Geek

First things first: despite our differences, I think that the vast majority of Americans recognize that we’re far stronger and better off together than apart, either as individual states or as groups. Second, as Colin Woodward points out in his brilliant American Nations, even individual states show vast differences culturally within themselves. He suggests the following map as a more accurate breakdown of the various “nations” that make up the United States:   Please bear in mind that all of the below descriptions are a brutal oversimplification of Woodard's masterful work, which also includes nations that include "territory" in Canada & Mexico. Read the book! Yankeedom: This nation began with the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts. Overall, they are more in favor of strong central government and governmental intervention to make the world a "better place" - in their image, naturally. They tend to value education and communal decision making. Deep South : At...

Short answer: 100% Long answer: Strap in, a bit of a deep dive coming up. This is, as always, a bit of an oversimplification of a complicated concept. But, here goes First things first, let’s get one thing out of the way: the “debt ceiling” is not about restricting spending. It’s about paying debts that we already owe. The entire idea of the debt ceiling is fairly absurd, as it’s effectively saying that, while the Congress + President may well agree to spend $X amount, putting ourselves into $X of debt, we’ll stop paying after an arbitrary point. It’s like saying that your family will keep spending on the credit card, but refuse to pay anything beyond $10,000 (or some equally arbitrary point). US debt, in the form of T-bills and bonds, is historically seen as literally the safest investment in the world for the simple fact that the US pays its bills. A T-bill or a bond is, in effect, the US issuing a promise that, in return for $X now, we’ll eventually pay the buyer $X+interest. And, u...

Short answer: “Separate but equal” was the law from 1896–1954. Long answer: Separate but “equal” was the law of the land from Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) through Brown v. Board of Education (1954)   I put “equal” in quotes because the so-called “equal” facilities offered to white and black students in the south made a mockery of the word. Behold so-called “equal” water fountains:  A white school in Halifax County, VA, during the 1930s: And a black school in Halifax, VA at the same time: In Brown v. Board, the public school district in Topeka, Kansas refused to let Oliver Brown’s daughter enroll at the nearest school to their home - a white school - and instead required her to enroll at a black school further away. He participated in a class action lawsuit against the School Board of Topeka, KS, When U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ruled for the School Board, relying on the Plessy precedent, Brown and the NAACP- represented by future Supreme Court Jus...

TL:DR: would never work, tried it before, from 1861–1865, you may have read about it, since it made all the newspapers. Longer answer: How would you suggest said separation be made? What would be the borders? Does this separation take into account that even the reddest states, have deep-blue pockets, while even the bluest have ruby-red areas? Let’s say you mean that the “south”- a wobbly definition there, as the former Confederate heart of Virginia votes pretty consistently blue these days- should once again secede from the north. What would be the status of trillions of dollars of federal property in said states? What, do you really think that the Federal government will just have over all its military bases, aircraft, ships, vehicles, and personnel? What do you say about the Interstate highways? Federal office buildings? National Parks? If you retort that the portions paid for by southern dollars should stay in the south, then, consider balance of payments. Given tha...

Short answer: the rules-based international order means transnational bodies, largely established by the victorious allied powers after WWII. These center around the United Nations. Longer answer: after WWII, the US, especially, did not want to see the “war guilt” such as after WWI. They saw that the imposition of financial punishment on Germany by the UK, and France, especially all but guaranteed the rise of fascism and the Nazis, + therefore the even bloodier WWII less than 30 years later. As such, the US supported the establishment of an international order, centered around the United Nations, to do its best to prevent international disputes from developing into shooting wars. Of course, the outbreak of the Korean War less than 6 years after the end of WWII drew the value of this entire enterprise into question. But, the establishment of such bodies as NATO- organising western Europe against a common enemy in the USSR**- and the European Common Market- predecessor ...

Is it possible? Sure, just as it’s possible that I’ll be able to swim the English Channel in the next few months. That the US became “so strong because the federal government was limited for a long time” is, however, as unlikely as my English Channel swim. The US is as powerful as it is for three main reasons. The first is that the US takes up most of a large continent, and one that is richly blessed with diverse natural resources. The second is that the US was effectively shielded from conflicts in the rest of the world by two enormous moats known as the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Third is that, after the end of WWII, the US was literally only major economic power that hadn’t been blown to smithereens. Combine these three reasons, and you get a perfect situation for the US to be in its current position of strength. It has virtually nothing to do with the size of its Federal government. One could actually argue the exact opposite: that the strong Federal government,...

TL:DR: education Longer answer: lack of education. A main reason for the US’ rise to prominence and power in the 20th century was that, in addition to an embarrassment of riches in natural resources, we had arguably the best-educated general populace in the world. As such, after WWII ended, the US had the enviable combination of a resources, the only first-world infrastructure that hadn’t been blown to smithereens- that had, actually, been helped by war production- and a workforce ready to exploit all of these. Unfortunately, my lifetime (b. 1970) has seen a long-running, elite consensus to misfund public education. It works something like this: “you want lower taxes?” “Sure!” “Let me cut your property taxes, then!” “Sure!” Given that property taxes are the primary funding source for public education in the US, this results in many students receiving less education. Their kids, therefore fall for this con the same way, and are easier to trick into repeating it. Poorly-...

Short answer: Ukraine doesn’t need to win a decisive battle against Russia in a large battle. Long answer: OK, buckle up, put on your thinking cap, and be sure to keep all arms and legs inside the car for this answer. I think you misunderstand the wars that Ukraine and Russia are fighting. Each country has wildly different goals, and each of these goals requires different methods. For Russia, the goal is simple: to integrate Ukraine into Russia as it was integrated into the Soviet Union. This is a part of Putin’s clear plan to reassemble as much of the former Soviet Union as possible. If the attempt to conquer Ukraine succeeds, it will probably embolden Russia to move on to the next former Republic of the late, unlamented USSR, such as Putin’s close ally Belarus, or Georgia, or Kazakhstan. Note that, of the former Soviet Republics, the ones with the greatest petroleum resources are Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Note, also, that Ukraine has rich oi...

