The F-bomb

The nuclear option. From pirates to Nanci Pelosi. I'm talking about the filibuster people! This week, the tensions are rising in the Senate as Democrats are threatening to filibuster Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. The Democrats are not big fans of the nominee.

 So what exactly is the filibuster? The word filibuster comes from the Dutch vrijbuiter. It means freebooter or pirate in Dutch. The word first became the english word: flibutor. Then it was the french version of freebooter that was adopted and the english word became flibustier. Then after taking the Spanish inspiration: filibustero. The word in english became filibuster. What a game of telephone that was!

The filibuster, put simply, is a rule in the Senate that allows the minority to stop or slow down legislation from being passed and presidential nominees from being appointed. Senate proceedings are usually slowed down by incessant talking by a Senator. These talkers can only be stopped if 3/5 of the Senate, or 60 senators vote to shut them the hell up, for legislation and the appointing of presidential nominees.

Currently the Republicans hold 51 seats in the Senate. That makes them 9 votes short of cloture, the 3/5's rule for shutting up of the senator, if all Republicans vote for Gorsuch. So that means at least 8 democrats must vote for Gorsuch, if a filibuster begins.

So this brings in the nuclear option. The nuclear option is a change in Senate rules. It's called "nuclear" because Senate rules are infrequently changed and when the rules are changed it is a big deal. The rule change would involve changing threshold for cloture for Supreme Court nominees from 60 votes down to 51 votes (a simple majority). This would make it much easier for Republicans to pass legislation through the Senate.

Another interesting thing about the filibuster, besides it's pirate roots, is that the framers of the constitution saw it as dangerous. You see, the act of filibustering, started in the Ancient Roman Senate more than 2000 years ago. The filibuster was first used by Cato the Younger in 60 BC. Cato the Younger, a loud-mouthed conservative, used the filibuster to halt all Senate proceedings regarding tax collection. Tax revenues were diminishing and the Rome was beginning to go dry. Cato's filibuster continued for six months until the important tax collection matters were just brushed aside by the Senate entirely. The non-consensus caused Roman tax revenue to begin to go into question. The party Cato belonged to in the Senate, the optimates, were also weary of powerful military generals like Pompey and Julius Caesar. The optimates filibustered against a bill that would redistribute Italian land to Pompey's veteran soldiers - this made Pompey less popular.

Then came Caesar. Caesar Caesar Ceasar. So Caesar came back from a military campaign in Spain and wanted to celebrate his victory - called a Triumph. He also wanted to become consul - the highest elected office in Rome. Caesar couldn't have both by government rules. Caesar asked the Senate for both. Cato said no, no, no, and filibustered Caesar's request on the last day of the Senatorial year. Caesar chose consulship. As a consul he asked for the same bill as Pompey to be passed. Again the optimates, the minority, filibustered. So Caesar, trying to circumvent the Senate, teamed up with Pompey and his soldiers, Crassus - the Roman billionaire. Caesar completely ignored the Senate and asked for approval of the bill by the people of Rome. The bill was passed by the popular vote, then more bills were passed, and more bills. The Senate no longer had any power. Caesar became Rome's first tyrant. And Rome began its downward spiral into the cesspool of the middle ages.

The framers believed that a filibuster could ultimately weaken the government to a point where a tyrant could take over - like Caesar.

So what do you think about the filibuster? Do you like it? Should we even have it?

Sources:
https://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/english/etymology/words-mod-filibuster
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/explainer-nuclear-option-will-affect-neil-gorsuchs-nomination/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/03/how-the-filibuster-wrecked-the-roman-senate-and-could-wreck-ours/72776/

Comparing yourself to others is good

My mom says that "the only person you should worry about is yourself." We will explore the validity of this statement by examining the opinion piece by Elite Daily titled: The Only Person You Should Worry About it Yourself.

According to Elite Daily, "you have to be a little selfish," worrying about yourself, because in the end, "no one really cares about you except yourself." If you turn the stakes dial to 10 you will realize this is the logic that makes suicide okay. No one cares about you so you can just stop (as they say).  The only reason people spend time with you is because they are insecure and trying to "keep in good graces with the people around them." I think there are other reasons - maybe they enjoy your company? Man. This article. My mom has never said no one really cares about you except yourself - just putting that out there.

