And it seems the real issue is who makes money off of the issue. As long as no one brings forth evidence, the subject can be debated for as long as it's profitable. For every claim for, you can find one against. Politicians drool over issues with no definite answers because it wins them emotional votes. And what happens if the evidence does materialize? Industry fights against legislation and/or install expensive pollution management, and consumers pay for it all in higher prices across the board.
I agree with and earlier poster. If the governments really wanted to do something substantial, they should attempt to link pollution emissions to health. At least that seems like it would be easier to track. The downfall, of course, is that the trial lawyers would have a field day with all the lawsuits linking every death to Big Industry pollution. Lawyers get rich, Big Industry fights against the legislation, and consumers pay for it all in higher prices across the board.
In my opinion, the root of the problem is that most people assume they can only choose candidate "A" or "B". Seeing a list of "other" candidates has no impact on most Americans because we are inundated with "it's between candidate 'A' or 'B'". Most choose "the lesser of two evils" without considering we actually have a choice. The excuse is always "if you don't vote for one of the main two, you're just throwing away your vote". If everyone who thought that way actually voted for who they thought could actually do some good (and researched those "other" candidates) this country would see a third and fourth political party that could make a difference in the system.
Legislators that don't read bills and actually admit that they don't need to be run out of this country, even more so when the excuse is "it's too complicated". Those asshats are responsible for WRITING it! The big House bill for health care reform actually stated that the legislation should be easy to understand. The language explaining that wasn't even easy to understand!
We need to smack people over the head with some common sense and get people to vote for who they think is right. Voting for the "at least he's not as bad as the other" candidate is a crock and a cop-out.
I agree with leaving a ballot blank if you aren't informed, but nobody who wants to make a change should be uninformed.
As a side note, I believe legislation should be enacted to allow everyone to kick a lobbyist (and the congressmen who take their money) in the shin at any given time.
Would this be similar to the martial art kiai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiai)? When the practitioner strikes (or takes a blow) the "kiai" helps. I'm not sure if cursing would be a similar use of energy, but I know that "shit" and "fuck" seem to have much more power than "shoot" or "frick". Perhaps the breath and energy required to project the words are similar to that of the "kiai".
We live in an age of "get it right now". We have on demand everything, microwave everything, and disposable everything, and kids have the attention span of...oh, look, new YouTube video!
Reality for today's college grads seems to be:
1. Do one really good (or really bad) task. 2. Get book offer. 3. 4. Profit
With every little news event getting blown out of proportion and every standard being lowered so everyone is a star, I'm amazed some of them don't demand a bonus just for showing up in the morning.
Good rewards can be quick, but more often than not, quality takes time.
If the artist makes the music (not that I'd call the crap spewing from the pop artists "music"), the record companies represent (read: OWN) the artists, and the RIAA represents the record companies, I'm surprised the artists don't have contracts put out for these RIAA asses for not giving up the loot. Sure, the money can be funneled back into the legal fees for more lawsuits, but this is just pushing the public away.
Artist make music --> record company take money from public --> RIAA take money from criminal (formerly known as public) --> public get pissed --> public stop buying music (we should) --> artist make nothing
On the other hand, my ears would probably thank the RIAA for indirectly slowing the spewing of crap.
Slashdot Mirror
And it seems the real issue is who makes money off of the issue. As long as no one brings forth evidence, the subject can be debated for as long as it's profitable. For every claim for, you can find one against. Politicians drool over issues with no definite answers because it wins them emotional votes. And what happens if the evidence does materialize? Industry fights against legislation and/or install expensive pollution management, and consumers pay for it all in higher prices across the board.
I agree with and earlier poster. If the governments really wanted to do something substantial, they should attempt to link pollution emissions to health. At least that seems like it would be easier to track. The downfall, of course, is that the trial lawyers would have a field day with all the lawsuits linking every death to Big Industry pollution. Lawyers get rich, Big Industry fights against the legislation, and consumers pay for it all in higher prices across the board.
In my opinion, the root of the problem is that most people assume they can only choose candidate "A" or "B". Seeing a list of "other" candidates has no impact on most Americans because we are inundated with "it's between candidate 'A' or 'B'". Most choose "the lesser of two evils" without considering we actually have a choice. The excuse is always "if you don't vote for one of the main two, you're just throwing away your vote". If everyone who thought that way actually voted for who they thought could actually do some good (and researched those "other" candidates) this country would see a third and fourth political party that could make a difference in the system.
Legislators that don't read bills and actually admit that they don't need to be run out of this country, even more so when the excuse is "it's too complicated". Those asshats are responsible for WRITING it! The big House bill for health care reform actually stated that the legislation should be easy to understand. The language explaining that wasn't even easy to understand!
We need to smack people over the head with some common sense and get people to vote for who they think is right. Voting for the "at least he's not as bad as the other" candidate is a crock and a cop-out.
I agree with leaving a ballot blank if you aren't informed, but nobody who wants to make a change should be uninformed.
As a side note, I believe legislation should be enacted to allow everyone to kick a lobbyist (and the congressmen who take their money) in the shin at any given time.
But we can make enormous Swiss cheese!
Would this be similar to the martial art kiai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiai)? When the practitioner strikes (or takes a blow) the "kiai" helps. I'm not sure if cursing would be a similar use of energy, but I know that "shit" and "fuck" seem to have much more power than "shoot" or "frick". Perhaps the breath and energy required to project the words are similar to that of the "kiai".
We live in an age of "get it right now". We have on demand everything, microwave everything, and disposable everything, and kids have the attention span of...oh, look, new YouTube video!
Reality for today's college grads seems to be:
1. Do one really good (or really bad) task.
2. Get book offer.
3.
4. Profit
With every little news event getting blown out of proportion and every standard being lowered so everyone is a star, I'm amazed some of them don't demand a bonus just for showing up in the morning.
Good rewards can be quick, but more often than not, quality takes time.
Notice to all advertisers wishing to target me: I opt out. Please do not advertise to me. If I want your crap, I'll find you.
The most fitting use I've heard of: Judge: Prosecution, please state your case methodology. RIAA: 1. Accuse randomly 2. 3. Profit
If the artist makes the music (not that I'd call the crap spewing from the pop artists "music"), the record companies represent (read: OWN) the artists, and the RIAA represents the record companies, I'm surprised the artists don't have contracts put out for these RIAA asses for not giving up the loot. Sure, the money can be funneled back into the legal fees for more lawsuits, but this is just pushing the public away. Artist make music --> record company take money from public --> RIAA take money from criminal (formerly known as public) --> public get pissed --> public stop buying music (we should) --> artist make nothing On the other hand, my ears would probably thank the RIAA for indirectly slowing the spewing of crap.