What's the old rule? The intelligence of a group of people is the AVERAGE intelligence of the individual members of the group DIVIDED by the number of people in a group?
the Israelis successfully have managed to keep the Palestinians under control for more that 200 years
Hmm, that's a neat trick, considering that Israel has only been around for 65 years.
Even being generous by going back to the first emigration of European Jews to what is now Israel, we're talking less than 150 years (and the Jews didn't do a whole lot of dominating the Palestinians while they were under Ottoman rule for the first 50 years).
The Federal government also has no business maintaining a standing army.
Alas, you are mistaken here.
It should be noted that when the Constitution was being written, it was proposed that there be a Constitutional limit on the size of any standing army.
George Washington then proposed that we add a clause to that clause, limiting the size of any invading foreign army to twice the limit specified for the US Army.
Needless to say, several people opposed to standing armies shut up and the idea of a Constitutional limit on a standing Army was quietly forgotten.
Note, though, that up until WW2, outside of wartime, the US maintained a TINY standing Army (tiny for the size of the country) as a cadre for a large Army if one were needed in war.
Worked pretty well for 150 years, but the Occupations of Germany and Japan plus the Cold War pretty much put a kibosh to that.
but claiming that it would somehow magically be better (and cheaper) if they just issued iPods to everyone and let them download no-fly-list updates from the Apple Store is not realistic
Luckily for all of us (except you, perhaps) that OP made no such claim, and didn't even hint that that might be a solution.
What was actually suggested was that PICTURES accompany NAMES on the No-Fly List, since there are frequently multiple people with the same name in the USA (note that I have an unusual surname, and yet I've managed to run into several people who knew someone with my FULL NAME)...
Under English law, the defendant has the burden of proof to show that his or her statement is not defamatory. So what the GP said is absolutely correct.
Umm, no.
GP did NOT say "not defamatory", he said "not true".
Therein lies the problem with English libel law - even if it is provably true, it can still be libel if it is "defamatory".
Unlike in the USA, where "truth" trumps "defamatory"....
Let me guess, he got elected because he was related to a guy who won ONE Presidential election, but couldn't manage his own reelection?
Yah, lot of influence with the Party Bush the Elder had, after he lost his reelection bid to some clown from Arkansas, for God's sake (Or are you perhaps unaware that even the South tends to look at Arkansas the way the rest of the country looks at the South?)...
Bush the Younger may have had to have a lot of help getting elected, but the fact he was HW's kid didn't have much to do with it at all...
GT courses are generally more difficult. Its not about "more help", its about "ok, the student is excelling at multiplication in 2nd grade, lets see if we can have him mastering Algebra by 6th".
Wish we'd had that where I went to sixth grade...
I had the poor man's version - teacher gave me her old algebra 1 textbook, told me to go sit out in the hall, and learn what I could....
When the sons of presidents are becoming presidents, your society is fucked and about half a step away from monarchy.
Hmm, so we've been half a step from monarchy since 1824, eh?
Interesting theory you have there. Well, good luck getting the Constitution amended so as to save yourself from the horror of another John Quincy Adams (elected President in 1824, the first son of a President to become President).
Generally I picture most of the surpluses would go towards paying off the debt accumulated during the bad times, but if you actually manage to get a true surplus, I'd probably go with a investment fund that concentrates on items that tend to gain strength during economic downturns, so you can liquidate them for a profit when you need to.
Sorry, wasn't entirely clear. I assumed that they would go to paying down debt till the debt is gone, was wondering about afterwards.
Of course, at the scale the federal government works at, you can distort the market pretty easily
This was my big problem with the government running surpluses - pretty much anything they can do reduces to invest (which will distort the market when you make the investment, and again when you have to divest yourself to cover shortfalls in bad times), or just sit on the money (which will distort the economy as money is withdrawn from circulation, and distort it again when you put it back into circulation).
Note that I'm NOT a Keynesian for pretty much that reason - Keynesian economics assume that the government can run surpluses without any effect on the economy as a whole, and that assumption starts to fail if you have an extended period of good economic times (I'd hate to have the government get into a position where it NEEDS a bad economy every decade in order to make things work).
8. Ban campaign contributions. Allow campaigns for public office to occur for two days and only the two days before the election. Candidates pay for their own campaigns out of their own pocket.
