Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Chuck Norris Goes on the War Path for Red States

Posted by Thers, Whiskey Fire at 11:00 AM on July 15, 2008.


Self-described "black-belt patriot" wants to remove 385 representatives so small "red states" have the same influence as Cali.
chucknorris

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Chuck Norris is mad, hoppingly so, and is not afraid to use extra punctuation marks to express his rage.

If members of Congress are not relevant or improving Americans' lives, why do we elect and re-elect them into office?!

His answer to this interrogative exclamation is Grandpa Simpsonesque in its elegance: There are too many members of the House of Representatives. Please eliminate 385.

You see, the problem is, the current arrangement is bigoted against states where there aren't a lot of people, but what people that live there happen to be conservatives. Let us examine this thesis closely, as it is, in its own way, astonishing.

If you ever have heard the saying "too many cooks in the kitchen," then you know how I feel about Congress.

What about the saying "too many cooks spoil the broth"? You know, the actual one?

We have more representatives than we need and even many more than the Constitution requires. What many might not realize is that there is nothing ultimately sacred about the present number of people we have in the House of Representatives. Actually, the proper number of representatives from each state has been debated since our Founders' time. The Constitution endeavors to assure fairness and equity by requiring each state to have at least one representative, two senators and representation in the Electoral College. (At the other extreme, it states, "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.") So why not go with the fewest number allowed? It seems to me that in our day, in both House and Senate, fewer representatives by area would be more reasonable and effective than more representatives by population.

It is perhaps true that Chuck Norris knows how to kick people in an expert fashion, but that notwithstanding, he seems to be somewhat confused as to the actual purpose of The People's House, which some scholars hold is to, uh, represent the people by population. In this sense it is distinct from the Senate. However, in regards to the final sentence of the foregoing, I agree that we really ought to send fewer Representatives to the Senate, as that particular practice is confusing for everyone involved.

The current numbers in the House are stacked in discriminatory ways. For example, California has a large liberal voice with its 53 representatives. How fair is that for smaller, more conservative states that have between one and five representatives in the House?

In a democracy it is of course unfair that a larger amount of people should be allowed to have a greater amount of political influence than a smaller amount of people, especially in the case of "liberals."

I believe just as we have one governor per state, we should consider reducing Congress to one representative and two senators per state (the minimum the Constitution requires). If one representative works for Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming, why can't it work for the rest of the states? Here's a movie we all can star in: "Honey, I Shrunk the Congress!"

Well, at least we can say for certain that Chick Norris has not lost his genius for picking out shitty scripts. Or his ear for stupid dialogue. But he does have a flair for the thrilling finale:

Disappointment with modern-day government and the preservation of our Founders' America is exactly why I've just completed my book "Black Belt Patriotism," which you can pre-order now on Amazon.com. It will be released in September through Regnery Publishing. It is my critique of what is destroying our country and how we can rebuild it and restore the American dream. I wrote the book because, as that famous "Network" line goes, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

I honestly have not looked forward to a book release date with greater delight than when we learned that Liberal Fascism was going to hit the shelves.

(Incidentally, the Chuck Norris joke thing has jumped the shark, so if you are tempted to make one, I suggest instead that you throw it under the bus, to the extreme.)


Oh No! The Dictionary Has a Liberal Bias!
Is nothing sacred?
Post by Roy Edroso. July 5, 2009.
Amid 2012 Hopefuls' Career Implosions, Future Looks Bleak for GOP
Where are they going from here?
Post by Booman. July 5, 2009.
Yes Men Say No to Jerusalem Film Festival
The famous political pranksters withdraw latest flick in support of divestment movement.
Post by Staff. July 4, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't let him fool you
Posted by: SoCalLib on Jul 15, 2008 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this "outrage" is a thinly veiled attempt at self publicity for his book.

I love the hypocrisy over these matters. When a liberal celebrity makes a comment or releases a political book, the conservatives go out of their way to bash it, saying that celebrities know nothing and no one should listen to them. Yet, when people like this clown speak, we're all supposed to do an E.F. Hutton and listen like it really means something.

