Yes, gerrymandering is a big problem, still how does California's representation compare to Montana's or other small States? Or even medium States? Ideally each district across the country should be close to equal though there is always going to be exceptions as each State should have at least one representative. How does this affect Puerto Rico's wish for Statehood as well? Their seats would have to come from somewhere, or more likely, they'll never be part of the Union.
Do you have any idea what life was like in Czarist Russia when most people were owned by the aristocrats and the secret police were everywhere and the cavalry would purge any dissidents? Or in Imperial China where starvation was very routine and the government was as corrupt as shit? All things considered, the people were better off, even with the purges that continued. If it wasn't for the authoritarian bastards who took advantage of the times, of course it would have gotten better and has in China though Russia is a pretty shitty place for the average person now.
The bullshit that making money is more important then the environment or health of the people goes back quite a ways. We had a big strike here in Canada back in the '50's at the asbestos mill. The workers went on strike, not for money, but rather their demands were 2 sets of lockers, one for their work clothes and one for their street clothes, along with showers and a car wash. They knew the asbestos was going to kill them, but didn't want their families to die. The strike went on for years as the company was too cheap to meet those reasonable demands. That was the attitude for the longest time until the people felt empowered enough to demand regulations, and as you say, it is still happening.
The problem is that the country was supposed to have one House that fairly represented the population and it no longer does. Fine having a Senate that fairly represents the States, but Montana, even with only one seat in the House of Representatives, has way more power then California in that house. The fix that isn't going to happen is to expand the House of Representatives to 3000-6000 members, which would also translate into 3100-6100 Presidential Electors. Here in Canada, we have 1/10th the population and 3/5ths the representatives and every census, it gets adjusted to reflect the changing and growing population. In other words, when one Province (much like States, even somewhat sovereign) grows its population, they get more seats in the House of Commons, and vice versa, if a Province loses population, they can lose seats.
The problem being that the House of Representatives stopped growing 90 odd years back so populations aren't represented fairly. My country with 1/10th the population has 3/5ths the representatives and a bigger Senate that is based on regions (and needs fixing as the Provinces have grown at different rates). Every census sees our number of representatives increase as well, to reflect the population.
So what you are saying is that the 10 people on the mountain should be able to vote to fuck the townspeople over, perhaps make it illegal to have trees or parks in towns. And this is due to being a Republic, same as most dictatorships such as Russia, N. Korea, China, Vietnam and so on. You also don't seem to understand that the term democracy has changed to mean representative democracy where people vote for Representatives and has hardly anything to do with Republic as most Monarchies are also Constitutional Representative Democracies.
Canada has a somewhat even shittier way of splitting our Senate. Each region gets 24 Senate seats, with the regions being the 4 western Provinces, Ontario, Quebec and the 3 tiny Maritime Provinces. This leaves 9 seats to split between Newfoundland and the 3 Territories. So the 2 biggest Provinces each get 24 Senators, the next 4 biggest get 6 each and the 3 smallest get 8. Sizes might not be accurate but close and Newfoundland is pretty small with I believe 6. This, along with the fact that the Federal government, eg the Prime Minister, recommends who get appointed by the Queen or her representative (and they're both rubber stamps). This is hard to fix as the Constitution would need updating, though the current PM is appointing independents instead of the traditional patronage appointments.
And even then (actually shortly after, in 1789) there was a movement to make representation more fair. The first proposed amendment, which still hasn't passed but did get within one State a couple of times and now needs 27 more States to become part of the Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You forgot about the option of amending the Constitution. Luckily your Forefathers thought about this and the very first proposed amendment was the Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment, also known as Article the 1st. Just as Article the 2nd finally got passed, Article the 1st just needs 27 more States to ratify it and since Congress has already ratified it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So did authoritarian communism, doesn't mean that we want to push more of it even if it did lift the Russian surfs and Chinese peasants out of extreme poverty, increased their lifespan, helped cure terrible diseases and improved quality of life.
See https://slashdot.org/comments.... funny enough American Libertarians are actually old time Liberals with their belief in economic freedom, unluckily there has been so much propaganda over the 20th century that terms have changed with the current belief that Stalinism equals socialism and somehow the modern capitalist is not authoritarian.
Libertarian-ism was a leftist philosophy before the right wingers hopped on the bandwagon. Leftism is about empowering the people, getting rid of government, or at least making it as local as possible whereas rightism is about empowering the aristocracy, or now a days the rich. From https://www.urbandictionary.co...
Not an oxymoron. In fact, the term "libertarian" was first used by a French anarcho-communist back in 1857 to describe himself (an anarchist). The modern term libertarianism (economic freedoms) was originally called liberalism. The term "libertarian" describes liberty (thus, the term is also used to describe metaphysical liberty within philosophy and metaphysics), and the term socialism describes a society in which wealth is fairly distributed. Thus, it is neither a literal nor a practical contradiction.
