If you're interested, I highly recommend the youtube channel Religion for Breakfast's series on American Civic Religion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x49n90lWi0s .
Was there really no better name for this day?
That said, "Emancipation Day" has also been historically used.
Reflect on why you dislike this holiday and the difference between its name and "Christmas". Language is fluid and will survive. It's fine. This is a bad take.
Do you have any evidence that both sides are equally guilty? This is the sort of thing that "everyone knows is true", but they "know" it because it allows them to express resignation and cynicism and get general agreement without offending anyone. It's like talking about the weather. But unlike talking about the weather it has the pernicious effect of dampening democratic action and rewarding the guilty. If a referee refuses to apply the rules of the game, throwing up his hands instead and saying "they all just foul each other all the time", how long do you think the game will have any rules? In a democracy the voters are the ultimate referees.
In this particular case, in the US, one side very much wants to fix the flaws in their democracy. Why? Well, in part because it's the right thing to do and in part because they are the ones disadvantaged by the flaws in the current system. If given the chance to vote the Democrats will pass a bill of sweeping electoral reforms with the net effect of equalizing voting power and thus giving themselves a better chance of winning elections. But Republicans will filibuster this legislation, so it won't happen. If by some miracle the filibuster is abandoned, not one will vote for it. On this issue the two sides are diametrically opposed, not equally guilty, whatever you think of the merits of their positions.
Change to things that actually matter is supposed to be slow and difficult in Government. Otherwise there would be constant change as either side managed to seize power, and our legal system would be completely unpredictable.
Looks like Kwanzaa was bigger until 2018 when Juneteenth first started getting promoted.
That said, I'm from the upper midwest. Views on Juneteenth are probably different, particularly in certain other parts of the country.
This is mostly only true of presidential systems, and a particular affliction of ours. Parliamentary systems are not like this, nor is there constant instability from too much change.
One representative for every 50k citizens. Clearly the building isnt big enough to hold all those representatives. Force them to work remote and live near their people.
If the American system were actually intended to operate as you describe, that intent would have been put into the Constitution.
Manchin is taking the heat for holding this up, but the problem is broader than that: There are a handful of Dems (at least) whose sponsors also don't want this bill to pass, so I'm not holding my breath for any reform happening in this area.
And where are Biden and Schumer? They are pretty quiet on this whole situation.
This seems like an iffy proposal. Changing most judicial nominations to simple majority has had a significant impact on the judiciary. Eliminating the filibuster for potentially short-lived gains while handing opposition a nearly blank check for future legislative victories seems like a long-term problem. It seems likely to exacerbate political tensions rather than relieve them.
One can argue that the deliberate nature of the Senate is inimical to justice and therefore has to change, but when the pendulum swings in the other direction it may prove to move too rapidly to injustice.
The Senate should be made more democratic now. If the Senate flips in the future due to the will of the people, we will blow up that bridge when we get to it.
Is this a higher priority than reducing political tension/violence?
Or is it worth increasing the likelihood of political tension/violence by eliminating the filibuster?
> The Senate should be made more democratic now. If the Senate flips in the future due to the will of the people, we will blow up that bridge when we get to it.
This seems short-sighted. What does it even mean? How would it solve any problems if the opposition could undo the work in a matter of a few years?