"So I'm free to set up a wireless access point in the next plane I fly on? Who cares if the airline prohibits it? Federal law trumps the airline rules, navigational interference be damned!"
Apples::Oranges. Other federal law (notably the FAA) treats airplanes in flight much like ships at sea; the pilot is lord god of the airplane and you will do whatever he or she tells you to.
"She said, "I'd like to look more like her, would you mind implants if I got my breasts to look like hers?""
Three words: Duck and cover!
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
"militias are strate armys."
First off, states don't have armies, at least not constitutionally. Article I, section 10, third clause.
Militias are not armies, which is why the Second Amendment doesn't run up against the aforementioned clause. The concept of a militia is civillians organizing for their self-defense. The easiest way for most Slashdotters to wrap their heads around the concept is to think about the human militias in Warcraft III and compare them to the dedicated footsoldiers.
What you're probably thinking of are National Guard units (and state guards, but you've probably never heard of them). They are a smaller subset of militias called organized militias. They're organized in the way their members report for training every so often and drill fairly regularly. The governor/president (either or, but the latter has rank over the former) rings the bell at the town hall whenever he/she needs a rapid reaction force to protect the state from invaders, hurricanes, etc. Otherwise, the folks in the organized militias are off harvesting and building things as opposed to sitting around and being dedicated soldiers.
However, there is still the unorganized militia, which is essentially "everybody," or at least everybody that has to register for Selective Service. To defend itself from Really Bad Things that the army and organized militia may not be enough to deal with, it is expected that all citizens who are able will come running when the bell at the town hall rings. This is commonly called "the draft."
To that end, I'm in the militia, you're in the militia, and by current federal law all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 are in the militia. (Of course, I don't know of any states that bar the sale of firearms to women who aren't in an NG or SG unit, but the sexist definition of "militia" in this country is still in the US Code.)
The basic idea behind referring to regulated militias in the Second Amendment (among other things) is that the unorganized militia should be able to answer the call for service to the common good without always having to rely on state-maintained armories. This is partly for tactical concerns (armories make tempting targets) and partly for philosophical reasons (the state won't allow access to those armories to those participating in insurrection against said state, no matter how just their cause may be). After all, note that the amendment refers to the security of "a free state," not just "an independent state."
Laws are often passed more on popularity than on effectiveness, and
Voters would rather have Somebody Else worry about their own protection than do it themselves
The main problem is that people don't realize that police in a free society are supposed to assist public dilligence, not replace it. Otherwise you end up with nasty things like public surveylance cameras and such. "The price of liberty..." so on and so forth.
Worried about safety on an airplane? Allow people to carry their legally concealed weapons on the airplane.
Worried about terrorists sneaking into the country illegally? Make entering the country legally easier to cut down on all the false positives.
The main problem with ideas like these is that it requires a degree of public participation (wearing a gun, reporting illegal aliens) that many people simply aren't comfortable with for various reasons.
"the judges that were approved improperly would be removed,"
How can you be so sure, though? What they're talking about is stopping discussion and forcing a vote on the confirmation of the judges. If the vote confirms them, how exactly is that "improper?"
Of course, nobody remembers that Congress can take federal judges off the bench as well...
"Do you mind explaining that statement? I fail to see the connection."
First off the electors get fill-in-the-blank ballots, which eliminates any sort of party nomination process.
Secondly, the electors never all get together, instead acting as 51 isolated groups, which hampers parties' ability to influence them all (e. g. vote trading is limited to within a single state).
Third, we're talking about actual people as opposed to simply giving the states a certain number of votes. There is a deliberation process among the electors instead of the state legislature (and its parties) mandating their state's votes.
"The electoral college system was designed because 200 years ago, it was the only logical way to do things."
I don't believe the EC is solely an artifact of its time. Its intended goals were to try to eliminate political parties (at least as far as the White House is concerned) and to have something other than the House of Representatives choose the president (or at least give them a chance before the House). The latter, as you may note, is how parliamentary systems choose their prime ministers (like the UK, then and now).
"You didn't have cars, planes, or busses. All you had was horses."
That didn't seem to stop congressmen from all states getting together in the new federal district, conveniently located in the center of the country.
"Imagine the mountains and mountains of paper that would all have to be delivered to Washington by horseback."
Why Washington? Why couldn't they cout them in the districts in which they were cast, like all other elections? The secretary of state of each state would then pass on the results of the popular vote to Washington on a single piece of paper.
