No, as useful as the Internet is, few will be convinced by a YouTube video. The best way to inform people is still face-to-face dialogue--that way any questions or objections they have can be answered. You're right, it's not going to be easy, but if enough people take up the task it is doable. Even if I end up being wrong about that, it is in my opinion a worthy use of my time.
As a US citizen living under this government, I agree fully. It has taken on a life of its own that is miles away from serving the will of the people as it was intended to.
I'm glad that the EU is taking steps to bind the beast. Those of us living in this country need to start large-scale protests over all the bullshit that's been dumped on us citizens and increasingly the rest of the world, and we need to get the rest of the populace to retake the mantle of The Public and the responsibility that it entails. American Imperialism is doomed to fail as all other empires have failed, but the sooner this course of action is halted the less painful it's going to be for everyone.
nobody literally believes that "government is theft." What people mean is that "government taxation to support programs that are morally indefensible is theft." That's a position a Republican stalwart can share with a socialist pacifist who can't abide Democrats because they are too right wing. The only difference is in the details of which programs are considered morally indefensible.
In my mind it is a question of legality rather than morality. This nation claims its constitution as the supreme document. Whenever government does something that according to the Constitution it is not authorized to do, then its use of my tax money is not legal. To adapt your phrase, "government taxation to support programs that are unconstitutional is theft." Of course, if there is an unconstitutional program desired enough by the public, an amendment can be pursued to make it constitutional, but the willy-nilly disregarding of the constitution that began early in the 20th century and continues at an ever-increasing pace today is untenable.
I am in almost full agreement. I would differ only in saying that the Constitution is routinely ignored by the federal government, which may be included in what you mean by "bogged down in bureaucracy." The way I see it, they're involved in many programs that are blatantly unconstitutional.
I only refrained from offering the solution I see as most practical because I've already mentioned it three times in this thread. The public needs a goal to focus on in order to take action, and the way legislation is created today tends to obscure more important targets. Reforming the rules for legislation to make it more straightforward makes it easier for the public to act for or against bills that concern it. The Read The Bills Act and the One Subject at a Time Act would achieve this goal and provide a good initial area to focus on.
I'm glad you understand the value of stepping up to inform and motivate people to participate. Far too many folks are too jaded and refuse to acknowledge that their complacence shares the blame for the condition we find ourselves in. I hope I didn't come across as being one of them.
You raise a good point--Pluto is an oddball. At the time of its discovery Pluto was thought to have a mass similar to Earth's; it was too far out to identify much about until the tech caught up to the science. I wonder if we'd be having this discussion today had optics made a leap forward before Pluto's discovery.
The Pluto change makes sense for the purposes of astronomy, but you can't ignore the social impact that it has. Whenever new planets were discovered back in the day, people got excited about it--we still do, even when it's an "earth-like" planet that nothing could survive on and that none of us will ever see images of. It's a little unfair to allow for that excitement on the one hand but not the disappointment when a planet you grew familiar with is relegated to a lower status. It may be silly, but it removes some of its charm.
Pluto is still a unique object unto itself no matter what category it's placed in, which is what I was trying to get at with my remark about Mercury and Jupiter, so it doesn't matter much to me how it's classified.
I decided against bothering with the controversy because the rest of my post is about how little it matters, and most people here respect the opinions of acronymed scientific groups. If it makes you feel better, you can skip that whole sentence.
You lost me in that last paragraph, but I have a feeling you lost yourself long before that so I'm not too broken up about it.
I think this is definitely true, but America also has a strong anti-intellectual streak to it. There's a reason America [sucks at science].
The Republican Party is reportedly responsible for this, and though the beginnings of it are before my time I can readily believe it. It is important to remember that the process of governing is not a science, no matter how much the streams of polling data and percentages of this-or-that dress it up otherwise. It is a social construct, and even if a lot of Americans don't grasp the higher points of rocket science they undoubtedly have opinions on public matters. "You should have more freedom to decide the laws your community is governed by" is a concept understood by almost everybody--the biggest hurdle remains that of waking people up to the possibility. Their imaginations will take over from there.
Here's the thing: everyone hates our current government, but there's no way they're going to agree on a different one.