Shockingly this is in the motivation section of Elite Daily. WTF?! It's not really motivating to learn that no one cares about you.

The article goes on to say that we spend our time and energy in people and reap no reward. No reward - Wow! What a misanthropic thing to say. They justify this idea by saying that worrying about others makes their problems our problems. So this is an important idea to think about though. I think you should be empathetic to the plight of others; but not so empathetic that you're carrying around their emotional baggage. How you balance that - I don't know.

"We constantly compare ourselves to other people  - yet that only make us feel worse about ourselves and discourages us." Comparing ourselves to other people is competition - and competition is a good thing! Competition leads to better outcomes, not worse. iPhones wouldn't be here had the Palm Treo not sucked. We wouldn't have sent a man to the moon without Soviet competition. The 4-minute mile was impossible to break until competition allowed us to realize it could be broken. Competition fuels improvement and encourages us to do more. If we didn't compete with other people humanity would suck.

I think this leads to a tangential discussion about whether it's okay to compare people. I think you have to or there would be no standards. Think about what would happen if teaches stopped comparing the work of students. There would be no standards - all students would receive A's for their work - regardless of how shitty it was. You have to compare yourself to others to improve. And to go on a wider tangent, this is why I hate abstract art - it has no standards.

This philosophy makes little sense to me. This article made no sense.

Highway through the Danger Zone

Today we'll be musing about re-engineering sports to make them more enjoyable to watch. I stumbled upon this topic watching March Madness. I initially wondered about the origins of the three point shot. I asked my mom about it and she told me when she was in high school, in the late 1970's, the 3 point shot was still debated. After doing some research, I learned that the NBA only adopted the 3-point shot in 1979, after it was experimented with by the ABA (American Basketball Association). It wasn't until 1986 and '87 that the 3 point shot was universal in NCAA and high school basketball. Holy shit! That's pretty recent!

So, did the invention of the 3-point shot make the game better? Doing some more research, before the 3-point shot was implemented, players would always drive the ball to the hoop before taking a shot. This meant that size was always important in matchups. But once the 3-point shot was implemented, smaller teams had a better chance. It made the teams possible more varied. The game also became more of a "full-court" game. This is one example of a game that has been improved by re-engineering.

Before we talk about how to improve soccer, let's first nail down what factors make a sports game entertaining. The factors: strong competition, players indebted to winning, a sense of community between spectators and team, and perhaps the scoring frequency.

A sports game is entertaining when there is strong competition. Strong competition leads to amazing plays. When players are indebted to winning - when the competitors have their "skin-in-the-game." If the players don't care about winning - it's not fun to watch.  When spectators have a strong sense of belonging with their team. When the game is played on the whole field leading to less downtime and more variability of games. And although this is more technical, I think the frequency of the scoring has something to do with it. If scoring is frequent, it becomes less exciting when it happens. If scoring is infrequent, there is more downtime which makes the game more boring.

So, now that we've identified some factors, or target specifications, let's see if we can improve a game like soccer, from the American perspective. I specify from the American perspective because I know that the enjoyment of sports is also cultural and my perspective is American.

Soccer:
The scoring is infrequent and most of the plays that create a score happens it happens near the goal. We can add a 2 point line, this would spread out the game-play and make distance skills more valuable. We can make the players more indebted to the game by creating a penalty when the other team scores. In all seriousness, the players can wear bracelets that deliver shocks when the other team scores like TASERS. This is negative feedback - its like training a dog. The player receives this stimulus and they try harder. Another way to eliminate the downtime and make scoring more frequent would be to move the goals closer together. The ball is now in the "danger-zone" more often. Hence the title.

Social Security - Happiness Eroder?

The idea for this blog is to get a feeling for how Social Security works, how much money people receive from Social Security, an analysis of its effectiveness, figuring out if it ends up hurting or helping the US citizens.

There are two types of Social Security Insurance programs: “Old-age and Survivors Insurance” and “Disability Insurance.” There are currently 10.8 million Americans on “Disability Insurance,” or 3.3% of the U.S. population. There are currently 49.8 million Americans on “Old-age and Survivors Insurance,” 15.3% of the U.S. population.

What is the purpose of Social Security Insurance?