"The electoral college was developed so that you only had to send one person / state to Washington."
First off, each state already had at least three people in Washington.
Secondly, Electors don't go to Washington. They go to their state capitals to cast their votes, at the same time. This deliberately kept the EC as (then) thirteen legislative bodies instead of one large one, like the House of Representatives.
"Nowadays, however, all the reasons for it are gone."
Simply because we can communicate quiclky and easily doesn't necessarily mean we should. "Strong fences make good neighbors." Perhaps a lot of the political strife we're seeing today has something to do with all of us trying to live in the same house instead of 50 separate homes, everybody trying to act nationally when most of the time they only need to act locally.
"why are the electoral college voters more suited for judging character than the populace as a whole?"
First off, the Electoral College gets fill-in-the-blank ballots. Direct popular vote will always be stuck with multiple-choice.
Secondly, the idea of voting by proxy was proposed as a way to avoid the uglier aspect of a popular election, the Swift Boat and Michael Moore parts. The idea is that the people acknowledge their own human falability and instead designate a few people they trust not to get caught up in the attack ads and mud-slinging (which is really what representative democracy in general is all about to begin with, not just elections by proxy in specific).
Direct popular election, especially at larger scales, can be seen as the people micromanaging their government; choosing to do everything yourself instead of delegating some of your responsibility isn't exactly the best way to do everything.
"I wouldn't trust most of the politicians I know with keys to my house, let alone keys to the country's vote."
But who decides what the election laws look like? Who decides the districting? Who decides what names will appear on the ballot? Unless you're one of the politicians you hate, you're not it, and you never will be it short of anarchy.
The Electoral College was designed to try to at least minimize the influence of party politics on the system. A small number of electors means that you don't need million-dollar campaign budgets to reach them all. Being able to vote for anybody at all eliminates the whole nomination process. Having no other function in the federal government means they don't look at the election as deciding who they have to make back-room deals with. Electors might be politicians, but the fact that their job lasts for exactly one day pretty much takes the bite out of them.
"now states rights is an argument for the electoral college?"
Who would you rather surrender some of your power to, the states or the political parties?
Consider: an election is supposed to be about the people having a say in their government. But that "say" they have in government is limited to those names that appear on the ballot, and control of what that ballot looks like is currently in the hands of the political parties. Are you a Republican who'd rather see Cheney as president? Too bad. A Democrat that misses Dean? You're up a creek. Party primaries, conventions and the like are all intended to winnow down the options given to the people on election day.
On the other hand, you have a system of election by proxy, similar in ways to the way the people decide federal judges, but different in that the proxies' sole job will be to elect a president. Instead of being locked into a binding ballot of presidential candidates presented by the party system, the people elect their state's proxies based on whatever issues are important to them at the time (be they local, national or international). Those proxies are then essentially free to vote for whomever they want, acting simultaneously as 51 small bodies as opposed to the one large body the political parties would apparently rather treat us as, and in effect more issues can be considered by those numerous bodies than could otherwise be dealt with by a single large electoral body.
With the Electoral College, the people delegate some of their power to specific state and federal officers, in a way spelled out in the US Constitution and state laws. With a direct popular vote, the people (usually under the illusion that they get to micromanage the whole affair) delegate their power to party heierarchies, subject to party by-laws they have little or no influence in, and the people are generally reduced to petty squabbling trying to get precious party resources for their favorite presidential candidate, with more focus on back-room politicking instead of considering the issues at hand.
(It also introduces the danger of a president too concerned with approval polls rather than doing his or her primary duties, but that's a whole other issue).
Personally, I'd like to see a "None of the above" put on the ballot for president where, if it wins in a particular state, that state's legislature then appoints the electors directly (which would otherwise happen in the case of a conflict in the popular vote). It makes more sense than calling for a new general election (they had four years to find decent candidates, why are we to believe they could do better with four weeks?), doesn't take away anything from that minority of voters that actually like one of the candidates (their favorite would still be on the ballot) and gives another option to many people who would otherwise not vote. Voters who aren't happy with any of the candidates have actual influence with their state legislatures, at least moreso than they do over their strange neighbors who actually like one of the candidates (have you seen those people!?!?), those same neighbors they would abandon the election to if they didn't vote.
If nothing else, the Electoral College as originally intended was designed to save us relatively sane people from those crazy fanatics that you see in nearly every commercial break.
"If I was in his state and he didn't vote according to the popular vote then I'd feel very much like he stole from me personally my right to influence the election process."