You're right, and the increasing polarization you mentioned is a big problem of its own. As you say, though, we are stuck for now with the two big parties, though I haven't given up on a reform or splinter of the Republican Party just yet. I don't think we need viable third parties to bring about a better governing process, and I don't think they would work as intended. Washington has proven to be a morally poisonous atmosphere: people come in with the best intentions and find themselves pulled into the political muck. "Sure it's crooked, but it's the only game in town."
The only real way to combat this is through constant public pressure--our representatives must be watched like children to make sure that they are in deed representing us. They surely are not at the moment. I wrote elsewhere in this discussion (apologies to anyone who's stumbled upon all three posts) about two bills that would really give the public a chance to step up and fulfill its obligation: the Read The Bills Act, mandating 7 days for public viewing of a bill's final text before a vote; and the One Subject at a Time Act, which would destroy the infestation of unpopular and deal-making riders that leeches onto every single bill, making them stand or fall on their own merits.
The combined enactment of both of these bills would result in legislation that is more easily discovered, more easily comprehended, and more honest. Lobbyists would lose their grip if congress lost the power to pass unwanted legislation for fear of the public's reaction. There is still plenty of room for ideological differences, and given the public's access to smaller, more cohesive bills the debate is much more likely to focus on them instead of fourth-hand summaries of bills delivered by partisan hacks.
It may be a lot to hope for, but these bills are popular with just about everyone who hears about them--except of course for Washington insiders. If enough people call their congressmen and strongly express their support for these bills, Congress will be forced to pass them and we will all be better off for it.
Arizona did indeed introduce a Firearms Freedom Act, along with more than half of all the states. I had no idea it had caught on like that. Looks like seven, including Louisiana, North Carolina and Georgia, are close to passing them and I'd wager Texas is a sure thing eventually.
You're right that Montana is very sparsely populated. I hadn't considered that but I see it as a good thing. If they prevail in court (as I fervently hope they do!) then their small size shows that any state can stand up for its rights. If they lose, then it's not necessarily an indication to a more populous, better-funded state that it can't be done. I also fully expect that as the Montana fight gets dragged out there will be calls for donations, which I will happily supply (provided I find a job, which I also fervently hope for).
I just realized that we're having two parallel conversations. I swear I'm not trying to pick on you. =)
I've always thought that 1984 is great material for a Broadway musical, a really silly, over-the-top song-and-dance number. Some might see it as mockery, but how can it be more mocking than repeating the catchier bits and invoking the name while the country continues to shape itself into the very image the book was meant to forestall?
Why is outlawing it fruitless? Just because the government got away with it in the past doesn't mean that people will let it happen forever. Oh, it will happen, but if it remains illegal then there is always the hope of prosecution, discouraging further violations. That's why it's such a shame that the telecom immunity bill passed (with the support of Senator Obama)--what should have been nipped in the bud is probably on the rise. Making it legal will only stoke that engine's fires, while continuing to make a big deal out of it will force a reckoning on those involved and let everyone know that we will not tolerate it.
What this legislation aims to do is decrease the time between when a search warrant is issued and when the evidence is in custody. It's to cut down on the amount of "fucking around" time.
But then when would they find the time to play Wii?
The States are a joke, and would never stand up to the Federal gov.
This is provably untrue. That article's from last February, and I think there are now 16 states which have introduced resolutions to reaffirm their rights under the 10th Amendment. Oklahoma's passed; their may be others by now. And it's not only abstract affirmations being passed--CA and other states' marijuana laws are out of sync with the federal government, and Montana has exempted its firearms from federal regulation.
Washington won't give up without a fight, as shown by the Supreme Court case regarding federal medical marijuana raids in CA in which the justices twisted "interstate commerce" to mean "intrastate commerce," and though Obama's administration has stopped raiding they still claim the authority to do so.
As a result, Montana went further by explicitly declaring,
A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured...in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.
On the day the bill passed, a test case was filed to see what Washington's response will be, but that is of course unresolved. Since its passing, a dozen other states have introduced similar legislation. The outcome will be a very good indicator of what the federal government will put up with and what we will have to take back more forcefully. (It's almost unfortunate that my text is about guns, because I am certainly not talking about physical force here--that step is a long way off and likely unnecessary.)