The basic purpose of SSI is to assure a minimum level of income to people who are aged, blind, or disabled and who have limited income and resources (Social Security Administration)

The question I’ll be asking in this blog is whether having Social Security programs, specifically OAS leads to a populace unprepared for the financial implications of retirement. As such, for this blog, I’ll focus on OAS because it is the major source of income for 90% of individuals over 65. 

One qualifies for Old-age and Survivors Insurance if:

1. Insured for benefits
2. Enough credits from earnings (1 credit for each $670 in earnings)
• It takes about 40 credits to qualify
• One can earn a maximum of 4 credits per year

NOTE: If you make money above a certain threshold, your benefits can be completely withheld.

There are currently 49.8 million Americans on “Old-age and Survivors Insurance,” 15.3% of the U.S. population. The average monthly payout from OASI is $1,348 per month. This is around $16,000 per year. About 50% of individuals are married between ages 65 and death. This means the income strictly from OASI for half of the population over 65 is $16,000 and the other half is $32,000. For individuals and partners - these numbers are above the poverty line. I think this is qualifies as a "minimum level of income" - the SSA is meeting its purpose, despite its incredible vagueness. $1 could be a minimum income level. 

The real question of this blog is whether having SS leads to a population unprepared for the financial implications of retirement. SS may create an illusion that retirement is easy and attainable without any preparations, the idea that SS is a safety net. From my research I have determined that this illusion has not yet been explored by qualified scholars.

My intuition would tell me that if the safety net of Social security, Americans would begin to make more financially sound decisions and become more responsible with their money. Perhaps people would begin investing and saving at a young age for the long term, rather than beginning to save and invest at the ripe age of 40. I would be interested in seeing if this intuition is correct or incorrect. 

PC: What's the hubub?

Before the 90's the usage of the term politically correct was sparse. However, its usage increased after a speech by George H.W. Bush in 1991 for the University of Michigan commencement address. He began his address by talking about the strength of the United States coming from freedom. The freedom to do provided by free enterprise. It continued like this:

"But the power to create also rests on other freedoms, especially the freedom -- and I think about that right now -- to think and speak one's mind. [Applause] You see -- thank you. The freedom -- I had this written into the speech, and I didn't even know these guys were going to be here.

No, but seriously, the freedom to speak one's mind -- that may be the most fundamental and deeply revered of all our liberties. Americans, to debate, to say what we think -- because, you see, it separates good ideas from bad. It defines and cultivates the diversity upon which our national greatness rests. It tears off the blinders of ignorance and prejudice and lets us move on to greater things.

Ironically, on the 200th anniversary of our Bill of Rights, we find free speech under assault throughout the United States, including on some college campuses. The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits."

So where did this term come from? Let's get into to that:

The first modern-use of the term came from the anthology published in 1970 by Tony Cade Bambara titled The Black Woman. This is a black feminist set of works. In The Black Woman she writes:

". . . a man cannot be politically correct and a chauvinist too."

Before this, the use of the term, it was used by socialists to argue against Communism. Politically correct was used at that time referring to the politically correct viewpoints the USSR gave to its citizens.

According to Nexis, a news organization, in 1990, there were 70 uses of political correct. However, in 1991 there were 1532 uses of political correct. And these uses have continued to increase since then.

What does it look like today?

Well institutions like Penn State have started campaigns to reduce the use of this non-PC language.
We are being discouraged by signs in residence halls of saying words like crazy, insane, ghetto because they could hurt someone's feelings.

Penn State has developed free speech zones, although they have existed for some time now. This is absurd. Every individual has freedom of expression through the first amendment of the U.S. constitution. There shouldn't be zones. Tt should be a free speech campus. The only speech that should be barred is speech that directly incites violence. Hate speech is allowed by law as long as it doesn't incite violence. You're allowed by law to hurt peoples' feelings - by law. Any institution that tries to control anyone's word-choice should be liable to be sued.

All engineers are TERRORISTS

Wassup NSA how's it goin'? That's right you saw the title. The word TERRORISTS in all CAPS. Terrorists of that radical knowledge. Yeah, you heard me, WE ARE smart, the un-civil ones. I'm kidding, civil engineers are smart too.

What I mean to say is not that all terrorists are engineers, engineers of mayhem and destruction, but most home-grown radical islamic terrorists are engineers. According to Homeland Security, 62% of home-grown terrorists are engineers. I didn't know my peers had a dangerous side. Oooh spicy, the plot thickens.