I could see this if he suddenly woke up after the general election and said "Oh, I'm not going to vote for Bush, by the way..." But announcing beforehand is a whole different matter IMO. There won't be any surprises if he does become one of WV's electors.
"Doing what he proposes is morally questionable, to say nothing of legality."
Actually, it's the "faithless elector" laws that are of questionable legallity. They're state laws trying to influence a federal office.
" How can he, being an elected official, simply ignore the wishes of the citizens of his state who voted (should the vote come in favor of Bush)."
You mean other than the fact that he'd be the one elected by the people and not Bush?:)
How can the GOP ignore the wishes of voters who want to vote for a Republican candidate but not vote for Bush? Either way, some voters will find themselves in the messy situation of voting in favor of a presidential candidate they don't like. Welcome to party politics (which the Electoral College was expressly designed to avoid).
And those of us crazy crackpots that are in favor of states' rights and would like to see the Electoral College used as intended for once things this is kinda cool.
Looking at the numbers, there are a few states that they say are "exactly tied." That's probably not going to happen, but it seems there's still a chance that somebody might not get the required majority of the electoral votes this time around.
Does everybody know who their member of Congress is?
The Iraq war is the big one on people's minds right now. Kerry voted in favor of it, and last month he said he would have voted in favor of it again had he knew then what he knows now. Not much difference there.
"1 Atty. General Ashcroft later,"
Kerry has also voiced support for a sequel to and/or continuation of the USA PATRIOT Act, not to mention the fact he voted for the act to begin with.
"I think his theory has been proved stunningly innacurate to all but his most ardent supporters."
"is a preferential voting system. Then every vote would count."
Do you still beat your wife?
Yes
Mostly Yes, a little bit No
Yes and No equally
Mostly No, a little bit Yes
No
Preferential voting only gives you the ability to voice your preferences relative to the other options. Listing an absolute preference, like "They all suck," still isn't an option.
Yes, but what happens when the people who revive the series realize that this was the same series that was one of the major players in the Eugenics War? Exile it to Seti Alpha V(I)?
"It's a publicity ploy...and since the ex-actor is now a politician, that means it's a political ploy."
Not that the governor of California has anything to do with California's AG. California, like most states, chooses its attorney general by direct popular vote, in accordance with Article 5, Section 11 of the California Constitution.
If you're going to criticize a government, it helps to know a little about how it works.
"committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
At which point the president will say "No, you want that other white building, over there. Yeah, the one with the funny dome on the top of it."
This will be after the electors in Columbus tell the confused Diebold representatives "No, we're not supposed to use those machines you bought, we have to write the names down on these sheets of paper by hand. And then mail them. You know, through the Postal Service and all?"
Something tells me Ohio might not be counted in the electoral vote next January...:)
Except that I'm pretty sure they're all "colonies" (if you insist on the term) because their people have consistently voted to maintain that status. In the last election on the matter in Puerto Rico, for example, few people voted for statehood, but even fewer voted for independence. The others you've mentioned have the options of independence and of becoming a "Freely Associated State," as defined by the UN. Several other former "colonies" have already taken this route, making Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands independent countries (complete with their own votes in the UN).
By the way, it seems that more than a few people in American Samoa (at least) take affront at being called a colony of the US. Their democratically elected government, for example...
The acre is defined by the square furlong, where one square furlong is 10 acres. This number was picked because, as people to deal in ares and hectares can tell you, factors of 10 are nice but factors of 10^0.5 are a pain in the rear. After all, notice that an acre is 10 square chains, not a ten-chain square.
When I was typing abstracts for a living and had to figure out metes and bounds (dealing with sections and townships and the like), the easiest way I could remember stuff like this is that if a section (a one-mile square) were turned into a chess board, each square of the board would be 10 acres (a one-furlong square). Beyond that, almost everything is done in decimal feet, where the (survey) foot is defined as exactly 1200/3937 meter (which is the way it's been for over a century).
Slashdot Mirror
"So I'm free to set up a wireless access point in the next plane I fly on? Who cares if the airline prohibits it? Federal law trumps the airline rules, navigational interference be damned!"
Apples::Oranges. Other federal law (notably the FAA) treats airplanes in flight much like ships at sea; the pilot is lord god of the airplane and you will do whatever he or she tells you to.
"She said, "I'd like to look more like her, would you mind implants if I got my breasts to look like hers?""
Three words: Duck and cover!
"militias are strate armys."
First off, states don't have armies, at least not constitutionally. Article I, section 10, third clause.