And the people are just sheep. They're not going to stand up to the government either.
They will if given the option. Most don't know it exists, and others who might are disinclined to help because they're tired of being called "sheep" by everyone who thinks he has the answers. If you want people to think differently you have to give them the option by talking with them instead of only about them.
Yeah, the word revolution is tossed around so much that it's lost much of its meaning. The word most people should be using is "reformation."
We're not looking for an entirely new system of government, it's just time to bring ours back in line with the way it's supposed to work. Trouble is, we've heard "clean up corruption" and "reform" so often that those words have lost much of their meaning as well, at least when it comes to governments. I posted elsewhere in this thread about the Read the Bills Act and the One Subject at a Time Act which would do the job simply and effectively by giving the public much better access to much higher-quality legislation.
I must admit I only scanned the list rather than read it in full, but there is an easier way to reform Washington involving just two bills, both proposed by DownsizeDC: the Read The Bills Act and the One Subject at a Time Act.
RTBA would make it mandatory for both houses of Congress to post complete bills in their final form online fully 7 days prior to a vote for the public to review. This means that no matter who pays for a congressman, anything shady he tries to slip into a bill will see the light of day before it's made law, and every congressman can be pressured to vote based on the public's informed opinion. You may recall Candidate Obama's campaign promise to put bills online for 5 days for public review, one of his most practical and meaningful promises and one that remains unfulfilled.
Another provision in it calls for a full floor reading before the vote, a measure that certainly fits the agenda of shrinking Washington but one I see as unduly burdensome. A third section calls for any congressman voting for (but not against) a bill to certify that he has read it in full, so we would no longer hear "I was unaware of Unpopular Provision X when I voted for the Ponies For Everyone! Act of 2009" as an excuse.
OSTA is just what it sounds like: each bill must stand or fall on its own merit, and its name must reflect its contents. That means bills can't be weighed down with tons of riders, attached usually either for pet projects to gain a rep's vote or to pass unpopular legislation by hiding it in otherwise innocuous, possibly PATRIOTically named bills.
I have spoken about these acts to many people and only one person disliked OSTA, while RTBA has been universally supported (save my own concerns about the floor reading). If enough of the public were to hear about these bills and call their congressmen in support of them, Congress would be forced to pass them and bring about the real reformation we need: making our so-called representatives actually represent us.
I latched onto that point as well. You're not going to get many click-throughs without giving a tidbit though, so I'll post one here.
Excellent research, found at thirty-thousand.org, shows that in 1804 each representative represented about 40,000 people. Today, each representative represents close to 700,000. If we lived up to the vision of our founders, given today's population, we would have about 7,500 congressmen in the House of Representatives. It turns out that in 1929 Congress passed a bill fixing the number of representatives at 435. Prior to that, the number of congressional districts was increased every 10 years, from 1790 to 1910, except one, after a population census was taken.
In addition, the Senate was originally designed to represent the interests of each state, senators being elected by the state legislature. The logic behind this was that the desires of the state do not necessarily line up with the desires of its population. This is also why the Senate has the power to ratify treaties: they are contracts between governments. This was altered with good intentions (there were many deadlocks resulting in Senate vacancies for years), but I'm not convinced it was the right thing to do, since the House and Senate have very little difference between them now.
We are not a Republic. We are a Democratic Republic. This is a very important distinction. Our representatives are not appointed and they are not royalty; they are elected.
We used to be a Constitutional Republic, a form of government in which elected officials were still subject to a governing document designed to minimize the historical excesses of government. We haven't been that for a looong time. More importantly, I wouldn't even call this place a representative democracy anymore, since the people we elect do much more for themselves (judged by who can pay them the most) than they do for their constituents.
Republics only work well when the voters are smart enough to make decent choices. Our citizens are so uneducated and lacking in critical thought that they can't do this.
You have to look at US history to understand how we got to this point. Different people will draw different conclusions, and there is certainly more than a single cause involved. The one I see as primary is the consolidation of power by the federal government. The situation in the US before the 20th century is pretty much what you've described--it was a close match to the European Union of a decade ago. (Interestingly, the EU is slowly but steadily moving towards our strong central government model.)
