"and suddenly there's this whole cultural framework that swings into action, expectations and semi-elaborated rituals."
Evolution isn't just about biology -- it's about culture, too. If there are 'taboos' it's because they serve a purpose. If there are 'semi-elaborate' rituals, then it is likewise because they serve a purpose.
"you have to realize that such a thing will never happen because the sentiment that "voting should not be easy" has been historically equivalent to "voting should only be done by white male landowners.""
Oh I realize it. I question if it will "never" happen but have no illusions about how incredibly unlikely it is.
If we did a decent job educating our population about our nations founding we would have a better understanding of the dangers of democracy. We have a democratic republic not to give people the vote and power but to prevent the government from abusing the powers granted to it by the people. Our founders were nearly as frighted about a tyranny of the people as they were of monarchy. The Senate was originally seated by state legislatures and *NOT* popular vote to off-set the publicly elected House members (the 17th amendment changed that) to help prevent such tyranny.
Our system was designed to move SLOW on purpose -- not just because of huge distances and travel time of the 18th century.
Cute -- and people usually go there. You might make the argument that my suggestion for props might be a "literacy" test and perhaps you are right. Again, if you can't read the documentation on props how can you cast an informed vote? With regards to your representative -- you just need to recognize a name. There's no difference NOW going in other than if you can't recognize the name on the screen/ballot NOW, how would someone illiterate cast a vote? And any other jim-crow crap doesn't really apply to my suggestion.
How is asking who your Representative currently is targeting anyone's race? Or even education level? The only group it targets are those who aren't interested enough to be familiar with what their representatives are doing or what props they are voting for/against. I think this is a general 'good'.
Seriously? How can you expect democracy to work when people randomly "check boxes"? The only people who should vote are those that care enough to be familiar with what their government is doing. Otherwise, just roll dice.
I don't trust most voters. I believe them to be blissfully ignorant.
If I could "make @&^% happen" I would force a simple test for people wishing to cast a ballot.
Something like: "Who is your current city assemblyman?". Even make it multiple choice. If you can't answer, you cant vote for your districts assemblyman. Same for all other offices state and federal. *
Also, don't include a list of what each "Prop" is pro or con. Just a question: "Which is Prop 205?" -- and you select from a multiple choice (the actual text of the prop) -- if you get it right, you get to vote yes/no on it.
Voting should not be easy. It should be hard. Get rid of "mail in voting" for all except those who are really out of the country or home/hospital bound. It'll weed out those who really don't give a crap. I believe it would have the added effect of limiting influence of "money" on campaigns since only those who have really taken the time to learn who their representatives are and/or local propositions are will be likely to cast a ballot.
* allow for some exceptions -- say for "new to district" folks.
"a lot of these are tweeted by interns"... "no reason to jump on someone for saying the wrong thing on a slow news day"
I disagree. Shouldn't a politician also be judged by the quality of people they appoint and how they respond to inept and irresponsible actions by them?
" a Trump presidency becomes a much more likely and scarier scenario."
In what universe? That aint going to happen. Trump is only a blip right now because he's talking about a subject no other politician on either side is touching -- and it's one that resonates very strong with America -- both "R" and "D". Even a broken clock is right twice a day -- and Trump's broken clock is stuck on "immigration".
That's not true. Legions will support her because she has a "D" after her name. Seriously, a hen could be running and get 30% of the vote if it had a "D" after it's name. Same is true for the republicans and an "R" after there name.
The problem is we are voting for PARTY above the PERSON. Biggest flipping mistake a human can make in selecting leaders.
Lets be honest. This is *NOT* a victimless crime. If someone releases countless copies of some song or movie then it devalues the original media just like copies of $100 bills devalue currency. Yes, there are many many examples of those wouldn't pay for a DVD or CD if they couldn't get it for free -- but it's not universal.
I know my purchasing habits have changed -- and so have my rental habits with the availability of media the way it is.
There is one area of consensus: Both sides agree that eating too much salt, especially for people with high blood pressure, can be dangerous.
The critical disagreement concerns how to define “too much.”