Militias are not armies, which is why the Second Amendment doesn't run up against the aforementioned clause. The concept of a militia is civillians organizing for their self-defense. The easiest way for most Slashdotters to wrap their heads around the concept is to think about the human militias in Warcraft III and compare them to the dedicated footsoldiers.
What you're probably thinking of are National Guard units (and state guards, but you've probably never heard of them). They are a smaller subset of militias called organized militias. They're organized in the way their members report for training every so often and drill fairly regularly. The governor/president (either or, but the latter has rank over the former) rings the bell at the town hall whenever he/she needs a rapid reaction force to protect the state from invaders, hurricanes, etc. Otherwise, the folks in the organized militias are off harvesting and building things as opposed to sitting around and being dedicated soldiers.
However, there is still the unorganized militia, which is essentially "everybody," or at least everybody that has to register for Selective Service. To defend itself from Really Bad Things that the army and organized militia may not be enough to deal with, it is expected that all citizens who are able will come running when the bell at the town hall rings. This is commonly called "the draft."
To that end, I'm in the militia, you're in the militia, and by current federal law all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 are in the militia. (Of course, I don't know of any states that bar the sale of firearms to women who aren't in an NG or SG unit, but the sexist definition of "militia" in this country is still in the US Code.)
The basic idea behind referring to regulated militias in the Second Amendment (among other things) is that the unorganized militia should be able to answer the call for service to the common good without always having to rely on state-maintained armories. This is partly for tactical concerns (armories make tempting targets) and partly for philosophical reasons (the state won't allow access to those armories to those participating in insurrection against said state, no matter how just their cause may be). After all, note that the amendment refers to the security of "a free state," not just "an independent state."
- Laws are often passed more on popularity than on effectiveness, and
- Voters would rather have Somebody Else worry about their own protection than do it themselves
The main problem is that people don't realize that police in a free society are supposed to assist public dilligence, not replace it. Otherwise you end up with nasty things like public surveylance cameras and such. "The price of liberty..." so on and so forth.Worried about safety on an airplane? Allow people to carry their legally concealed weapons on the airplane.
Worried about terrorists sneaking into the country illegally? Make entering the country legally easier to cut down on all the false positives.
The main problem with ideas like these is that it requires a degree of public participation (wearing a gun, reporting illegal aliens) that many people simply aren't comfortable with for various reasons.
"The price of freedom..." so on and so forth.
"the judges that were approved improperly would be removed,"
How can you be so sure, though? What they're talking about is stopping discussion and forcing a vote on the confirmation of the judges. If the vote confirms them, how exactly is that "improper?"
Of course, nobody remembers that Congress can take federal judges off the bench as well...
"The lack of news concerning democrat politicians is disturbing."
If you're that curious, just turn on C-SPAN every once in a while.
To hell with both of 'em. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.
"HDTV is about the HIGH DEFINITION not the LSTCTV (lots of stupid channels tv)."
So what you're looking for is FSCTV (few stupid channels TV) that just have higher resolution?
How much are you paying for those HD commercials again?
"Do you mind explaining that statement? I fail to see the connection."
First off the electors get fill-in-the-blank ballots, which eliminates any sort of party nomination process.
Secondly, the electors never all get together, instead acting as 51 isolated groups, which hampers parties' ability to influence them all (e. g. vote trading is limited to within a single state).
Third, we're talking about actual people as opposed to simply giving the states a certain number of votes. There is a deliberation process among the electors instead of the state legislature (and its parties) mandating their state's votes.
You might want to take a look at Federalist paper number 68.
Personally, what I'd really like to see is electors run for office based on their own merits as opposed to just "I'll vote for this guy."
"The electoral college system was designed because 200 years ago, it was the only logical way to do things."
I don't believe the EC is solely an artifact of its time. Its intended goals were to try to eliminate political parties (at least as far as the White House is concerned) and to have something other than the House of Representatives choose the president (or at least give them a chance before the House). The latter, as you may note, is how parliamentary systems choose their prime ministers (like the UK, then and now).
"You didn't have cars, planes, or busses. All you had was horses."
That didn't seem to stop congressmen from all states getting together in the new federal district, conveniently located in the center of the country.
"Imagine the mountains and mountains of paper that would all have to be delivered to Washington by horseback."
Why Washington? Why couldn't they cout them in the districts in which they were cast, like all other elections? The secretary of state of each state would then pass on the results of the popular vote to Washington on a single piece of paper.