When most decisions that affect you are made locally, you have more incentive to get involved. When most decisions that affect you are made for the entire country, your voice shrinks to nothing and the only way to get ahead (besides running for office, something most folks aren't cut out to do) is to align yourself with a political party. Once you do that, it's easy to slide into sticking with a party and letting them decide everything for you. Your faculties for critical thought dry up and you end up believing the blather from your favored flavor of party-paid pundits.
But make no mistake: the current government is not one that most of the voters want. A century of government centralization compounded with two increasingly polarized yet inbred parties has resulted in most people believing that they have only the choices that the parties see fit to give them. This is beginning to change, and the best way to maintain and increase the rate of change is to stop assuming that people are idiots. Engage them, show them alternatives. Some number will stick with their parties and can be written off, but more people are willing to listen to new (old) ideas than they get credit for, and the biggest obstacle holding us back is the long-standing prejudice about the American public that you opened with.
The whole scheme is arbitrary. The term "planet" was only nailed down in 2006, and of course it's going to take people time to adjust to the rigorous definition.
I'm not sure how useful the classification is anyway. The differences between Mercury and Jupiter are greater than the differences between Mercury and Pluto. Earth is more different still than any of the three with its complex and varied forms of life.
I think the astronomers should use their definition, and I suppose it ought to be taught in schools for the sake of consistency (though I question the value of making kids memorize the planets in the first place), but it's really not a big deal what you call it.
It's a sad commentary on modern media that the first thing I thought of when I read "Braingate" was "Is there some kind of mind-control scandal I missed?"
Well, not exactly. The holographic (more correctly holonomic) brain theory says that cognition arises from brainwave interference patterns. Our senses act as frequency analyzers, and the brain operates on their output. It's a fascinating idea and one I am partial to, but the evidence is (AFAIK) scarce.
only software modeling is needed at this point to interpret the waves
After reading Jacques Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, among other things, I think the answer is No. It is not just America that is in decline (which is all that's meant by decadence) but the entirety of Western civilization. It is one man's prediction, but he happens to be an accomplished historian with an in-depth knowledge of our culture. He weaves a historical narrative whose force is hard to ignore.
It's not a doomsday thing, as it must by necessity be replaced by a new culture. Many of us will likely be around for the big changes ahead, which means that we can have a hand in shaping the new culture.
I highly recommend the book to anyone with even a modest interest in history. Even if you disagree with the hypothesis of this culture's end, it's a very thorough and educational look at our civilization.
If you had a perfect photographic memory, you would breeze through most any modern school curriculum. That doesn't mean you'd actually understand what you have memorized or be able to adapt that knowledge to different situations.
Our society is obsessed with facts, so that is what we teach. What we ought to be teaching, in every subject, is both factual and historical content. William James put it best: "You can give humanistic value to almost anything by teaching it historically. Geology, economics, mechanics are humanities when taught with reference to the successive achievements of the geniuses to which these sciences owe their being. Not taught thus, literature remains grammar, art a catalogue, history a list of dates, and natural science a sheet of formulas and weights and measures."
Grammar by itself is useless, which is why students ought to immerse themselves in literature. They would see that the lifeless framework of grammar is supported by stories to capture their imagination, showing them why grammar is important and useful. And DO NOT force an analysis of the piece! That has its place, but analysis takes all the pleasure out of reading a novel--instead of wondering how the story will unfold and engaging the characters, the reader is intent on finding how the author's difficult childhood affects the story he tells.
The reason the incompetence is most evident in writing is because writing is the most necessary component for doing anything else. The incompetence shows itself elsewhere in more subtle ways. In history, for example, by compressing the diverse beliefs and attitudes of an entire culture into the statement "Europe in the Middle Ages was very religious." More often, the incompetence is shown only by the lack of new ideas; you won't find any examples because nobody is even trying to publish anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is this under Science instead of Idle?
If the examples in the linked article are art, may God forgive us all.