What do Betsy Devos and terrorism have in common? You'll find out.

They are both linked to an interesting conversation I had with an aide of mine. (This "aide" helps me out of my wheelchair during the day.)

When she arrived I was watching this video:

So our conversation began about Betsy Devos, the Trump appointed secretary of education. When the media talks about Devos, it is usually prefaced by billionaire. We talked about how billionaires are vilified, while wealth has almost nothing to do with her advocacy of school choice. We also agreed that wealth does make it easier to be a politician. She has no advanced ivy league-degrees compared to her Obama-appointed predecessor, leaving her qualifications questioned. School choice allows parents of students to choose which school their children attend, outside of district lines.These choices are between public and charter.

I do like her stance on school choice which, according to the CATO Institute has been shown to improve student test scores. However, some argue that the competition would put schools out of business, which it would. But the CATO Institute also cites cases in overburdened schools that cause the competition to improve "failing" schools.

Our conversation then moved on from Betsy Devos to how she feels like the media is not covering important stories fairly or at all. A case of this is the Berkeley Riots. None of the violence caused by the riots were shown, except for a cart burning. There were people being beaten with flag-poles, a woman was pepper-sprayed, by "protestors" a man was almost trampled. Yet many news outlets were calling this a protest. The media she feels has become more unaccountable, feeding off of the Trump hysteria, and pandering more toward extreme viewpoints for better ratings. I believe that news has become more about entertainment than facts. In the 50's news broadcasts were short and sweet, you learned everything you needed to know in 10 minutes with very limited spin. I think the 24 hours news cycle can be blamed for this move to an entertainment-focus in news. In order to keep people interested in the news it has be radical, and this leads the left-leaning media to make many stories about how Trump is Hitler. And this led to us talking about the "muslim ban," which she felt wasn't being covered fairly.

We talked about the temporary travel ban to several muslim majority countries. The countries that have been banned were mentioned as dangerous in several of Obama's executive orders (read the whole page). I bet no one told you that! We also discussed on how it misses the countries where most terrorists and muslims are from. I am not equating all muslims to terrorists, but I am making a point. This is not a muslim ban because it does not ban immigrants from countries with the largest populations of muslims, like Saudi Arabia. Speaking of Saudi Arabia, she lived there for 20+ years, but we will get to her experience of how muslims are radicalized in the next blog. Ha! Bait and switch. After saying radical and radicalized and terrorist so many times, Hitler, mayhem and destruction, and Homeland Security, I know at least one person is reading my blogs. The NSA.

Trigger Warning: You May Learn Something

My parents raised me and my sister's us in a fairly conservative household (Fox News Forever). So my little sister and I have and will likely always be conservative. My older sister was once conservative, but as I like to say college has "brainwashed" her. She is now a hard-core liberal - everything we think or say is either stupid or "[insert]-ist."

I have to figure out a way to help her come back to the light-side. My weapon of choice is the good ol' brow-beatin'. So I have to come up with a way to debate the crap out of her. From watching countless SJW verbal takedowns, I think I know how it works.

I've gleaned that liberal ideology survives on the idea that one or more groups of people is oppressed. And many liberals believe the only way to solve this oppression is by government intervention. Sure government intervention can often solve problems of institutional "blank-ism", as in the civil rights movement. But government intervention cannot solve many of the more minute and often-times cultural issues of a particular group. So I think I can defeat my sister by proving that some of these groups are not oppressed, I will look at African Americans and women.

I seek the prove that African Americans are not as oppressed by whites as the left makes them seem. I will focus on the criminal justice system. One murder is one too many. According to US News and World Report, in 2015, 229 blacks were murdered by whites. Compared to 573 whites who were killed by blacks. According to Politifact, the percentage of blacks killed by other blacks in 2013 was 92%. Compared to 88.5% for whites. Make of these statistics as you wish.

Now. Let's look at prison population, this is where a disparity between blacks and whites becomes more apparent. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 37.9% of the prison inmate population is black. 58.6% of the inmate population is white. However African Americans make up only 13.3% of the population and whites make up 77.1% of the population.  Just by looking at the numbers one can see that there is a much higher proportion of blacks in prison in the US, than their white counterparts.