Chuck Norris is a fucking idiot. Please don't help him out by buying his book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The day Reagan was elected...
Posted by: lexicon on Jul 15, 2008 1:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was a day that gave hope, inspiration, and meaning to the lives of COUNTLESS 2nd rate B-level movie actors and TV schlepps.

Ron Reagan's main credential for office, was being head-somethingOrOther for the local screen guild, in which role he fully and eagerly carried water for the McCarthy hearing committee.

That, and his 2nd wife's ability to call in "you owe me's" from lots of california power brokers, apparently made him qualified to be governor.

(that post has been abolished, in favor of the new "governator" position.)

The way I see it, Chucky sees himself on the same trajectory.

lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So Sad...
Posted by: OldRedleg on Jul 15, 2008 2:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Norris' comments seem so typical of the typical Republican standard bearer who spout off a whole lot of meaningless, uninformed rhetoric on what is wrong with this county and how to correct it.

SoCalLib above is correct. Norris is trying to get himself some free publicity and is either vying for some future move into politics and/or is trying to sell his book. Ignore him and maybe he'll go back to his Tae Kwon Do (which he is really good at).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So Sad... Posted by: tom.trog69
Otto .
Posted by: otto on Jul 16, 2008 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmmm...sounds like the old "states' rights" vs. "federal rights" arguement all over again. Maybe Chuck thinks we should be able to keep a few "niggers" chained up as slaves in the barn too! And keep "them Messicans" from crossing the border into "our land" (that we stole from them years ago!) All we really need is a brilliant president like George Bush to make our decisions for us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh my god...
Posted by: PJAW on Jul 16, 2008 9:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is so ridiculous it defies response. It is fitting, however, to note the name of the publisher, Regnery. Guess who published "Unfit For Command" the swiftboat attack against John Kerry. Unsurprisingly, they have an "epose" coming out about Obama. But no similar examination of McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I, for one, am glad to see Chuck
Posted by: Quannah on Jul 16, 2008 3:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
out there speaking for McStain! The Would-Be-President desperately needed to tap into that all-important Senior-Citizen Ninja voter, and since Steven Segall seems to be missing, Chuckie will have to do!

I just love that McStain's surrogates are about 0-fer-5 (Fiorina, Gramm, two governors whose names escape me at this moment) this past week, violently shoving their feet in their mouths. Of course Chuckie would be the next one. And he's just getting started...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Happiness
Posted by: Urgelt on Jul 16, 2008 4:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chuck's happiness index is inversely proportional to mine. May he be eternally angry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He needs to take a Civics class!
Posted by: buzzsaw on Jul 16, 2008 7:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Small states are overall more powerful in Congress than large states. All states are equal in the Senate, which gives small states disproportionate power in that body. This was thought to be an excellent idea by the Founding Fathers who, after considerable deliberation, put this into the US Constitution. Of course, conservatives, and especially, neo-cons seem to have a lot of problems with that particular document.

buzzsaw-It's high time for a New Enlightenment!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem with Chuck Norris ...
Posted by: realmuzik on Jul 17, 2008 2:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... is that his "15 minutes of fame" were over long, long before Walker. Texas Ranger debuted on TV. It's time for him to "pack it in" and ride off into that Texas sunset ... like Dubya will on Jan. 20, 2009.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...4 sale... Chuck Norris [waxed] toilet paper...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Jul 17, 2008 4:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... cause he don't take shit from no one!

seriously though...
why is it that republican celebrities are so rabidly GAY!
and Democratic celebrities such blatant FAG's!

Metro-sexual popularity contests maybe?

...jeezus, enough already!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Coming soon the Chuck Norris Civics School Book
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jul 17, 2008 5:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Where you can re-learn all those facts that the liberals are trying to hide from you."

So one house, the House, is based on population, and the other house, the Senate is equal representation per state.

Plus with the Super Majority vote required for cloture in the Senate, then you give a lot more power to these small population states.

This wiki page has a great breakdown of population per rep or per electoral college vote for each state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]