A libertarian socialist would argue that a society based on such huge disparities of wealth is unfree. If you wish to enter into employment, you choose first and take orders later (as with liberal democracy). Libertarian socialists believe in voluntary association and economic democracy. This will allow the individual to reach his/her full potential.
The most famous example of successful libertarian socialism is the anarcho-syndicalist experiment in Spain during to Spanish Civil War, which was eventually destroyed by Communists and Fascists (see Orwell' "Homage to Catalonia" for excellent first hand reportage of this). At its peak, the anarchist union (CNT) had one million members.
Although sharing much of (if not all of) the Marxist analysis of capitalism, lib socialists vehemently oppose state socialism, especially the authoritarian socialism of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao and, more recently, the socialism of Hugo Chavez. The modern dispute between the two schools of socialism began in the First International, in which Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin bitterly argued over the road socialists should take. This dispute has continued ever since, with many Marxist regimes imprisoning, murdering (Russia), and exiling (Cuba) anarchists. Modern advocates of libertarian socialism include linguist Noam Chomsky, historian and playwright Howard Zinn, and the Industrial Workers of the World ("One Big Union"), and the International Workers Association (of which the Spanish CNT is its largest affiliate).
but we were also the only untouched first-world country after the war.
That's true, Australia, Canada and New Zealand all got bombed back to the stone age during WWII. The modern environment movement probably started with Silent Spring questioning the honesty of the chemical companies, which was published in '62.
People still use this company? Last I checked they couldn't even do search right and had to piggy back bing.
I still seem to be subscribed to a couple of mailing lists from egroups that Yahoo bought out, unluckily I have no idea how to log on to Yahoo due to not even knowing the user name, little well a password. The mailing lists chug along sending me mail over pop and it is easy to ignore the ads at the bottom due to using a text mode mail program. It's a problem with most of these companies, you sign up with one and before you know it, its been bought out by a bigger one and then bought out again, each time usually with more draconian policies.
True, we should just execute all mentally ill people, preferably in a cruel painful way as that'll teach them for being mentally ill and of course it is the Christian way.
How are people going to pay for housing at 20-30 hours a week? $30 an hour might cover a room if they can find one. Then there is the problem that the essential stuff is getting more expensive. Sure toys are getting cheaper but if you have no money left after buying the necessaries...
More likely delayed a bit until another excuse showed itself. At the time, some of the great powers, in particular Germany, were just itching to go to war and just needed the excuse and with the treaties in effect at the time, any conflict was going to expand.
My internet work the same. I'm allocated X amount and if I go over, I pay extra and different plans offer different values of X. Doesn't matter what I download, just how much.
Huh? MSM gave Trump billions in free coverage, leading him to be elected, because it was good for business, generating clicks and page views like crazy. They don't care about things like the good of the country, just making money. MSM know how to make sure someone doesn't get elected, ignore them. Think Ron Paul the other election and MSM media reporting 1st, 2nd and 4th places in the primary when Ron Paul came in third. Probably helped that there may have been promises made like getting rid of that pesky net neutrality, rules on how many media companies a business can own and less oversight by the monopoly busters.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, gerrymandering is a big problem, still how does California's representation compare to Montana's or other small States? Or even medium States? Ideally each district across the country should be close to equal though there is always going to be exceptions as each State should have at least one representative.
How does this affect Puerto Rico's wish for Statehood as well? Their seats would have to come from somewhere, or more likely, they'll never be part of the Union.
Do you have any idea what life was like in Czarist Russia when most people were owned by the aristocrats and the secret police were everywhere and the cavalry would purge any dissidents? Or in Imperial China where starvation was very routine and the government was as corrupt as shit?
All things considered, the people were better off, even with the purges that continued. If it wasn't for the authoritarian bastards who took advantage of the times, of course it would have gotten better and has in China though Russia is a pretty shitty place for the average person now.
The bullshit that making money is more important then the environment or health of the people goes back quite a ways.
We had a big strike here in Canada back in the '50's at the asbestos mill. The workers went on strike, not for money, but rather their demands were 2 sets of lockers, one for their work clothes and one for their street clothes, along with showers and a car wash. They knew the asbestos was going to kill them, but didn't want their families to die. The strike went on for years as the company was too cheap to meet those reasonable demands. That was the attitude for the longest time until the people felt empowered enough to demand regulations, and as you say, it is still happening.
The problem is that the country was supposed to have one House that fairly represented the population and it no longer does.
Fine having a Senate that fairly represents the States, but Montana, even with only one seat in the House of Representatives, has way more power then California in that house. The fix that isn't going to happen is to expand the House of Representatives to 3000-6000 members, which would also translate into 3100-6100 Presidential Electors.
Here in Canada, we have 1/10th the population and 3/5ths the representatives and every census, it gets adjusted to reflect the changing and growing population. In other words, when one Province (much like States, even somewhat sovereign) grows its population, they get more seats in the House of Commons, and vice versa, if a Province loses population, they can lose seats.
The problem being that the House of Representatives stopped growing 90 odd years back so populations aren't represented fairly. My country with 1/10th the population has 3/5ths the representatives and a bigger Senate that is based on regions (and needs fixing as the Provinces have grown at different rates). Every census sees our number of representatives increase as well, to reflect the population.