The reason for this divide is that proportionally blacks are more involved in murder and other violent crimes than whites. The reason violent is bolded is that the statistics on violent crimes are harder to skew with the possibilities of over-policing. It's the same reason why there are more men in prison than women. Prison systems aren't sexist, men are just more involved in crime than women.

But what about all of those police shootings? Whites are more likely to be shot by police than blacks. Although the previous statement is true, these statistics are very dubious. They don't adjust for population! If you do adjust for population, you'll see blacks are 2.5x more likely than whites
per-capita to be shot by police. I'm not exactly sure where this discrepancy comes from, but I'd imagine its not all due to race.

Was I able to prove that blacks are not as oppressed by whites as the left makes them seem? You decide.

I seek to prove women, the largest "minority" are not "oppressed" in the western world.

1. Gender pay gap is almost nonexistent
We've all heard it: "women make 79 cents for every dollar a man makes doing the same work" Many have bought into this very misleading statistic. Why this is misleading:

• Women and men of different ages have different amounts of experience 
• Men have on average 2+ years of experience. When this is taken into account the pay-gap falls from 79.4 cents/dollar to 88.6 cents/dollar.
• Women often leave the workforce for extended periods compared to men
• "Because child rearing and other family responsibilities fall disproportionately upon women, they are significantly more likely to leave the workforce for an extended period. Furthermore, women are more likely to seek employment at nonprofits or in government agencies — employment which is associated with lower pay. These positions are usually more flexible and amenable to the needs of working mothers."
• Gap falls from 88.6 cents to 90.9 cents
• Women choose different careers
• "Women tend to work in fields dominated by women, in large part because these fields best satisfy women’s’ dual careers as workers and household managers. This can include less stressful work environments (noise, strenuous activity, etc.), more flexible policies regarding time off, and a number of other factors."
• Gap falls from 90.9 cents to 96.7 cents

According to June O'Neill, of the National Center for Political Analysis, a single, childless woman between ages 35-43 makes on average MORE than the male counter-part.

2. Women often have greater educational opportunity than men
These opportunities are only limited by choice. Women have equal opportunity in education compared to men. Women between the ages of 25 and 34 are 21% more likely than men to have bachelor's degrees and 48% more likely to receive graduate degrees than men.

Again. You decide. I think I made a pretty solid argument though.

This blog is turning more political in nature. But now I know some statistics that'll help me bring back my sister. All kidding aside, I hope the next blog will be less serious, we will see next week.

I hope people read this blog and have some meaningful discussion. I attempted to be as thorough in my analysis as possible. If I'm wrong tell me. I believe in free speech for all.

Scalia Wags

After the suspense of waiting for Trump's Primetime Pick, we now know who it is. It's Neil Gorsuch. Nice guy Neil. Just because he was picked by Trump doesn't mean he'll be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Neil Gorsuch is slightly more conservative than Antonin Scalia, the justice he would replace. But he is also being appointed much earlier in his career. If appointed he would be the youngest supreme court justice on the court. Gorsuch believes in strict interpretations of the constitution. He thinks that slaves should be legal. I'm only kidding. I'm a budding comedian. Gorsuch wouldn't like me that much. He would support me if I were a non-budding comedian. Enough of that, he also believes human life is intrinsically valuable. He stands firmly against assisted suicide and is not keen on abortion. On abortion, some like Nanci Pelosi, see his positions as being "hostile towards women's rights." 

But for all you depressed demmies out there, there is some hope. America is not lost. If appointed, he'll eventually shift to the left. Wait?

What? Yes maybe you already know this, but I just learned this today so I must muse about it. Hard-right conservative justices tend to mellow out as their time on the court increases.

A picture tells a thousand words, a graph tells ... more

This graphic comes from FiveThirtyEight.com

Looking a little deeper, according to FiveThirtyEight, there are a number of factors that cause this. I've narrowed the list down for easier consumption.

Justices want to be good justices and because science. SCOTUS justices don't want to be remembered as bad justices. Conservative views in the court often get bad press and go down in the books as bad decisions. Some examples of unpopular decisions include the Dredd-Scott decision, Plessy V. Ferguson, Burwell V. Hobby Lobby.