Very low level of salt consumption is bad -- and so is very high. And the amounts in many canned foods are very high for single entrees (example already provided).
I say "generally canned foods contain a lot of salt". This is true.
You say that the canned tomatoes you use do not, which I will accept as true.
If I say most people lose the the lottery, is it really a counter argument to say "No! I won once!"?
What about the other extreme? Go to the market and pick up a can of spaghetti (yes, spaghetti, not sauce). You'll find most have a sodium content of something like 1000 mg per serving (with 2 or so servings per can). That's pert near close a full days worth of salt -- over a full day if someone eats the whole can. Or close to half on a few of the more loose recommendations -- in a single entree.
Yes, processing doesn't mean bad. A lot of salt does and I was trying to find some meaning up the thread. And this is only a single example.
"Really? Where? Just because canned food is "processed" it does not make it bad for you. And i have never seen a study to support this assertion in any way or form. After all bread is processed foods!"
Maybe he meant 'indirectly' bad for you. Generally, canned foods contain a lot of salt -- which is generally believed to be harmful if consumed in excess and regularly over time.
"At some point in our past we decided that eye-for-an-eye was not a workable approach to justice and three lifetimes plus hundreds of years for an offense of twelve hours, no matter how awful those twelve hours may have been, goes so far beyond eye-for-an-eye..."
Dozens of multiple counts -- three of which hold 25 to life terms. I'm sure if you knew the details you would say it's not enough.
Again -- anyone who's brain is broke enough to be attracted to kids should not walk free -- ever. Just because they walk, talk and wear clothes doesn't mean they aren't dangerous animals.
"Not that I don't get what you're saying, but if a woman molested your son (one of the many, many female child molesters) would you hunt her down and presumably kill her?"
My 10 year old son? Yes. My 17 year old son? No. There are many variables. How "under 18" was she?
My daughter was kidnapped when she was 10 years old an suffered a horrific 12 hours with a monster. Over 2 years later the monster still hasn't been to trial but that's coming up soon. He's looking at 3 life sentences + a few hundred years.
A history of sexual predation should never be erased from the public memory. I don't give a rip if this particular guy is "living a new life" -- if your brain is broke in such a way as to be attracted to kids then you should no more be allowed to walk the streets than a lion who thinks kids are tasty.
I suggest we program all robots with some type of rules that prevent this from happening. Some 'laws', if you will that prevent them from hurting people. Force them to follow their programming (unless it tells them to hurt people). Finally, prevent them from damaging themselves or their work (unless it would cause them to hurt people or not follow their programming).
These are pretty basic 'laws'. I don't know why someone hasn't come up with this yet.
Not exactly. The process varied from state to state, but yes -- a bit more than half the states didn't select senators via legislative or gubernatorial appointment. But that was fairly close to the ratification of the 17th anyway -- as you go back even a few years (say 1906), that wasn't the case. The momentum was already building.
"The reason that the amendment got passed is that the process of picking senators was completely corrupt."
But you also said the following BEFORE that statement:
"You need to spend more time understanding why this amendment got passed"
Apparently you don't fully understand why it got passed. One of the issues was corruption, but it wasn't the only one.
Also, the "solution" had an impact which damaged and continues to damage the republic. I would argue that the solution created a much larger problem than it fixed, should be undone and another "solution" pursued.
"And you do realize that you are actually arguing for less democracy and more corruption by begging to return to those "good old days", right?"
Yes, I do realize I'm arguing for less democracy. No, I'm not arguing for more corruption. That's just ridicules.
First some background -- I'm an amateur historian with a strong focus the early federal period of the United States. I have assisted/directed more than a few scholars to reference letters/documents supporting their respective thesis'. Anyone who's read Madison's notes and letters, letters of Hamilton, Jay (beyond just the Federalist Papers), and Morris for example can clearly see that there was nearly as much fear of too much democracy as there was of monarchy. Madison took copious notes during the convention (which is amazing considering how often he also spoke during the convention). He wasn't even the official secretary -- that was Jackson. His citations are well documented.