I like this one. With this, we don't have to worry about any of those poor people getting elected, since the only ones who can afford it will be independently wealthy (enough so that they have money to throw away on an election)....
1. I believe in Keynesian economic theory: The budget should be balanced *ON AVERAGE* - IE over a 10-20 year period revenues should equal expenditures. This means that the budget should be balanced when the economy is worse than what most people would like, have major surpluses when the economy is 'hot', and deficits when the economy is bad.
Just out of curiousity, what do you do with the surpluses when you have them?
Religion, it is NOT only about gods. Libertarians these days cling to an unfounded belief in a process that will magically result in some form of "realistic" utopia - its a supernatural "market force" that will bring it about. It is religion; doesn't matter what the data says - the ideology (dogma if you will) is mindlessly followed like the christian flat earthers.
Note that the big-government types are also clinging to the unfounded belief that we can achieve that Utopia with just a few more laws....
Allow modern statistical techniques to be applied to the Census.
DO keep in mind that this would require a Constitutional Amendment. "Actual enumeration" does NOT include "statistically significant approximation"....
AND make it illegal for anyone related to an elected official to run for public office, or their children. Break the growth of dynasties, remove the power of families. I don't care if that seems harsh, such is the price of freedom.
So, the "price of freedom" is to remove freedom?
Note, by the by, that your idea would almost certainly run afoul of Article 1, Section 9 (and possibly 10) of the US Constitution.
4) increased minimum wage that is subsequently tied to inflation
Hmm, a quick check of Federal Minimum Wage laws and an Inflation Calculator shows that Federal Minimum wage has pretty much kept pace (at least) with inflation since the first minimum wage in 1938.
Which is not to say that indexing Minimum Wage to inflation is a bad idea, mind you. Personally, I think it would be better than amending the law every couple-three of years (Minimum Wage has been changed 28 times since it was introduced in 1938).
States that simply have non-partisan re-districting commissions (Iowa?) do pretty well, whereas in Texas gerrymandering has been taken to an unabashed extreme. IIRC Austin is divided amongst 4 congressional districts, each of which also goes out into the boonies. Hence the Austin area doesn't really have any representation. Nor is it just a problem for Austin. Since Texas is the second most populous state their system affects the whole country. But don't worry about us in NY state. Our local politicos seem to strike nice compromises. The NY 2nd and 3rd districts were re-drawn so that one belongs to a Republican congressman-for-life and the other belongs to a Democratic congressman-for-life. I could vote for Mickey Mouse for all that it matters.
Do be aware that of your examples, the Voting Rights Act controls TX apportionment. It also controls several districts in NY (though not the first and second, as far as i can tell).
The notion of "shooting to wound/disable" is very popular among people who know little or nothing of guns/firefights.
Alas, it's not really practical unless you're an Olympic-grade marksman and your target is a drooling idiot.
In the real world, it's hard enough to hit someone when aiming at center of mass that aiming for the much smaller leg/arm/hand is just going to make sure your friends are going to YOUR funeral tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
The old quotation "Three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead" comes to mind....
What's the old rule? The intelligence of a group of people is the AVERAGE intelligence of the individual members of the group DIVIDED by the number of people in a group?
Smallpox is a living thing. So is bubonic plague.
Lot of disgusting things are living things (I'd be pretty happy if every fire ant in creation were to suddenly choke to death, for instance).
Hmm, that pretty much sums it up, alright.
If you don't like the idea that your species is the apex predator for this planet, then have a go at living without all the benefits of human society.
Or just end it, whichever you prefer.
Hmm, that's a neat trick, considering that Israel has only been around for 65 years.
Even being generous by going back to the first emigration of European Jews to what is now Israel, we're talking less than 150 years (and the Jews didn't do a whole lot of dominating the Palestinians while they were under Ottoman rule for the first 50 years).
Alas, you are mistaken here.
It should be noted that when the Constitution was being written, it was proposed that there be a Constitutional limit on the size of any standing army.
George Washington then proposed that we add a clause to that clause, limiting the size of any invading foreign army to twice the limit specified for the US Army.
Needless to say, several people opposed to standing armies shut up and the idea of a Constitutional limit on a standing Army was quietly forgotten.
Note, though, that up until WW2, outside of wartime, the US maintained a TINY standing Army (tiny for the size of the country) as a cadre for a large Army if one were needed in war.
