Interesting how Mariner can be encouraging and discouraging in the same post! Western civilization may be saved, but saved for what?

Seems to me that the Kim regime (and pretty much North Korea in general) exists entirely at the pleasure of the People’s Republic of China. Who are also unlikely to react well to Western military action on the peninsula …

Why they have allowed NK to go on for so long I can only guess. Maybe the apparatchiks of their oppressive, not-terribly-socialist state want to keep looking good by comparison? Maybe Chinese ambitions in the Asia-Pacific region are advanced by the existence of a hostile, unstable neighbor state (which, despite nuclear saber-rattling and a massive standing army, is nonetheless completely incapable of meaningful mobilization beyond its borders in any modern conflict, and will probably collapse the moment actual warfare breaches its cultural isolation)?

Or maybe NK is an embarrassment to them with no apparent solution, sort of the way we have always ignored Mexico’s government corruption, economic woes, and recent systemic near-collapses of civil order …

As satisfying as it might be to show Kim Jong-un what a REAL nuclear explosion in North Korea looks like, I doubt there is a whole lot the U.S. (or anyone else) can do about NK without Chinese support. I can’t speak to our anti-ballistic-missile defenses, but for now I am still counting on North Korea’s missiles to protect me from North Korea’s nukes.

All points well taken. The only idea mariner can add is a Chinese perspective: NK is a convenient port for stuff China would not like everyone to know about; China can always throw NK into the breach of a war without national harm. Where did NK get the scientists and materials to build a nuclear bomb anyway? The mariner has read that NK is pretty much living on China’s dime.

It is so very
Hard to make thoughts of nature
Fit into this form!

An honor to have a passing comment become a Skipper post!

The level of direct democracy allowed varies quite a bit between the states. Plebiscite as policy instrument is definitely more prominent in Western states – reflecting widespread dissatisfaction with the governance of the established United States in the mid-19th Century when those territories were achieving statehood. The major concern was the poor accountability of elected officials to the electorate: party politics preventing effective legislation (without hindering deference to large banks and elite families in the least, of course), set against a backdrop of decades-long government-supported monetary deflation (the “Cross of Gold”) that burdened miners, farmers, and laborers throughout the American interior while the benefits accrued mainly to large banks and wealthy investors on both coasts.

A majority of Colorado’s electorate felt strongly enough about limiting taxes or allowing marijuana to vote in favor of such amendments to our state Constitution. (Many others too, but not as recent nor as notorious.) In neither of those two cases had our state legislature passed, or even proposed, remotely similar legislation. In both cases there was vocal bipartisan opposition from governor and lawmakers. I’m sure they all felt their stance was “mandated” by the electorate – the very same electorate that had to take matters into our own hands to demonstrate just how much our representatives WEREN’T representing us.

I don’t think you can lay all the blame at the feet of direct democracy! I’m not saying a country should be run entirely by plebiscite, but it DOES keep the burghermeisters honest. And gives one a feeling of real participation in the Republic that cannot be replicated by picking this jerk over that jerk on a ballot.

However, to the credit of our system – whether they liked it or not, our state government apparatus has always respected and incorporated the outcome of these ballot measures. Imagine if the People squawked as much when the lawmakers pushed new laws on them, as the lawmakers do when the tables are turned!

… however, please note that I do not speak for California. Their politics are baffling. The place is ungovernable.

I’m also not a huge fan of Colorado’s TABOR amendment, for what it’s worth. However, it does seem to have resulted in a much more efficient, somewhat less corrupt state government than was the case in other states I have lived in. And in a nation that supposedly governs by consent of the governed, what’s wrong with the local authorities having to ask for the money they claim to spend on their citizens’ behalf? Sometimes they even get it …

Great link to Nate Silver! November’s undercard is also unusually thick with state ballot initiatives this year, from the expected (weed, guns) to the interesting (health care reforms, Maine’s consideration of ranked-choice voting) to the downright kooky (California). They may not be as high-profile as the national races but it should be an interesting show for fans of direct democracy!

https://ballotpedia.org/2016_ballot_measures

Hard to imagine people being required to vote. It feels like the opposite of freedom. How about people get paid a nominal fee if they do vote? Now, where would that money come from? Oh, the penalty imposed on those who choose not to vote! Pay a dollar or make a dollar–your choice!

Earth is an artist in rock and stone, river, sea and sky, and also expresses itself in words–like yours.