They want to have friends. All of the friendly get-togethers around the D.C. area features some of the finest Democrats in the USA. “Justices may be subject to influences by the Beltway cocktail scene and want to be perceived as reasonable and moderate,” according to a Supreme Court Scholar. So what you're saying Mr. Supreme Court Scholar Sir is that they change their identities and personalities to have friends. 

Finally, because science, ala Michael Scott. Should have had dredds, catch my drift. Studies have shown that as we age we become more liberal. This liberal-ness can be associated with our increase in acceptance of non-traditonal values like gay marriage, etc. But I'd imagine this changes from generation to generation. Perhaps after another generation everyone will have such a personalized non-traditional identities that people begin to become more conservative as they age.

The other interesting thing is that the average weight of the Supreme Court comes out a little bit left of center. Maybe if anything the appointment of Gorsuch would make the court more fair. Maybe?

You can check-out any time you like, But you can never leave!

The word muse. A double meaning.

In Ancient Greek mythology, a muse was anyone of nine sister goddesses. These sister goddesses were given the duty of protecting a specific art or science. It also means to ponder on, usually in silence. *pen drops in background* Thanks to Collins English Dictionary for the definitions.

With my blog I will think about the things that are relatively unimportant to most, but are important to me. I also hope to protect the art of rhetoric and civic life. *Aggahagkasdf* Shameless plug. 

This is The Weekly Muse, usually not the news.

Enough of the introduction let's get serious!

My first election was quite a nasty one. I don't think anyone could possibly deny that (if you can, write a comment). That election has left me with thoughts of how to make our elections and government run more efficiently. The thought that keeps popping into my brain is a no-party system.

In the early years of our republic, particularly George Washington's first term, the United States did not have political distinctions. The first sessions of Congress were non-partisan, I know its hard to believe. I think these sessions were greatly successful. This is still the United States, isn't it? Except maybe California, I hear they might be seceding. 2018 couldn't be coming soon enough. Yes, I realize they are the largest economy in the US. Ok. Fine. I take it back. I will also concede that California is the eighth largest economy in the world. Ok, alright I wouldn't want to see California go.

Many historians and jurists do argue that the intention of our government was to be non-partisan. This argument can be formed by interpreting Federalist No. 10 written by James Madison. In the last of the Federalist papers, Madison argues for a government by constitution to protect citizens against factions. He defines factions as groups of people with common interests, economic or political interests, for example. The citizens of our fledgling country would have needed protections against these groups because they often go against the needs of the public. Factions could very well mean political parties today. For the sake of this blog, I will assume that is what it means.

If we were able to institute a no-party system of government there would be many benefits. Remember, feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong. It would make politicians more cooperative. It would decrease our nation's current divisiveness. We would no longer pit one party against the other. We wouldn't be asking for vote recounts just to raise money for purely political reasons, shout out to my lady Jill. Finally, I think it would make the public more attentive to what those running for elected office believe in. People would make forge their own opinions, not let a party create an opinion for them.

If this were such a good idea, you would think there would be more examples of countries that do this. I only found one good example, Kuwait. Really? Only Kuwait. Well, the other countries that have a non-party system are all really little or scary absolute monarchies. The United States wouldn't function as an absolute monarchy. And the reason it works in tiny countries are that they work almost like direct democracies, everyone can have their ballots "heard." Again, not the case in the US.

But Kuwait is a good example, they do have the highest valued currency in the world. That's pretty special.

There are some other examples of local and state governments that use the no party affiliation system. Louisiana uses a non-partisan primary to elect people to state and local offices. Every candidate runs against every other candidate, there is no separate Republican and Democratic primaries. Nebraska is another example of a state with a non-partisan primary for their State Legislature.

So, how would it be implemented. We would create a bill that makes it illegal for any elected office holder to have any party affiliations connected to their title. This makes it against the law to put (R)'s and (D)'s on anything. Sure people would still say "this person" is a "this." But after 50 years of this system parties will evaporate and maybe, just maybe, everyone could think for themselves. This bill would probably never be passed, political parties are looking to survive, but hey, anything can happen.

Maybe if we moved away from party politics, we would stop behaving like lemmings. Get away from the mind of the hive. And move toward everyone being the queen of their own hives. Three snaps in a circle.

**Title Courtesy of The Eagles**