No, as useful as the Internet is, few will be convinced by a YouTube video. The best way to inform people is still face-to-face dialogue--that way any questions or objections they have can be answered. You're right, it's not going to be easy, but if enough people take up the task it is doable. Even if I end up being wrong about that, it is in my opinion a worthy use of my time.
As a US citizen living under this government, I agree fully. It has taken on a life of its own that is miles away from serving the will of the people as it was intended to.
I'm glad that the EU is taking steps to bind the beast. Those of us living in this country need to start large-scale protests over all the bullshit that's been dumped on us citizens and increasingly the rest of the world, and we need to get the rest of the populace to retake the mantle of The Public and the responsibility that it entails. American Imperialism is doomed to fail as all other empires have failed, but the sooner this course of action is halted the less painful it's going to be for everyone.
nobody literally believes that "government is theft." What people mean is that "government taxation to support programs that are morally indefensible is theft." That's a position a Republican stalwart can share with a socialist pacifist who can't abide Democrats because they are too right wing. The only difference is in the details of which programs are considered morally indefensible.
In my mind it is a question of legality rather than morality. This nation claims its constitution as the supreme document. Whenever government does something that according to the Constitution it is not authorized to do, then its use of my tax money is not legal. To adapt your phrase, "government taxation to support programs that are unconstitutional is theft." Of course, if there is an unconstitutional program desired enough by the public, an amendment can be pursued to make it constitutional, but the willy-nilly disregarding of the constitution that began early in the 20th century and continues at an ever-increasing pace today is untenable.
I am in almost full agreement. I would differ only in saying that the Constitution is routinely ignored by the federal government, which may be included in what you mean by "bogged down in bureaucracy." The way I see it, they're involved in many programs that are blatantly unconstitutional.
I only refrained from offering the solution I see as most practical because I've already mentioned it three times in this thread. The public needs a goal to focus on in order to take action, and the way legislation is created today tends to obscure more important targets. Reforming the rules for legislation to make it more straightforward makes it easier for the public to act for or against bills that concern it. The Read The Bills Act and the One Subject at a Time Act would achieve this goal and provide a good initial area to focus on.
I'm glad you understand the value of stepping up to inform and motivate people to participate. Far too many folks are too jaded and refuse to acknowledge that their complacence shares the blame for the condition we find ourselves in. I hope I didn't come across as being one of them.
You raise a good point--Pluto is an oddball. At the time of its discovery Pluto was thought to have a mass similar to Earth's; it was too far out to identify much about until the tech caught up to the science. I wonder if we'd be having this discussion today had optics made a leap forward before Pluto's discovery.
The Pluto change makes sense for the purposes of astronomy, but you can't ignore the social impact that it has. Whenever new planets were discovered back in the day, people got excited about it--we still do, even when it's an "earth-like" planet that nothing could survive on and that none of us will ever see images of. It's a little unfair to allow for that excitement on the one hand but not the disappointment when a planet you grew familiar with is relegated to a lower status. It may be silly, but it removes some of its charm.
Pluto is still a unique object unto itself no matter what category it's placed in, which is what I was trying to get at with my remark about Mercury and Jupiter, so it doesn't matter much to me how it's classified.
Easy, killer.
I decided against bothering with the controversy because the rest of my post is about how little it matters, and most people here respect the opinions of acronymed scientific groups. If it makes you feel better, you can skip that whole sentence.
You lost me in that last paragraph, but I have a feeling you lost yourself long before that so I'm not too broken up about it.
I think this is definitely true, but America also has a strong anti-intellectual streak to it. There's a reason America [sucks at science].
The Republican Party is reportedly responsible for this, and though the beginnings of it are before my time I can readily believe it. It is important to remember that the process of governing is not a science, no matter how much the streams of polling data and percentages of this-or-that dress it up otherwise. It is a social construct, and even if a lot of Americans don't grasp the higher points of rocket science they undoubtedly have opinions on public matters. "You should have more freedom to decide the laws your community is governed by" is a concept understood by almost everybody--the biggest hurdle remains that of waking people up to the possibility. Their imaginations will take over from there.
Here's the thing: everyone hates our current government, but there's no way they're going to agree on a different one.