With regards to the legislature, they kept wanting to "cool" the "passions" of the people and their influence on the House while making sure the people had a voice. It is impossible to balance democracy and reason when both the House and the Senate can be swayed by popular passions.
I can continue the history lesson but I would suggest seeing if you can find an old book by St. John -- "The Constitutional Journal" or "A Constitutional Journal" (it's been a few decades since I read it) but it provides an excellent overview of the CC and presents it in an entertaining format (as if it were being reported daily by an embedded journalist).
Again, the "solution" to whatever the perceived problems were pre 17 had a profound and unintended negative impact on our republic. I find it astonishing that just because you heard people you don't like saying it that you reflexively dismiss it. Ok -- maybe not astonished. But I certainly find it amusing that you accuse me of parroting 'talking heads'.
"No of course you don't because you just repeat what the right wing talking heads told you to think."
That is a silly comment. I've held this belief for well over 30 years. I acquired it myself reading the letters of our framers. Not "snips" of text -- but their actual full letters (some original, most copies).
Yes it is. With regards to the judiciary, they are deliberately affirming judicial nominations who believe in the idea of re-interpreting the constitution -- and in the extreme, basically writing law themselves.
" so now the Judiciary branch made the decision that America lives in the real world"
Sorry, but when they can bend over backwards and re-define eminent domain to allow the government to take private property from a citizen and force a sale to another private citizen or entity for the sole purpose of the enrichment of the government coffers we've jumped the shark.
Slashdot Mirror
"and suddenly there's this whole cultural framework that swings into action, expectations and semi-elaborated rituals."
Evolution isn't just about biology -- it's about culture, too. If there are 'taboos' it's because they serve a purpose. If there are 'semi-elaborate' rituals, then it is likewise because they serve a purpose.
"you have to realize that such a thing will never happen because the sentiment that "voting should not be easy" has been historically equivalent to "voting should only be done by white male landowners.""
Oh I realize it. I question if it will "never" happen but have no illusions about how incredibly unlikely it is.
If we did a decent job educating our population about our nations founding we would have a better understanding of the dangers of democracy. We have a democratic republic not to give people the vote and power but to prevent the government from abusing the powers granted to it by the people. Our founders were nearly as frighted about a tyranny of the people as they were of monarchy. The Senate was originally seated by state legislatures and *NOT* popular vote to off-set the publicly elected House members (the 17th amendment changed that) to help prevent such tyranny.
Our system was designed to move SLOW on purpose -- not just because of huge distances and travel time of the 18th century.
'Don't forget the 2nd question, "are you white?"'
Cute -- and people usually go there. You might make the argument that my suggestion for props might be a "literacy" test and perhaps you are right. Again, if you can't read the documentation on props how can you cast an informed vote? With regards to your representative -- you just need to recognize a name. There's no difference NOW going in other than if you can't recognize the name on the screen/ballot NOW, how would someone illiterate cast a vote? And any other jim-crow crap doesn't really apply to my suggestion.
How is asking who your Representative currently is targeting anyone's race? Or even education level? The only group it targets are those who aren't interested enough to be familiar with what their representatives are doing or what props they are voting for/against. I think this is a general 'good'.
Seriously? How can you expect democracy to work when people randomly "check boxes"? The only people who should vote are those that care enough to be familiar with what their government is doing. Otherwise, just roll dice.
"You can't have the power without responsibility."
Just ask Peter Parker...
I don't trust most voters. I believe them to be blissfully ignorant.
If I could "make @&^% happen" I would force a simple test for people wishing to cast a ballot.
Something like: "Who is your current city assemblyman?". Even make it multiple choice. If you can't answer, you cant vote for your districts assemblyman. Same for all other offices state and federal. *
Also, don't include a list of what each "Prop" is pro or con. Just a question: "Which is Prop 205?" -- and you select from a multiple choice (the actual text of the prop) -- if you get it right, you get to vote yes/no on it.
Voting should not be easy. It should be hard. Get rid of "mail in voting" for all except those who are really out of the country or home/hospital bound. It'll weed out those who really don't give a crap. I believe it would have the added effect of limiting influence of "money" on campaigns since only those who have really taken the time to learn who their representatives are and/or local propositions are will be likely to cast a ballot.
