Either the government has already gotten so terrible that to defy it is mere foolishness, or the people have gotten the government we deserve.
The former would simply be a more severe case of the latter.
Regardless, if lack of action can cause us to deserve such a government, then we should have gotten it a long time ago.
Preventing misuse of power is why we have seperate branches of government. In the long run, it is in the best interests of a government to handle these things internally, rather than let the masses take care of it.
If you draw their attention to important matters like this, most of them will take action.
I should have been a bit more clear. I would like my congressmen to (1) consider the effect that a law will have on their constituents and voice any objections prior to voting on the bill, (2) note any negative news related to the law while it is still young, and (3) respond to the problem as soon as constituents start complaining. Having one or two staff members devoted primarily to consideration of the rights of the people would not be a bad idea right now.
Congressmen should hold themselves to a higher standard when the issues being dealt with are the rights of the people.
I hate it when I accidentally hit the submit button
If you draw their attention to important matters like this, most of them will take action.
I should have been a bit more clear. I would like my congressmen to (1) consider the effect that a law will have on their constituents and voice any objections prior to voting on the bill, (2) note any negative news related to the law while it is still young, and (3) respond to the problem as soon as constituents start complaining. Having one or two staff members devoted primarily to consideration of the rights of the people would not be a bad idea right now.
Congressmen should hold themselves to a higher standard when the issues being dealt with are the rights of the people.
Anyone who gets one of these letters has a moral responsibility to disobey it.
The problem is many of those 140,000 also have other moral responsibilities, such as providing for their children. I think a good 10,000 would do the trick.
Don't get me wrong: I agree, we should contact our representatives and make some noise. But...
To be honest, must people are not going to care until it happens to them. My parents (and I think most people) may not agree with it, but rather than disagree with it, they would rather just avoid thinking about it.
Unless we get some honest politicians (I love throwing oxymorons into my posts), the situation is probably going to take a long time to correct. But, if no one does anything, it will never be corrected.
What galls me is that, in Tennessee, AT&T/Bellsouth is wanting to roll out IPTV http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI D=2007702180369. To do so, they need to be able to "cherrypick" (i.e. provide IPTV service where they provide internet service.) Of course, Comcast is trying to convince the public that they are above favoring wealthy areas by airing commercials trying to get individuals to try to call their congressmen (and congresswomen) to try to block AT&T/Bellsouth from getting a franchise license.
So Comcast (and Charter Cable) want to be able to cherrypick where they provide internet service (and upgrade it/provide new services), but want to legally prevent AT&T from doing the same by providing a new service: IPTV.
It wouldn't bother me so much if corporations weren't such hypocrites. So much for being good corporate citizens.
From the article:
[Biologists] believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.
It may be true that the biologists should be the ones to "say" (i.e. determine) what the rules for acquiring a moral is, but I would think philosophy would have a little more to say about what should be a moral (beyond, say survival of one's genetic line).
Slashdot Mirror
The former would simply be a more severe case of the latter.
Regardless, if lack of action can cause us to deserve such a government, then we should have gotten it a long time ago.
Preventing misuse of power is why we have seperate branches of government. In the long run, it is in the best interests of a government to handle these things internally, rather than let the masses take care of it.
I should have been a bit more clear. I would like my congressmen to (1) consider the effect that a law will have on their constituents and voice any objections prior to voting on the bill, (2) note any negative news related to the law while it is still young, and (3) respond to the problem as soon as constituents start complaining. Having one or two staff members devoted primarily to consideration of the rights of the people would not be a bad idea right now.
Congressmen should hold themselves to a higher standard when the issues being dealt with are the rights of the people.
I hate it when I accidentally hit the submit button
I should have been a bit more clear. I would like my congressmen to (1) consider the effect that a law will have on their constituents and voice any objections prior to voting on the bill, (2) note any negative news related to the law while it is still young, and (3) respond to the problem as soon as constituents start complaining. Having one or two staff members devoted primarily to consideration of the rights of the people would not be a bad idea right now.
Congressmen should hold themselves to a higher standard when the issues being dealt with are the rights of the people.
The problem is many of those 140,000 also have other moral responsibilities, such as providing for their children. I think a good 10,000 would do the trick.
Don't get me wrong: I agree, we should contact our representatives and make some noise. But...
To be honest, must people are not going to care until it happens to them. My parents (and I think most people) may not agree with it, but rather than disagree with it, they would rather just avoid thinking about it.
Unless we get some honest politicians (I love throwing oxymorons into my posts), the situation is probably going to take a long time to correct. But, if no one does anything, it will never be corrected.
So Comcast (and Charter Cable) want to be able to cherrypick where they provide internet service (and upgrade it/provide new services), but want to legally prevent AT&T from doing the same by providing a new service: IPTV.
It wouldn't bother me so much if corporations weren't such hypocrites. So much for being good corporate citizens.
It may be true that the biologists should be the ones to "say" (i.e. determine) what the rules for acquiring a moral is, but I would think philosophy would have a little more to say about what should be a moral (beyond, say survival of one's genetic line).