You're right, and the increasing polarization you mentioned is a big problem of its own. As you say, though, we are stuck for now with the two big parties, though I haven't given up on a reform or splinter of the Republican Party just yet. I don't think we need viable third parties to bring about a better governing process, and I don't think they would work as intended. Washington has proven to be a morally poisonous atmosphere: people come in with the best intentions and find themselves pulled into the political muck. "Sure it's crooked, but it's the only game in town."
The only real way to combat this is through constant public pressure--our representatives must be watched like children to make sure that they are in deed representing us. They surely are not at the moment. I wrote elsewhere in this discussion (apologies to anyone who's stumbled upon all three posts) about two bills that would really give the public a chance to step up and fulfill its obligation: the Read The Bills Act, mandating 7 days for public viewing of a bill's final text before a vote; and the One Subject at a Time Act, which would destroy the infestation of unpopular and deal-making riders that leeches onto every single bill, making them stand or fall on their own merits.
The combined enactment of both of these bills would result in legislation that is more easily discovered, more easily comprehended, and more honest. Lobbyists would lose their grip if congress lost the power to pass unwanted legislation for fear of the public's reaction. There is still plenty of room for ideological differences, and given the public's access to smaller, more cohesive bills the debate is much more likely to focus on them instead of fourth-hand summaries of bills delivered by partisan hacks.
It may be a lot to hope for, but these bills are popular with just about everyone who hears about them--except of course for Washington insiders. If enough people call their congressmen and strongly express their support for these bills, Congress will be forced to pass them and we will all be better off for it.
Arizona did indeed introduce a Firearms Freedom Act, along with more than half of all the states. I had no idea it had caught on like that. Looks like seven, including Louisiana, North Carolina and Georgia, are close to passing them and I'd wager Texas is a sure thing eventually.
You're right that Montana is very sparsely populated. I hadn't considered that but I see it as a good thing. If they prevail in court (as I fervently hope they do!) then their small size shows that any state can stand up for its rights. If they lose, then it's not necessarily an indication to a more populous, better-funded state that it can't be done. I also fully expect that as the Montana fight gets dragged out there will be calls for donations, which I will happily supply (provided I find a job, which I also fervently hope for).
I just realized that we're having two parallel conversations. I swear I'm not trying to pick on you. =)
I've always thought that 1984 is great material for a Broadway musical, a really silly, over-the-top song-and-dance number. Some might see it as mockery, but how can it be more mocking than repeating the catchier bits and invoking the name while the country continues to shape itself into the very image the book was meant to forestall?
Why is outlawing it fruitless? Just because the government got away with it in the past doesn't mean that people will let it happen forever. Oh, it will happen, but if it remains illegal then there is always the hope of prosecution, discouraging further violations. That's why it's such a shame that the telecom immunity bill passed (with the support of Senator Obama)--what should have been nipped in the bud is probably on the rise. Making it legal will only stoke that engine's fires, while continuing to make a big deal out of it will force a reckoning on those involved and let everyone know that we will not tolerate it.
What this legislation aims to do is decrease the time between when a search warrant is issued and when the evidence is in custody. It's to cut down on the amount of "fucking around" time.
But then when would they find the time to play Wii?
The States are a joke, and would never stand up to the Federal gov.
This is provably untrue. That article's from last February, and I think there are now 16 states which have introduced resolutions to reaffirm their rights under the 10th Amendment. Oklahoma's passed; their may be others by now. And it's not only abstract affirmations being passed--CA and other states' marijuana laws are out of sync with the federal government, and Montana has exempted its firearms from federal regulation.
Washington won't give up without a fight, as shown by the Supreme Court case regarding federal medical marijuana raids in CA in which the justices twisted "interstate commerce" to mean "intrastate commerce," and though Obama's administration has stopped raiding they still claim the authority to do so.
As a result, Montana went further by explicitly declaring,
A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured...in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.
On the day the bill passed, a test case was filed to see what Washington's response will be, but that is of course unresolved. Since its passing, a dozen other states have introduced similar legislation. The outcome will be a very good indicator of what the federal government will put up with and what we will have to take back more forcefully. (It's almost unfortunate that my text is about guns, because I am certainly not talking about physical force here--that step is a long way off and likely unnecessary.)
