It costs you a mere 10 seconds and 2 mouse clicks to sign a petition. The ability for the public to gauge the collective support behind an issue like this is worth that cost by itself (the corporate media sure as hell isn't going to channel such concerns). The possibility that the petition may "go viral" and gain enough signatures to make a politician a little less comfortable is only a bonus.
If you feel "cheated" by petitions, you were expecting too much in the first place--especially in the context of the US where what's in the public's interest is often in direct conflict with what gets a politician re-elected (money). They are not a substitute for other avenues of political activism, but they are certainly worth the almost nonexistent cost. You should be signing one every day.
Actually I don't know if that is the right solution, but I'm tired of seeing NASA being manipulated as a jobs program (and to be clear, I'm not talking about NASA being able to dictate the size of its budget). NASA could have so much more potential if it was able to focus on long term goals and could allocate its resources correctly. If anyone has a solution to this problem that doesn't involve depending too heavily on the limited nature of private enterprise (and the luck of people like Elon Musk--those that have bigger dreams than using their wealth to accumulate more wealth--getting rich), it would be great if you could share it.
And increase the size of NASA's budget.
Of course I believe there are much more important things at this particular time than issues relating to science and technology, so I took a look at your wikipedia page Justice Party's wiki page and it all looks very good. Campaign Finance Reform, does not accept corporate funding, abolishing corporate personhood, favors a financial transaction tax, repeal of Bush tax cuts, raising the cap on the payroll tax, reinstating Glass-Steagall, single payer health system, ending the war on drugs... etc etc. It looks like the party supports a lot of the good things democrats say they are for, but without the corporate dependence that goads them to do the opposite.
Now to see if you have anyone running in New York...
Quite informative, both in the proliferation and ease of paid reviews, and the extent to which unempathetic people like yourself can openly rationalize unscrupulous behavior by blaming the victim--the "freedom to screw over peopl"--oh I'm sorry, I mean the "personal responsibility" mentality.
However, if you want to continue on the stepping stones you've created for yourself and put your moral vacancy to better use, I recommend pushing ARMs and other exotic loans for large financial institutions, and/or perhaps pushing some rehash of "consumer driven" plans in the healthcare industry. A lot more money to be made. ":P".
These were mostly already available, but the value here is that they are now easily accessible and searchable. In addition, there is a history of previously declassified documents becoming re-classified:
The previous declassification Executive Order 12958 signed in 1995, under the Clinton administration, was resisted by officials in the Defense Department and the U.S. intelligence community. The reclassification program was started in the fall of 1999 (Executive Order 13142). Security concerns were heightened by the Wen Ho Lee case, and "alleged" inadvertent release of nuclear secrets by the State Department.[1] 55 boxes of material were removed to the classified storage area on the sixth floor.[2]
It sought to be covert for as long as possible, but was revealed by the National Security Archive in February 2006.[3] By that point over 55,000 pages had already been reclassified, many dating back more than 50 years.
During the George W. Bush administration the scope of the program widened (Executive Order 13292), and was scheduled to end in March 2007.
I don't think any but a small minority actually expect the government to respond to a petition like this in a way that will actually change anything. However, it seems there are a lot of people that think these petitions do not have a net benefit, but just about anyone thinking this is probably expecting way too much from the start. At the cost of a few seconds and a mouse click, they allow the public to gauge the collective support behind something, and also get a potential mention in the media. Knowing that you and all these people (whatever number of people these 100k signatures can be extrapolated to in terms of the public's sentiment) are mutually concerned about something is only a good thing--especially when the cost is so miniscule.
But again, I don't think this alone will actually change anything. A significant step, in my opinion at least, is to create an environment in which change *can* actually happen--namely a system of publicly funded elections allowing candidates to run without becoming dependent on the wealthy for their campaign costs (the average person rarely ever hears about the ones that don't). There are a few campaigns pushing for this at the federal level and one is materializing in NY, but this, however, is a completely different topic...
Frontline recently aired an *excellent* documentary on the striking rise in climate change denial in the U.S. and links it to this very thing (and Donors Trust makes an appearance in the program too). It shows just how damn effective these shadow money groups and the billionaires behind them are at driving public opinion to suit their interests.