"The electoral college was developed so that you only had to send one person / state to Washington."
First off, each state already had at least three people in Washington.
Secondly, Electors don't go to Washington. They go to their state capitals to cast their votes, at the same time. This deliberately kept the EC as (then) thirteen legislative bodies instead of one large one, like the House of Representatives.
"Nowadays, however, all the reasons for it are gone."
Simply because we can communicate quiclky and easily doesn't necessarily mean we should. "Strong fences make good neighbors." Perhaps a lot of the political strife we're seeing today has something to do with all of us trying to live in the same house instead of 50 separate homes, everybody trying to act nationally when most of the time they only need to act locally.
"why are the electoral college voters more suited for judging character than the populace as a whole?"
First off, the Electoral College gets fill-in-the-blank ballots. Direct popular vote will always be stuck with multiple-choice.
Secondly, the idea of voting by proxy was proposed as a way to avoid the uglier aspect of a popular election, the Swift Boat and Michael Moore parts. The idea is that the people acknowledge their own human falability and instead designate a few people they trust not to get caught up in the attack ads and mud-slinging (which is really what representative democracy in general is all about to begin with, not just elections by proxy in specific).
Direct popular election, especially at larger scales, can be seen as the people micromanaging their government; choosing to do everything yourself instead of delegating some of your responsibility isn't exactly the best way to do everything.
"I wouldn't trust most of the politicians I know with keys to my house, let alone keys to the country's vote."
But who decides what the election laws look like? Who decides the districting? Who decides what names will appear on the ballot? Unless you're one of the politicians you hate, you're not it, and you never will be it short of anarchy.
The Electoral College was designed to try to at least minimize the influence of party politics on the system. A small number of electors means that you don't need million-dollar campaign budgets to reach them all. Being able to vote for anybody at all eliminates the whole nomination process. Having no other function in the federal government means they don't look at the election as deciding who they have to make back-room deals with. Electors might be politicians, but the fact that their job lasts for exactly one day pretty much takes the bite out of them.
"now states rights is an argument for the electoral college?"
Who would you rather surrender some of your power to, the states or the political parties?
Consider: an election is supposed to be about the people having a say in their government. But that "say" they have in government is limited to those names that appear on the ballot, and control of what that ballot looks like is currently in the hands of the political parties. Are you a Republican who'd rather see Cheney as president? Too bad. A Democrat that misses Dean? You're up a creek. Party primaries, conventions and the like are all intended to winnow down the options given to the people on election day.
On the other hand, you have a system of election by proxy, similar in ways to the way the people decide federal judges, but different in that the proxies' sole job will be to elect a president. Instead of being locked into a binding ballot of presidential candidates presented by the party system, the people elect their state's proxies based on whatever issues are important to them at the time (be they local, national or international). Those proxies are then essentially free to vote for whomever they want, acting simultaneously as 51 small bodies as opposed to the one large body the political parties would apparently rather treat us as, and in effect more issues can be considered by those numerous bodies than could otherwise be dealt with by a single large electoral body.
With the Electoral College, the people delegate some of their power to specific state and federal officers, in a way spelled out in the US Constitution and state laws. With a direct popular vote, the people (usually under the illusion that they get to micromanage the whole affair) delegate their power to party heierarchies, subject to party by-laws they have little or no influence in, and the people are generally reduced to petty squabbling trying to get precious party resources for their favorite presidential candidate, with more focus on back-room politicking instead of considering the issues at hand.
(It also introduces the danger of a president too concerned with approval polls rather than doing his or her primary duties, but that's a whole other issue).
Personally, I'd like to see a "None of the above" put on the ballot for president where, if it wins in a particular state, that state's legislature then appoints the electors directly (which would otherwise happen in the case of a conflict in the popular vote). It makes more sense than calling for a new general election (they had four years to find decent candidates, why are we to believe they could do better with four weeks?), doesn't take away anything from that minority of voters that actually like one of the candidates (their favorite would still be on the ballot) and gives another option to many people who would otherwise not vote. Voters who aren't happy with any of the candidates have actual influence with their state legislatures, at least moreso than they do over their strange neighbors who actually like one of the candidates (have you seen those people!?!?), those same neighbors they would abandon the election to if they didn't vote.
If nothing else, the Electoral College as originally intended was designed to save us relatively sane people from those crazy fanatics that you see in nearly every commercial break.
"If I was in his state and he didn't vote according to the popular vote then I'd feel very much like he stole from me personally my right to influence the election process."