* allow for some exceptions -- say for "new to district" folks.
"a lot of these are tweeted by interns" ... "no reason to jump on someone for saying the wrong thing on a slow news day"
I disagree. Shouldn't a politician also be judged by the quality of people they appoint and how they respond to inept and irresponsible actions by them?
" a Trump presidency becomes a much more likely and scarier scenario."
In what universe? That aint going to happen. Trump is only a blip right now because he's talking about a subject no other politician on either side is touching -- and it's one that resonates very strong with America -- both "R" and "D". Even a broken clock is right twice a day -- and Trump's broken clock is stuck on "immigration".
That's not true. Legions will support her because she has a "D" after her name. Seriously, a hen could be running and get 30% of the vote if it had a "D" after it's name. Same is true for the republicans and an "R" after there name.
The problem is we are voting for PARTY above the PERSON. Biggest flipping mistake a human can make in selecting leaders.
I believe you literally don't know what 'literally' means.
So... I just clicked through the link on the brother and found a story quite different than the one I read several days ago.
Maybe you weren't that far off on "his own money".
"At least that guy is allrigh as he only wasted own money"
Not true. His brother (who is suing him) who co-founded and owns part of the company had his interest destroyed by this lame experiment.
" this victimless crime "
Lets be honest. This is *NOT* a victimless crime. If someone releases countless copies of some song or movie then it devalues the original media just like copies of $100 bills devalue currency. Yes, there are many many examples of those wouldn't pay for a DVD or CD if they couldn't get it for free -- but it's not universal.
I know my purchasing habits have changed -- and so have my rental habits with the availability of media the way it is.
The example I used was salt.
"There really is nothing to show that salt is bad for you."
Increased salt intake is generally believed to be bad for you in the scientific community.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
There is one area of consensus: Both sides agree that eating too much salt, especially for people with high blood pressure, can be dangerous.
The critical disagreement concerns how to define “too much.”
Very low level of salt consumption is bad -- and so is very high. And the amounts in many canned foods are very high for single entrees (example already provided).
I say "generally canned foods contain a lot of salt". This is true.
You say that the canned tomatoes you use do not, which I will accept as true.
If I say most people lose the the lottery, is it really a counter argument to say "No! I won once!"?
What about the other extreme? Go to the market and pick up a can of spaghetti (yes, spaghetti, not sauce). You'll find most have a sodium content of something like 1000 mg per serving (with 2 or so servings per can). That's pert near close a full days worth of salt -- over a full day if someone eats the whole can. Or close to half on a few of the more loose recommendations -- in a single entree.
Yes, processing doesn't mean bad. A lot of salt does and I was trying to find some meaning up the thread. And this is only a single example.
"Avoid all WHITE foods with the exception of cauliflower."
Racist.
"Really? Where? Just because canned food is "processed" it does not make it bad for you. And i have never seen a study to support this assertion in any way or form. After all bread is processed foods!"
Maybe he meant 'indirectly' bad for you. Generally, canned foods contain a lot of salt -- which is generally believed to be harmful if consumed in excess and regularly over time.
"At some point in our past we decided that eye-for-an-eye was not a workable approach to justice and three lifetimes plus hundreds of years for an offense of twelve hours, no matter how awful those twelve hours may have been, goes so far beyond eye-for-an-eye..."
Dozens of multiple counts -- three of which hold 25 to life terms. I'm sure if you knew the details you would say it's not enough.
Again -- anyone who's brain is broke enough to be attracted to kids should not walk free -- ever. Just because they walk, talk and wear clothes doesn't mean they aren't dangerous animals.
"Not that I don't get what you're saying, but if a woman molested your son (one of the many, many female child molesters) would you hunt her down and presumably kill her?"
My 10 year old son? Yes. My 17 year old son? No. There are many variables. How "under 18" was she?