And the people are just sheep. They're not going to stand up to the government either.
They will if given the option. Most don't know it exists, and others who might are disinclined to help because they're tired of being called "sheep" by everyone who thinks he has the answers. If you want people to think differently you have to give them the option by talking with them instead of only about them.
Yeah, the word revolution is tossed around so much that it's lost much of its meaning. The word most people should be using is "reformation."
We're not looking for an entirely new system of government, it's just time to bring ours back in line with the way it's supposed to work. Trouble is, we've heard "clean up corruption" and "reform" so often that those words have lost much of their meaning as well, at least when it comes to governments. I posted elsewhere in this thread about the Read the Bills Act and the One Subject at a Time Act which would do the job simply and effectively by giving the public much better access to much higher-quality legislation.
I must admit I only scanned the list rather than read it in full, but there is an easier way to reform Washington involving just two bills, both proposed by DownsizeDC: the Read The Bills Act and the One Subject at a Time Act.
RTBA would make it mandatory for both houses of Congress to post complete bills in their final form online fully 7 days prior to a vote for the public to review. This means that no matter who pays for a congressman, anything shady he tries to slip into a bill will see the light of day before it's made law, and every congressman can be pressured to vote based on the public's informed opinion. You may recall Candidate Obama's campaign promise to put bills online for 5 days for public review, one of his most practical and meaningful promises and one that remains unfulfilled.
Another provision in it calls for a full floor reading before the vote, a measure that certainly fits the agenda of shrinking Washington but one I see as unduly burdensome. A third section calls for any congressman voting for (but not against) a bill to certify that he has read it in full, so we would no longer hear "I was unaware of Unpopular Provision X when I voted for the Ponies For Everyone! Act of 2009" as an excuse.
OSTA is just what it sounds like: each bill must stand or fall on its own merit, and its name must reflect its contents. That means bills can't be weighed down with tons of riders, attached usually either for pet projects to gain a rep's vote or to pass unpopular legislation by hiding it in otherwise innocuous, possibly PATRIOTically named bills.
I have spoken about these acts to many people and only one person disliked OSTA, while RTBA has been universally supported (save my own concerns about the floor reading). If enough of the public were to hear about these bills and call their congressmen in support of them, Congress would be forced to pass them and bring about the real reformation we need: making our so-called representatives actually represent us.
I latched onto that point as well. You're not going to get many click-throughs without giving a tidbit though, so I'll post one here.
Excellent research, found at thirty-thousand.org, shows that in 1804 each representative represented about 40,000 people. Today, each representative represents close to 700,000. If we lived up to the vision of our founders, given today's population, we would have about 7,500 congressmen in the House of Representatives. It turns out that in 1929 Congress passed a bill fixing the number of representatives at 435. Prior to that, the number of congressional districts was increased every 10 years, from 1790 to 1910, except one, after a population census was taken.
In addition, the Senate was originally designed to represent the interests of each state, senators being elected by the state legislature. The logic behind this was that the desires of the state do not necessarily line up with the desires of its population. This is also why the Senate has the power to ratify treaties: they are contracts between governments. This was altered with good intentions (there were many deadlocks resulting in Senate vacancies for years), but I'm not convinced it was the right thing to do, since the House and Senate have very little difference between them now.
We are not a Republic. We are a Democratic Republic. This is a very important distinction. Our representatives are not appointed and they are not royalty; they are elected.
We used to be a Constitutional Republic, a form of government in which elected officials were still subject to a governing document designed to minimize the historical excesses of government. We haven't been that for a looong time. More importantly, I wouldn't even call this place a representative democracy anymore, since the people we elect do much more for themselves (judged by who can pay them the most) than they do for their constituents.
Republics only work well when the voters are smart enough to make decent choices. Our citizens are so uneducated and lacking in critical thought that they can't do this.
You have to look at US history to understand how we got to this point. Different people will draw different conclusions, and there is certainly more than a single cause involved. The one I see as primary is the consolidation of power by the federal government. The situation in the US before the 20th century is pretty much what you've described--it was a close match to the European Union of a decade ago. (Interestingly, the EU is slowly but steadily moving towards our strong central government model.)
