
      Two institutions with absolute power.  Cute.

      Let's talk practicality, shall we?  If the Monarch tried to
do something, what would happen?
  

       But you illustrated the problem very well.


       I am contending that there is no state in the Union which does
not have ample wealth, if they choose to spend it, to run a perfectly
acceptable Education system.  (I further contend that the amount of money
being spent now is more then sufficient, but is being spent badly.)


       So, tell me Phill.  Were the Republicans also responsible for some
of the *huge* increases in social programs?  Or were they *only* 
responsible for what you don't like.  (I contend it is Congress which
is to blame.  Democrat and Republican alike.)


       Most of our worst areas are still better off than most of Europe.
In any case, we're talking about *education*.  


       Yes, I live in once such area.  You're woefully ignorant of the
situation.

       At the same time some of Tennessee's school districts are closing
down, the Governor asked for 7.5 million dollars for bicentenntial
celebration license plats.  In almost the same breath he wanted to raise
unemployment compensation and reduce taxes which paid into it.
 
       I don't know about the rest of the country, but *our* education
problems stem directly from two problems, neither of which are a lack
of money in the state.  (BTW, Tennessee is considered a "tax heaven"
and our economy is one of the strongest in the country.  *I* see
a correlation.)  1)  What money we spend goes primarly to administration.
The average administrator makes two and a half times what the average
teacher makes, and sucks up an enormous amount of revenue.  And 2)
the Governor is making a concerted effort to create an "Education crisis"
in order to push for his pet income tax.  Some of the most idiotic
programs get funded (like State funds for new art in the county seat)
while schools are closing.  It's not a lack of funds.  It's an
unwillingness to spend them on what is more appropriate.  Education
is *the* parental hot-button.  Education is *always* the first to
but cut, because it's easier to get people to pay for their children
than ugly art.


      It spoke very eloquently on government being based on the
consent of the governed.  


      They did it anyway.  The Continental Congress had its own set of
bylaws.  It wasn't quite a government, but a means of making decisions
had to be created.  (However low George Washington's opinion of them were.)


      Allow me again to speak heresy against the Holy Democratic Orders.
So what?  The government was built with a very non-democratic Presidency
with fairly broad powers, including the veto.


      Yes, and the Senate was intended to act as a balance to this.
Too much democracy was intentionally avoided.  It was considered a good
thing to place non-democratic blocks to impulsive action.


      So long as Congress has something to sell, people will pay for
it.  Most congressmen rake in more money than they need.


       No, if the "progressives" don't want the "reactionaries" to move
backward, they get the same benefit.  41% of the states is a *lot* of
people.  And historically laws with that sort of minority arent'
very effective, especially since it is usually geographically
concentrated.
       When wielding the Federal Big Stick I don't see why they shouldn't
have to make a better argument than, "more people than not," agree.
       

       I'm not a Republican.  I'm a republican.  :-)
       
       And no, I'm neither a Democrat nor a democrat.
       
       Now, I've asked several times, and all you've done is answer
"It isn't democratic," which I knew before I said it.  Why *should*
it be democratic?  We don't have a true direct democracy, and few
people advocate one.  Why, then, is this other modification of
democracy to bias it against action so much worse?