My daughter was kidnapped when she was 10 years old an suffered a horrific 12 hours with a monster. Over 2 years later the monster still hasn't been to trial but that's coming up soon. He's looking at 3 life sentences + a few hundred years.
A history of sexual predation should never be erased from the public memory. I don't give a rip if this particular guy is "living a new life" -- if your brain is broke in such a way as to be attracted to kids then you should no more be allowed to walk the streets than a lion who thinks kids are tasty.
I suggest we program all robots with some type of rules that prevent this from happening. Some 'laws', if you will that prevent them from hurting people. Force them to follow their programming (unless it tells them to hurt people). Finally, prevent them from damaging themselves or their work (unless it would cause them to hurt people or not follow their programming).
These are pretty basic 'laws'. I don't know why someone hasn't come up with this yet.
Not exactly. The process varied from state to state, but yes -- a bit more than half the states didn't select senators via legislative or gubernatorial appointment. But that was fairly close to the ratification of the 17th anyway -- as you go back even a few years (say 1906), that wasn't the case. The momentum was already building.
"The reason that the amendment got passed is that the process of picking senators was completely corrupt."
But you also said the following BEFORE that statement:
"You need to spend more time understanding why this amendment got passed"
Apparently you don't fully understand why it got passed. One of the issues was corruption, but it wasn't the only one.
Also, the "solution" had an impact which damaged and continues to damage the republic. I would argue that the solution created a much larger problem than it fixed, should be undone and another "solution" pursued.
"And you do realize that you are actually arguing for less democracy and more corruption by begging to return to those "good old days", right?"
Yes, I do realize I'm arguing for less democracy. No, I'm not arguing for more corruption. That's just ridicules.
First some background -- I'm an amateur historian with a strong focus the early federal period of the United States. I have assisted/directed more than a few scholars to reference letters/documents supporting their respective thesis'. Anyone who's read Madison's notes and letters, letters of Hamilton, Jay (beyond just the Federalist Papers), and Morris for example can clearly see that there was nearly as much fear of too much democracy as there was of monarchy. Madison took copious notes during the convention (which is amazing considering how often he also spoke during the convention). He wasn't even the official secretary -- that was Jackson. His citations are well documented.
With regards to the legislature, they kept wanting to "cool" the "passions" of the people and their influence on the House while making sure the people had a voice. It is impossible to balance democracy and reason when both the House and the Senate can be swayed by popular passions.
I can continue the history lesson but I would suggest seeing if you can find an old book by St. John -- "The Constitutional Journal" or "A Constitutional Journal" (it's been a few decades since I read it) but it provides an excellent overview of the CC and presents it in an entertaining format (as if it were being reported daily by an embedded journalist).
Again, the "solution" to whatever the perceived problems were pre 17 had a profound and unintended negative impact on our republic. I find it astonishing that just because you heard people you don't like saying it that you reflexively dismiss it. Ok -- maybe not astonished. But I certainly find it amusing that you accuse me of parroting 'talking heads'.
"No of course you don't because you just repeat what the right wing talking heads told you to think."
That is a silly comment. I've held this belief for well over 30 years. I acquired it myself reading the letters of our framers. Not "snips" of text -- but their actual full letters (some original, most copies).
The concessions were made to DEMOCRATS to risk their seats voting for it.
A single payer system never would have made it to the floor because a large number of DEMOCRATS wouldn't have voted for it.
Again, the only bipartisan aspect of the ACA was it's opposition.
"Its doing neither."
Yes it is. With regards to the judiciary, they are deliberately affirming judicial nominations who believe in the idea of re-interpreting the constitution -- and in the extreme, basically writing law themselves.
" so now the Judiciary branch made the decision that America lives in the real world"
Sorry, but when they can bend over backwards and re-define eminent domain to allow the government to take private property from a citizen and force a sale to another private citizen or entity for the sole purpose of the enrichment of the government coffers we've jumped the shark.
Repeal the 17th amendment. At least you would have one house that isn't campaigning all the type.
IMO, the 17th broke a fundamental safeguard of our republic.
Ayup. I mis-typed. That should read "Congress is ceding power to both the Executive and Judiciary".
My bad.