When most decisions that affect you are made locally, you have more incentive to get involved. When most decisions that affect you are made for the entire country, your voice shrinks to nothing and the only way to get ahead (besides running for office, something most folks aren't cut out to do) is to align yourself with a political party. Once you do that, it's easy to slide into sticking with a party and letting them decide everything for you. Your faculties for critical thought dry up and you end up believing the blather from your favored flavor of party-paid pundits.
But make no mistake: the current government is not one that most of the voters want. A century of government centralization compounded with two increasingly polarized yet inbred parties has resulted in most people believing that they have only the choices that the parties see fit to give them. This is beginning to change, and the best way to maintain and increase the rate of change is to stop assuming that people are idiots. Engage them, show them alternatives. Some number will stick with their parties and can be written off, but more people are willing to listen to new (old) ideas than they get credit for, and the biggest obstacle holding us back is the long-standing prejudice about the American public that you opened with.
The whole scheme is arbitrary. The term "planet" was only nailed down in 2006, and of course it's going to take people time to adjust to the rigorous definition.
I'm not sure how useful the classification is anyway. The differences between Mercury and Jupiter are greater than the differences between Mercury and Pluto. Earth is more different still than any of the three with its complex and varied forms of life.
I think the astronomers should use their definition, and I suppose it ought to be taught in schools for the sake of consistency (though I question the value of making kids memorize the planets in the first place), but it's really not a big deal what you call it.
It's a sad commentary on modern media that the first thing I thought of when I read "Braingate" was "Is there some kind of mind-control scandal I missed?"
Well, not exactly. The holographic (more correctly holonomic) brain theory says that cognition arises from brainwave interference patterns. Our senses act as frequency analyzers, and the brain operates on their output. It's a fascinating idea and one I am partial to, but the evidence is (AFAIK) scarce.
only software modeling is needed at this point to interpret the waves
This may be just a tad optimistic.
widespread use of alt-F4
That would explain why reality never works out like you want it to...apparently it's run on Windows.
At this point, is our decline even reversible?
After reading Jacques Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, among other things, I think the answer is No. It is not just America that is in decline (which is all that's meant by decadence) but the entirety of Western civilization. It is one man's prediction, but he happens to be an accomplished historian with an in-depth knowledge of our culture. He weaves a historical narrative whose force is hard to ignore.
It's not a doomsday thing, as it must by necessity be replaced by a new culture. Many of us will likely be around for the big changes ahead, which means that we can have a hand in shaping the new culture.
I highly recommend the book to anyone with even a modest interest in history. Even if you disagree with the hypothesis of this culture's end, it's a very thorough and educational look at our civilization.
If you had a perfect photographic memory, you would breeze through most any modern school curriculum. That doesn't mean you'd actually understand what you have memorized or be able to adapt that knowledge to different situations.
Our society is obsessed with facts, so that is what we teach. What we ought to be teaching, in every subject, is both factual and historical content. William James put it best: "You can give humanistic value to almost anything by teaching it historically. Geology, economics, mechanics are humanities when taught with reference to the successive achievements of the geniuses to which these sciences owe their being. Not taught thus, literature remains grammar, art a catalogue, history a list of dates, and natural science a sheet of formulas and weights and measures."
Grammar by itself is useless, which is why students ought to immerse themselves in literature. They would see that the lifeless framework of grammar is supported by stories to capture their imagination, showing them why grammar is important and useful. And DO NOT force an analysis of the piece! That has its place, but analysis takes all the pleasure out of reading a novel--instead of wondering how the story will unfold and engaging the characters, the reader is intent on finding how the author's difficult childhood affects the story he tells.
The reason the incompetence is most evident in writing is because writing is the most necessary component for doing anything else. The incompetence shows itself elsewhere in more subtle ways. In history, for example, by compressing the diverse beliefs and attitudes of an entire culture into the statement "Europe in the Middle Ages was very religious." More often, the incompetence is shown only by the lack of new ideas; you won't find any examples because nobody is even trying to publish anything.