Slashdot Mirror
Scott Adams Proposes a Fourth Branch of Government
LoLobey writes "Dilbert creator Scott Adams is proposing a fourth branch of government in the WSJ. He describes it as 'smallish and economical, operating independently, with a mission to build and maintain a friendly user interface for citizens to manage their government.' It's a humorous article with some interesting ideas including internet access as a constitutional right and a constitutional ban on all election contributions for any candidate that polls above 10%. He's primarily proposing a method of getting verifiably accurate information on various issues to aid voters in making decisions, but despairs on his own blog about reader's comments on the article."
How about getting rid of corruption? Corporate donations, professional lobbyists, etc.
Just make it flat out illegal, and consider it treason.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Unless you can find a way to make voters care, nothing else matters. I'm afraid the UI they want has 2 big buttons "R" and "D" for voting and discussion boards where only like-minded people can post.
Adams was at one time a funny guy, but he's long past his sell date. His cartoons are uniformly boring and predictable.
And his ideas about anything outside of mocking office stupidity are simply breathtaking for their sheer wilful ignorance. I've read some of his other political blatherings. I filed them in the same bird cage where I keep David Brooks' meaningless self-aggrandizing bullshit, which is piled on top of the now thank-fucking-god-that-stupid-bastard-is-dead David Broder's similar excrescences.
God save us from over-wealthy fools who think that money equals intelligence.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Yes, that sounds like the point.
We currently have a system in which the decision makers can't read every bill they vote on. Each has a staff of people who presumably can be trusted to steer the Congressperson the right way.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Legally-enforced prohibition never solved anything. Look what it has done for alcohol, narcotics, and traitors. They've been reduced, but haven't gone away. If you want to eliminate something then you need to destroy its habitat, and the natural habitat of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex predator is the unchecked flow of money that drives the current political process. As Scott alludes, Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.publicampaign.org/) is the single most important political issue in this country for any party, persuasion, or constituency. Our current system is built on the premise that money is equivalent to "speech", and that since speech cannot be restricted (1st Amendment), neither can financial support of campaigns. This is no more true than the idea that a corporation is a "person". Unlike money, speech is effective for its quality, not its quantity.
If it can't be read aloud in 50 hours, it's almost certainly bad law.
If Congress is passing so many laws that they all can't be read aloud during the Congressional Term, then Congress is passing a lot of what are, almost certainly, bad laws.
One easy check for a bad law - the people who voted for/against it haven't read it.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You know what the press does? It creates content that sells. If the public at large will only read which senator slept with which secretary, then those are the stories we will get.
The press fails us because we fail ourselves. For the same reason that in a democracy, we get the government we deserve, in a capitalist economy, we get the press we deserve.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.