Worked pretty well for 150 years, but the Occupations of Germany and Japan plus the Cold War pretty much put a kibosh to that.
Luckily for all of us (except you, perhaps) that OP made no such claim, and didn't even hint that that might be a solution.
What was actually suggested was that PICTURES accompany NAMES on the No-Fly List, since there are frequently multiple people with the same name in the USA (note that I have an unusual surname, and yet I've managed to run into several people who knew someone with my FULL NAME)...
More likely thousands - I can think of a dozen tax districts within 30 miles of where I'm sitting without even making a real effort...
Umm, no.
GP did NOT say "not defamatory", he said "not true".
Therein lies the problem with English libel law - even if it is provably true, it can still be libel if it is "defamatory".
Unlike in the USA, where "truth" trumps "defamatory"....
Let me guess, he got elected because he was related to a guy who won ONE Presidential election, but couldn't manage his own reelection?
Yah, lot of influence with the Party Bush the Elder had, after he lost his reelection bid to some clown from Arkansas, for God's sake (Or are you perhaps unaware that even the South tends to look at Arkansas the way the rest of the country looks at the South?)...
Bush the Younger may have had to have a lot of help getting elected, but the fact he was HW's kid didn't have much to do with it at all...
Wish we'd had that where I went to sixth grade...
I had the poor man's version - teacher gave me her old algebra 1 textbook, told me to go sit out in the hall, and learn what I could....
Hmm, so we've been half a step from monarchy since 1824, eh?
Interesting theory you have there. Well, good luck getting the Constitution amended so as to save yourself from the horror of another John Quincy Adams (elected President in 1824, the first son of a President to become President).
Sorry, wasn't entirely clear. I assumed that they would go to paying down debt till the debt is gone, was wondering about afterwards.
This was my big problem with the government running surpluses - pretty much anything they can do reduces to invest (which will distort the market when you make the investment, and again when you have to divest yourself to cover shortfalls in bad times), or just sit on the money (which will distort the economy as money is withdrawn from circulation, and distort it again when you put it back into circulation).
Note that I'm NOT a Keynesian for pretty much that reason - Keynesian economics assume that the government can run surpluses without any effect on the economy as a whole, and that assumption starts to fail if you have an extended period of good economic times (I'd hate to have the government get into a position where it NEEDS a bad economy every decade in order to make things work).
I like this one. With this, we don't have to worry about any of those poor people getting elected, since the only ones who can afford it will be independently wealthy (enough so that they have money to throw away on an election)....
Just out of curiousity, what do you do with the surpluses when you have them?
Note that the big-government types are also clinging to the unfounded belief that we can achieve that Utopia with just a few more laws....
DO keep in mind that this would require a Constitutional Amendment. "Actual enumeration" does NOT include "statistically significant approximation"....
You do realize that eliminating Gerrymandering would kill the Voting Rights Act, right?
I could go along with this, though I think 1.7 is too high. 1.2 would make a 75 year copyright (14+61) cost $3.3 million or so.
Should be more than enough to discourage extended copyrights, while not making it entirely prohibitive in the (extremely rare) cases it's worthwhile.
So, the "price of freedom" is to remove freedom?
Note, by the by, that your idea would almost certainly run afoul of Article 1, Section 9 (and possibly 10) of the US Constitution.
Hmm, a quick check of Federal Minimum Wage laws and an Inflation Calculator shows that Federal Minimum wage has pretty much kept pace (at least) with inflation since the first minimum wage in 1938.
Which is not to say that indexing Minimum Wage to inflation is a bad idea, mind you. Personally, I think it would be better than amending the law every couple-three of years (Minimum Wage has been changed 28 times since it was introduced in 1938).
Do be aware that of your examples, the Voting Rights Act controls TX apportionment. It also controls several districts in NY (though not the first and second, as far as i can tell).
My thanks for the link.
Obviously, whatever it was I read earlier this week was full of it.
Hmm, seems to me that Obamacare is going to change that. Alas, can't remember where I read that recently....
The notion of "shooting to wound/disable" is very popular among people who know little or nothing of guns/firefights.
Alas, it's not really practical unless you're an Olympic-grade marksman and your target is a drooling idiot.
In the real world, it's hard enough to hit someone when aiming at center of mass that aiming for the much smaller leg/arm/hand is just going to make sure your friends are going to YOUR funeral tomorrow.