:)
I could see this if he suddenly woke up after the general election and said "Oh, I'm not going to vote for Bush, by the way..." But announcing beforehand is a whole different matter IMO. There won't be any surprises if he does become one of WV's electors.
"Doing what he proposes is morally questionable, to say nothing of legality."
Actually, it's the "faithless elector" laws that are of questionable legallity. They're state laws trying to influence a federal office.
" How can he, being an elected official, simply ignore the wishes of the citizens of his state who voted (should the vote come in favor of Bush)."
You mean other than the fact that he'd be the one elected by the people and not Bush?
How can the GOP ignore the wishes of voters who want to vote for a Republican candidate but not vote for Bush? Either way, some voters will find themselves in the messy situation of voting in favor of a presidential candidate they don't like. Welcome to party politics (which the Electoral College was expressly designed to avoid).
And those of us crazy crackpots that are in favor of states' rights and would like to see the Electoral College used as intended for once things this is kinda cool.
... an "Owned by RIAA/MPAA" tag involved?
"There aren't really that many Bush supporters. Do you know any? I've met about three."
You should try to get out of southern California more often.
Looking at the numbers, there are a few states that they say are "exactly tied." That's probably not going to happen, but it seems there's still a chance that somebody might not get the required majority of the electoral votes this time around.
Does everybody know who their member of Congress is?
"2 wars"
The Iraq war is the big one on people's minds right now. Kerry voted in favor of it, and last month he said he would have voted in favor of it again had he knew then what he knows now. Not much difference there.
"1 Atty. General Ashcroft later,"
Kerry has also voiced support for a sequel to and/or continuation of the USA PATRIOT Act, not to mention the fact he voted for the act to begin with.
"I think his theory has been proved stunningly innacurate to all but his most ardent supporters."
By whose standards?
Do you still beat your wife?
- Yes
- Mostly Yes, a little bit No
- Yes and No equally
- Mostly No, a little bit Yes
- No
Preferential voting only gives you the ability to voice your preferences relative to the other options. Listing an absolute preference, like "They all suck," still isn't an option.Yes, but what happens when the people who revive the series realize that this was the same series that was one of the major players in the Eugenics War? Exile it to Seti Alpha V(I)?
TRRRREEEEEEKKKK!!!
"It's a publicity ploy...and since the ex-actor is now a politician, that means it's a political ploy."
Not that the governor of California has anything to do with California's AG. California, like most states, chooses its attorney general by direct popular vote, in accordance with Article 5, Section 11 of the California Constitution.
If you're going to criticize a government, it helps to know a little about how it works.
"committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
:)
At which point the president will say "No, you want that other white building, over there. Yeah, the one with the funny dome on the top of it."
This will be after the electors in Columbus tell the confused Diebold representatives "No, we're not supposed to use those machines you bought, we have to write the names down on these sheets of paper by hand. And then mail them. You know, through the Postal Service and all?"
Something tells me Ohio might not be counted in the electoral vote next January...
We, the jury, find the defendant to be Pat Buchannan.
"But how else could we be sure you're not Ted Kennedy?"
/me ducks
Breathalizer.
Except that I'm pretty sure they're all "colonies" (if you insist on the term) because their people have consistently voted to maintain that status. In the last election on the matter in Puerto Rico, for example, few people voted for statehood, but even fewer voted for independence. The others you've mentioned have the options of independence and of becoming a "Freely Associated State," as defined by the UN. Several other former "colonies" have already taken this route, making Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands independent countries (complete with their own votes in the UN).
By the way, it seems that more than a few people in American Samoa (at least) take affront at being called a colony of the US. Their democratically elected government, for example...
"40,000sqf = almost 10 sq. rods!!!!
Where's my +5 Interesting?"
You'll get it when you get your units right.
The acre is defined by the square furlong, where one square furlong is 10 acres. This number was picked because, as people to deal in ares and hectares can tell you, factors of 10 are nice but factors of 10^0.5 are a pain in the rear. After all, notice that an acre is 10 square chains, not a ten-chain square.
When I was typing abstracts for a living and had to figure out metes and bounds (dealing with sections and townships and the like), the easiest way I could remember stuff like this is that if a section (a one-mile square) were turned into a chess board, each square of the board would be 10 acres (a one-furlong square). Beyond that, almost everything is done in decimal feet, where the (survey) foot is defined as exactly 1200/3937 meter (which is the way it's been for over a century).
Scully would have fixed the damned boat!