I highly recommend viewing it. Only an hour long:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/
Slashdot Mirror
It costs you a mere 10 seconds and 2 mouse clicks to sign a petition. The ability for the public to gauge the collective support behind an issue like this is worth that cost by itself (the corporate media sure as hell isn't going to channel such concerns). The possibility that the petition may "go viral" and gain enough signatures to make a politician a little less comfortable is only a bonus.
If you feel "cheated" by petitions, you were expecting too much in the first place--especially in the context of the US where what's in the public's interest is often in direct conflict with what gets a politician re-elected (money). They are not a substitute for other avenues of political activism, but they are certainly worth the almost nonexistent cost. You should be signing one every day.
Actually I don't know if that is the right solution, but I'm tired of seeing NASA being manipulated as a jobs program (and to be clear, I'm not talking about NASA being able to dictate the size of its budget). NASA could have so much more potential if it was able to focus on long term goals and could allocate its resources correctly. If anyone has a solution to this problem that doesn't involve depending too heavily on the limited nature of private enterprise (and the luck of people like Elon Musk--those that have bigger dreams than using their wealth to accumulate more wealth--getting rich), it would be great if you could share it.
... etc etc. It looks like the party supports a lot of the good things democrats say they are for, but without the corporate dependence that goads them to do the opposite.
And increase the size of NASA's budget.
Of course I believe there are much more important things at this particular time than issues relating to science and technology, so I took a look at your wikipedia page Justice Party's wiki page and it all looks very good. Campaign Finance Reform, does not accept corporate funding, abolishing corporate personhood, favors a financial transaction tax, repeal of Bush tax cuts, raising the cap on the payroll tax, reinstating Glass-Steagall, single payer health system, ending the war on drugs
Now to see if you have anyone running in New York...
Quite informative, both in the proliferation and ease of paid reviews, and the extent to which unempathetic people like yourself can openly rationalize unscrupulous behavior by blaming the victim--the "freedom to screw over peopl"--oh I'm sorry, I mean the "personal responsibility" mentality.
However, if you want to continue on the stepping stones you've created for yourself and put your moral vacancy to better use, I recommend pushing ARMs and other exotic loans for large financial institutions, and/or perhaps pushing some rehash of "consumer driven" plans in the healthcare industry. A lot more money to be made. ":P".
The previous declassification Executive Order 12958 signed in 1995, under the Clinton administration, was resisted by officials in the Defense Department and the U.S. intelligence community. The reclassification program was started in the fall of 1999 (Executive Order 13142). Security concerns were heightened by the Wen Ho Lee case, and "alleged" inadvertent release of nuclear secrets by the State Department.[1] 55 boxes of material were removed to the classified storage area on the sixth floor.[2]
It sought to be covert for as long as possible, but was revealed by the National Security Archive in February 2006.[3] By that point over 55,000 pages had already been reclassified, many dating back more than 50 years.
During the George W. Bush administration the scope of the program widened (Executive Order 13292), and was scheduled to end in March 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._reclassification_program
I don't think any but a small minority actually expect the government to respond to a petition like this in a way that will actually change anything. However, it seems there are a lot of people that think these petitions do not have a net benefit, but just about anyone thinking this is probably expecting way too much from the start. At the cost of a few seconds and a mouse click, they allow the public to gauge the collective support behind something, and also get a potential mention in the media. Knowing that you and all these people (whatever number of people these 100k signatures can be extrapolated to in terms of the public's sentiment) are mutually concerned about something is only a good thing--especially when the cost is so miniscule.
But again, I don't think this alone will actually change anything. A significant step, in my opinion at least, is to create an environment in which change *can* actually happen--namely a system of publicly funded elections allowing candidates to run without becoming dependent on the wealthy for their campaign costs (the average person rarely ever hears about the ones that don't). There are a few campaigns pushing for this at the federal level and one is materializing in NY, but this, however, is a completely different topic...
Frontline recently aired an *excellent* documentary on the striking rise in climate change denial in the U.S. and links it to this very thing (and Donors Trust makes an appearance in the program too). It shows just how damn effective these shadow money groups and the billionaires behind them are at driving public opinion to suit their interests. I highly recommend viewing it. Only an hour long: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/