A badly written quiz on the U.S. Constitution published by the Christian Science Monitor.

Although I got the answers all right, I don't like the way the "all of the above" option was presented only on some of the questions. It tends to make you feel like it's leading you that way. (And the majority of time, it's the correct answer.) Also, I don't like the fact that some of the choices were ridiculous. Present reasonable alternative answers, not absurd ones. (Ray Charles is not a reasonable option on a question asking who was the "father of the Constitution.)

It's 15 questions long. If someone has a quiz on the Constitution that's a little more challenging, please share it.

Wonder what their photo album looks like?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=558283554199414&set=a.106192172741890.11611.100000533242242&type=1

Speaking of pseudoscience, this blog has a regular swipe at it:

http://dorkmission.blogspot.com

This time the perp actually does look like Obama's son.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/22/21575610-teen-suspect-in-murder-of-teacher-colleen-ritzer-left-hate-note-documents-say?lite

Sadly, this brutal rape and murder of a white teacher by a young black man has not been acknowledged by the President.

Has anyone heard about the Mount Vernon Article V convention that is going on on December 7th?

Contact your state legislature to get them to attend.

There is an additional amendment I would add in:

1. No state will have less than two representatives in the House of Representatives.
2. No representative will represent more than 150,000 people.
3. The representatives salary will be the median gross income from the prior year of the people he represents

Basically it would screw the two party system as it currently exists. Some things to think if the House was 2066 representatives (310,000,000/150,000):

• If 15K people contact a representative that is 10%.
• Gerrymandering would be DOA.
• Buying half the house would be 1034 people. Herding that many would probably fail.
• The salary means that to get more money the representative's constituents have to do better.
• Laws that pass now would have to be approved by a larger amount of people. Do you think you could get the [un]ACA passed?
• It would give pretty much everybody an equal voice.

I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but those are the ones I can think of offhand. I'd probably also do the Senator's salary off the same median gross income from the prior year's at the state level. But then you have states like California, Michigan and Illinois that have fucked themselves on their own.