Yes, Hillary Clinton would have made a better President than tr*mp. Here are few more examples of those would have been better Presidents than him: * A randomly-selected homeless person * My pet maltipoo * A goldfish * A canned ham * Mr. Potato Head

The Supreme Court does not interpret the Constitution. What it does is rule on cases based on their understanding of the Constitution and of precedent. They never directly interpret the Constitution itself, but the understanding and application of it. A few examples from history may be instructive. In Dred Scot v. Sanford (1857), the Court ruled that, since the Framers had never considered the possibility of African-Americans being citizens, they had no civil rights due to citizens. This was literally the law of the land- literally, the meaning of the US Constitution- until a little matter called the Civil War helped to settle things to the contrary. After the war, the 13th Amendment (1865) abolished slavery, the 14th Amendment (1868) conferred citizenship on formerly enslaved people, and the 15th Amendment (1870) extended voting rights to them. These Amendments, In combination with the Civil Rights Act of 1866 overturned Dred Scot v Sanford. In Plessy v. Ferguson (189 6), ...

Let’s look at the following Republican Presidents and their accomplishments. You tell me if they have anything clearly in common. Lincoln: First Republican President, freed the slaves, lead the United States to victory over slave-owning traitors in the Civil War, began system of land grant public colleges + universities,** Theodore Roosevelt: progressive economic policies, established Food & Drug Administration to regulate food safety, regulated railroad rates, opposed monopolies as being inimical to the capitalist principles of free enterprise, established conservation movement, expanded national parks system, denounced the rich, supported unions, and supported a welfare state. Dwight Eisenhower: Presided over strongest economy in human history, started largest public works program in human in history (Interstate Highway System), supported unions, sent National Guard in to southern states to enforce anti-segregation laws, supported a starkly progressive tax code ...

  “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” -Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride Before one can argue about something, I think it’s a good idea to define what it means, yes? Merriam-Webster defines socialism as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property.” So, let’s be crystal clear about something: no major political party in the US is promoting collective ownership and administration of production of goods. None of them . Supporting a higher marginal tax rate on the rich is not socialism. If you don’t understand marginal taxation**, that indicates you’re not able to contribute intelligently to this discussion, so please, kindly, shut up. Support for unions is not socialism. Support for the some sort of health care reform is not, in and o...

Slavery. Period. Don't trust me, though. Ask the leaders of the Rebel states, as expressed in their declarations of secession. Georgia: “For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery .” Tennessee: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world.” South Carolina: “The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery , has led to a disregard of their obligations,” Texas: “Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace an...

Very famously, Robert E. Lee launched two clearly offensive campaigns in the Civil War: the first resulting in the Battle of Antietam, + the second resulting in the Battle of Gettysburg. Please excuse the rather brutal oversimplification in the below paragraphs. In 1862, Lee launched an offensive into Maryland, with the goal taking the fight to the Union, rather than having all of the major battles happening in Confederate territory. Unfortunately for Lee, the battle plans, known as Special Order 191, fell into the hand of a Union Corporal, who passed the orders up the chain of command to Gen. George McClelland, commander of the Army of the Potomac. For once, McClelland was not hesitant, and ordered troops to stop Lee near Sharpsburg, Maryland. However, despite decisively defeating Lee on the battlefield, McClelland’s inherent caution took over in the battle’s aftermath, and he failed to pursue a retreating Lee, thinking him to have much stronger forces in reserve than ...

Pro: huge increase in easily available troops Pro: given that going through the draft & military experience was a common experience for young American men*+, it provided an opportunity for people from a vast variety of socio-economic groups & regions to connect.** Con: it's generally accepted that the current, all volunteer force is one of the best, if not the best, militaries in the world. Conscript armies are never as well-trained as all-volunteer armies, even if they are larger. The horrendous performance of Russian's enormous, conscript-heavy force is a perfect example of this. Con: related to the previous point, conscripts, by and large, don't want to be there. This absolutely relates to the above con to a draft. The combination of these first two cons is a major reason why most in the leadership of the US military don't want the reinstatement of the draft. Con: again, related to the above points, the elites of any society have always ha...

Many of these posts are actually very-lightly reformatted reposts of answers that I have previously to questions posted on Quora (https://quora.com). Simply put, Quora is where people (mostly) post questions that aren't clearly answerable via a more conventional search engine. Far too many posts are from straight-up morons, and others are clearly from Russian (and right-wing, although I may be repeating myself) trolls. But I'm quite- justly, IMNSFTHO*- proud of some of them, so I'm reproducing them here. Share + enjoy, -Z  * I n m y n ot s o f *cking t erribly h umble o pinion

This question is not clearly phrased, but the poster sees to be asking if there are exceptions to various parts of the US Constitution. Short answer: yes Long answer: strap in for a bit of a ride, friends. A main job of the Judicial Branch is to clarify exactly what is meant by each word in the Constitution. To describe in very general terms the way the 3 co-equal branches of the government work: Legislative Branch: Writes laws Executive Branch: Enacts laws Judicial Branch: Determines if the laws written by the Legislative Branch and enacted by the Executive Branch obey the Constitution By design, the Judiciary’s job is far more subtle than that of the other two Branches. Let’s take two kinds of laws that seem easy to understand, but wind up being anything but easy: freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms. The First Amendment reads as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abri...