The Not Happy Thread

We don't get much political news from other countries unless they're shooting at each other.

Curious about the UK. Didn't Labor have a 12 or 13 year run in control of things? Is it good to have one party in control for that long? In the U.S., it is not, but I don't know enough about the system in Great Britain to know whether it holds true there.

Thoughts?

(And this isn't a comment on Banzai's candidacy; I'm sure I would have voted for him )

 

There is an arguement that long-term PMs can be quite good, for example Blair's thirteen years and Thatcher's eleven (I think), as it can bring stability and some good things can be done. However, as with both of these occasions, the ends of their reigns seem to be marred. There is a lot of general consensus that Thatcher had began to loose her bearings a bit and made some very bad decisions, forcing the vote of no confidence. And with Blair, he obviously had the tainting of the Irac war and the beginning of the credit crunch was still Blair I think.

My dad holds the view that it's good to mix things up a bit, just to get a fresh twist on things.

 

Thanks, Heather. That makes sense. I think in a Parliamentary system one party control over long periods isn't as bad as in what is essentially a two-party U.S. system.

 

What I don't understand is, is in the US, is the president seperate from the government? As in, if the President is a liberal, is the government also liberal?

A lot of people in Britain would have the opinion that it is a two-party country (Conservatives and Labour), and that they're both so similar now that it wouldn't make that much difference which one of them was in. Many of their policies and ideologies now seem to overlap.

 

The President is the head of the Executive branch here, which is only one of three branches of Federal government. To make things more complicated, States have a certain degree of sovereignty as well, as there are areas of law that are under State control where the Federal government in Washington D.C. has no authority.

 

Ah right. I started doing a few weeks of American politics at the beginning of second year college but had to drop it, but it seemed quite interesting. I think it's sort of similar to how here, Wales and Scotland also have their own assemblies, and there has been talk about introducing regional ones. I'm not sure what sort of things to assemblies have control over, but I do know that because of it, university in Scotland is free for the Scottish.

 

It's interesting, Heather. Traditionally, in the U.S., States control things like contract law, torts, most criminal law, civil marriage, etc. Really, most things you think of as having legal consequences in day to day life are under the authority of State law and can differ from State to State.

For example, the law on what constitutes statutory rape may be different in California than in New York. Likewise, certain contract provisions may be enforceable in Missouri, but not in California (and so when a contract is written, it generally explicitly sets forth which State's laws will be used to govern it).

There is a great deal of similarity across States in most things, but all 50 of them have their own authority in these regards.

 

Ah right, sounds sort of like our assemblies, but state have a lot more power than I think the assemblies do. I wonder why the US have it set up like that - if the states have power over so many things, such as the ones you've named, what does the US government do, with the obvious exception of war-related things?

 

The reason it is set up this way is historical. Early on, States were more sovereign than now. They were like their own little countries in a way. But they realized they needed a Federal government for common interests, and for protection. They were also paranoid that a strong Federal government would take power away from the States.

So they created a Constitution that explicitly gives the Federal government limited powers. For the Federal government to do anything (legitimately) it has to be pursuant to some power given to it in the Constitution.

So the Federal Government deals with defense, of course, and they also have authority over matters involving interstate commerce (issues that affect two or more States, for example, where States would have disputes and the Federal government could settle them). There are others of course - the U.S. Constitution isn't long and you can find it online if you want to see what is in there.

These days, the Federal Government does far more than the founders of the nation would ever have dreamed allowable. Most of it is done under the commerce clause. Take civil rights, for example. The Federal Government was able to enact civil rights legislation because the businesses etc. that were involved in discriminatory practices were involved in Interstate Commerce (things like restaurants, hotels, etc). An oversimplification, but you get the idea. The vast majority of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President here in the U.S. are now due to the Commerce Clause.

The reason Obama's health care plan is under attack in the courts here now, for example, is that people are claiming (in my view rightly) that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to mandate purchase of health insurance and penalize non-purchase. It's simply not a power granted to them in the Constitution. On the other hand, a States could pass a similar law with no problem, and in fact State do have such laws regarding insurance in other areas.

Clear as mud, right?

 

To break the interesting conversation. I've just got back from the hospital; hearing my grandmother had an accident, and she might be dying. She didn't even recognize me when I hobbled into the ward.

 

Oh, that's terrible! I'm so sorry for you, Lemex. I hope your grandmother will be okay...

 

Oh no. I'm very sorry to hear that Lemex. My thoughts are with you.

 

I'm sorry to hear that. I know how it feels when someone can no longer recognise you. I hope your grandmother will be okay and recovers.

 

Thanks you guys.

 

Ermmm, yea . . . . No, I followed what you were saying, thanks for explaining it to me.

God, that's awful Lemex! I really hope that your grandma pulls through

 

:/ Each day seems to get worse and worse. will it ever end?

 

It will. But often we decide the course of each day.

Consider Mondays. You can either approach Monday with dread for the start of a new week of drudgery, or you can eagerly anticipate a fresh start and new challenges. Guess which approach leads to a happier work day.

I'm not sure what your situation is. But I am a firm believer in the idea that even a bad day can be improved by facing it with determination and optimism.

 

The Rangers traded Tommy Hunter. WHY! HE WAS A GREAT PITCHER. all tho i guess it's ok cause we got 2 new pitchers that have almost perfect ERA.

 

I started work today.

I can't complain, really, I guess, because its an income, so long as I last the trial week. And when I'm there, it's not so bad.

But at home, I can't escape a soul crushing feeling of entrapment. Both my parents were self employed, so a 9-5 workweek terrifies me. It's something I've never been exposed to. I'm sure I'll adjust eventually, but for now it's getting under my skin.

 

Just seeing pictures of uni people hanging out together reminds me of what a recluse I am. I haven't done anything with friends in over 6 months. Time keeps zipping forward and I just stay the same. I spend every day on my own, unless my boyfriend is here. Thank god I have him.

They don't even bother trying to invite me out anymore.
It doesn't help that all my friends ever do is get drunk and spend loads of money on crap all. Oh, and I have nothing in common with them. =/

I'm thinking of getting in touch with some old friends I have a lot more in common with, but I'm worried we're too far apart now...

 

I know exactly how you feel, except you're lucky and have a boyfriend. Do you at least talk to your friends? If you do, you could perhaps arrange to meet up with them. Or, if you really don't see the friendships with them working, why not try and forget about them and focus on your old friends? Just get in contact with them and say you fancied a catch up and see how it goes.

 

I don't have exactly the same thing, but something similar going on.

I keep seeing photos of people I knew and liked in high school who have stuck together and kept in touch. Sometimes I wish I could be with them, but my life is just too different from my high school friends, and we are different people now.

 

Similar to me too. I deleted most of the people from secondary school on Facebook though a few months ago so it's not so bad now. It's just a shame that I only talk to two people from school and that's only every now and again, usually when it's one of our birthdays to have a brief catch up. Secondary school wasn't a happy time but it still sucks.

 

To be honest, I've completely forgotten most everything in my high school years.

Yes there are friends I still keep in touch with from high school, but for the most part, I love making new friends and keeping my focus to the future.

 

Writing inspiration, where are you?