So what you are saying is that the 10 people on the mountain should be able to vote to fuck the townspeople over, perhaps make it illegal to have trees or parks in towns. And this is due to being a Republic, same as most dictatorships such as Russia, N. Korea, China, Vietnam and so on.
You also don't seem to understand that the term democracy has changed to mean representative democracy where people vote for Representatives and has hardly anything to do with Republic as most Monarchies are also Constitutional Representative Democracies.
Canada has a somewhat even shittier way of splitting our Senate. Each region gets 24 Senate seats, with the regions being the 4 western Provinces, Ontario, Quebec and the 3 tiny Maritime Provinces. This leaves 9 seats to split between Newfoundland and the 3 Territories.
So the 2 biggest Provinces each get 24 Senators, the next 4 biggest get 6 each and the 3 smallest get 8. Sizes might not be accurate but close and Newfoundland is pretty small with I believe 6.
This, along with the fact that the Federal government, eg the Prime Minister, recommends who get appointed by the Queen or her representative (and they're both rubber stamps). This is hard to fix as the Constitution would need updating, though the current PM is appointing independents instead of the traditional patronage appointments.
And even then (actually shortly after, in 1789) there was a movement to make representation more fair. The first proposed amendment, which still hasn't passed but did get within one State a couple of times and now needs 27 more States to become part of the Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You forgot about the option of amending the Constitution. Luckily your Forefathers thought about this and the very first proposed amendment was the Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment, also known as Article the 1st. Just as Article the 2nd finally got passed, Article the 1st just needs 27 more States to ratify it and since Congress has already ratified it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wasn't open source the default back in the day when the money was in selling hardware and the software was just thrown in?
Which is only an argument for isolating him and hopefully treating him.
So did authoritarian communism, doesn't mean that we want to push more of it even if it did lift the Russian surfs and Chinese peasants out of extreme poverty, increased their lifespan, helped cure terrible diseases and improved quality of life.
See https://slashdot.org/comments.... funny enough American Libertarians are actually old time Liberals with their belief in economic freedom, unluckily there has been so much propaganda over the 20th century that terms have changed with the current belief that Stalinism equals socialism and somehow the modern capitalist is not authoritarian.
Libertarian-ism was a leftist philosophy before the right wingers hopped on the bandwagon. Leftism is about empowering the people, getting rid of government, or at least making it as local as possible whereas rightism is about empowering the aristocracy, or now a days the rich.
From https://www.urbandictionary.co...
Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Basically libertarian-ism that empowers the people rather then libertarian-ism that empowers the rich.
but we were also the only untouched first-world country after the war.
That's true, Australia, Canada and New Zealand all got bombed back to the stone age during WWII.
The modern environment movement probably started with Silent Spring questioning the honesty of the chemical companies, which was published in '62.
So not due to decommissioning nuclear power plants but rather that they're not reliable enough.
People still use this company? Last I checked they couldn't even do search right and had to piggy back bing.
I still seem to be subscribed to a couple of mailing lists from egroups that Yahoo bought out, unluckily I have no idea how to log on to Yahoo due to not even knowing the user name, little well a password. The mailing lists chug along sending me mail over pop and it is easy to ignore the ads at the bottom due to using a text mode mail program.
It's a problem with most of these companies, you sign up with one and before you know it, its been bought out by a bigger one and then bought out again, each time usually with more draconian policies.
True, we should just execute all mentally ill people, preferably in a cruel painful way as that'll teach them for being mentally ill and of course it is the Christian way.
Why do you think this is firms, try people. It is people who make these decisions not firms. A firm does what the people who run it decide.
Thing is that when people act as a group such as a committee, suddenly their morals disappear as they give responsibility to the other guy.
Could be, there are places where families of 5 live in 40 sq ft.
How are people going to pay for housing at 20-30 hours a week? $30 an hour might cover a room if they can find one. Then there is the problem that the essential stuff is getting more expensive. Sure toys are getting cheaper but if you have no money left after buying the necessaries...
More likely delayed a bit until another excuse showed itself. At the time, some of the great powers, in particular Germany, were just itching to go to war and just needed the excuse and with the treaties in effect at the time, any conflict was going to expand.
My internet work the same. I'm allocated X amount and if I go over, I pay extra and different plans offer different values of X. Doesn't matter what I download, just how much.
He did get a pretty good knock on the head in that plane crash, and never seemed the same.
Huh? MSM gave Trump billions in free coverage, leading him to be elected, because it was good for business, generating clicks and page views like crazy. They don't care about things like the good of the country, just making money. MSM know how to make sure someone doesn't get elected, ignore them. Think Ron Paul the other election and MSM media reporting 1st, 2nd and 4th places in the primary when Ron Paul came in third.
Probably helped that there may have been promises made like getting rid of that pesky net neutrality, rules on how many media companies a business can own and less oversight by the monopoly busters.