Disgusting.

A woman visiting a skatebpark is not paying close attention to her toddler's whereabouts. Predictably, the nouveau-walking child was hit and knocked down by a skateboarder. I say "predictably," because the expression "accident waiting to happen" comes to mind.

The mother is, of course, totally blameless, and punches the skater in the face, despite the fact that he had the right to be where he was, doing what he was, and she left her child unattended in a place where a child that size really doesn't have any business being.

If ever someone deserved to be punched back, she did. The skateboarder showed far more concern for her child than she did.

The pictures are amazing.

"The Son Doong Cave in Vietnam is the biggest cave in the world. It's over 5.5 miles long, has a jungle and river, and could fit a 40-story skyscraper within its walls.

But nobody knew any of that until four years ago."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/07/son-doong_n_3873341.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Patrick- I saw something similar a while back at the local Costco. Two women RAN at each other over a parkng space, even though there was plenty of parking. Screaming and pushing ensued until the other shoppers broke them up. Crazy.

Bob, that is breathtaking!

"But nobody knew any of that until four years ago." -- Bob in Texas at September 9, 2013 6:58 AM

[Genesis cave]

KIRK: You did all this in a day?
CAROL: The matrix formed in a day. The lifeforms grew later at a ...substantially accelerated rate.
McCOY: Jim! This is incredible. Have you ever seen the like?
CAROL: Can I cook or can't I?

Can we see the Genesis cave?

Damn, that's an awesome cave! Maybe I should learn to repel, so that I could go into it.

In the meantime, however . . .

Christian Airman Punished by Lesbian Commander Faces Possible Court Martial

And this . . .

Levin Proposes Pro-Capitalism Amendments

And this ... Levin Proposes Pro-Capitalism Amendments -- mpetrie98 at September 9, 2013 7:51 PM

Ont that I think he missed is this one:

Every state will have a minimum of two representatives.

No representative in the House of Representatives shall represent 150,000 citizens as determined by the decennial census.

That would make 20K people effective in changing stuff.

represent more than 150,000

"represent more than 150,000"

That's the problem with that. How would a House of Representatives with 2200 members even function? My guess is that it would exacerbate the trend of nearly all of the actual work being done in committees, behind closed doors, and the actual floor vote would be a pro forma exercise. I actually think we should go in the opposite direction -- cap House membership at about 250. It would cut down on some of the committee nonsense, and it would make gerrymandering ineffective.

The only problem with only 250 representatives is that each one will be representing well north of 1 million people. That will only exacerbate the problem of these representatives actually representing their party, interest groups, political movements, corporations, etc. rather than the people in their districts, who can only hope to match the money-raising power of the aforementioned entities.

I have no problem with there being 1 representative for no more than 50,000 people. That way, the people might actually be able to make a difference in most affairs. The only problem I can see with a House of over 6,000 people, apart from the spending it would take to compensate all of them, is the herd mentality that can take place in large bodies of people.

That's the problem with that. How would a House of Representatives with 2200 members even function? My guess is that it would exacerbate the trend of nearly all of the actual work being done in committees, behind closed doors, and the actual floor vote would be a pro forma exercise. I actually think we should go in the opposite direction -- cap House membership at about 250. It would cut down on some of the committee nonsense, and it would make gerrymandering ineffective. --Cousin Dave at September 10, 2013 7:08 AM

Because the only good laws would have to be approved by over a 1000 members. As it stands now your representative can be responsible to millions of people. If you and 5K others call a rep to say you object to something, he has to comply with the 500K who didn't bother calling.

Look at the "defund Obamacare" as an example.

What about the renewed Brady Law on firearms? Thew were saying the 20M+ members of the NRA was a small minority.

The TSA continues even though the approval rate for the TSA is about 33%.

The latest headline is "Bomb Syria". It has less than a 20% poll rate. Boehner was considering supporting it.

But if he knows that 5K out of 150K object he has to reconsider and ask is it worth the vote?

The idea is that we, the people, are actually represented. If a corporate interest can buy off 1K+ people, more power to them.

The only problem I can see with a House of over 6,000 people, apart from the spending it would take to compensate all of them, is the herd mentality that can take place in large bodies of people. -- mpetrie98 at September 10, 2013 8:15 PM

Make the House salary based off the prior year's average salary plus expenses. So if the average salary was $53K in 2012 that is the House's salary. The only way to raise it is by getting the average salary to $57K. But if it drops to $51,756, does the rep income.

The herd mentality is diluted because they have to get 1K+ to follow the herd.

The party system would be severely restricted. Basically every rep would vote as his constituents wanted.

The herd mentality is diluted because they have to get 1K+ to follow the herd.

Do not underestimate the power of a particularly charismatic congressperson or leader to whip up the crowd. Hitler got millions of people to do unmentionable and unspeakable things, for example.

The party system would be severely restricted. Basically every rep would vote as his constituents wanted.

That's the idea. Smaller districts = closer ties to the constituents, ideally.