More likely is that this project is another self-licking ice cream cone and fool's errand conceived by Booz Allen Hamilton, or some other NSA contracting company. The sole purpose of the project will be to take the US Government to the bank, as they will forever be "this close" to making it work while their profits soar regardless. With the current mindset, the NSA director will never dream of shutting down this project for fear of not being the first to get their hands on this ultimate of cryptographic tools.
... IMO the only way to get the big money out of politics is to get the money out of politics, period....
There are some advantages to your idea, but I don't think the nation is ready for it just yet. WOLF-PAC's aim is to address the core problem affecting our political system today with two simple ideas that have broad appeal. Remember, this is a democracy, so if you want anything done for sure you have to be prepared to compromise and do things one step at a time or else risk getting nothing in return for your efforts.
... I want us spying on Russia and China - and I don't want them knowing how we do it. This information should have been kept to himself.
Personally, I haven't heard of or seen any Snowden revelations about how the NSA spied on countries like Russia or China in particular; only about how they spied on everyone, our NATO allies and the American people included. Also, if our government were functioning properly, Snowden would not have had to ask anyone for asylum. However, I'm sure the NSA is using your exact same argument to justify everything they did, including congressional perjury, and to be allowed to continue on as before. That should teach everyone to think twice about questioning anything they do!
... I'm getting tired of writing these letters, yet I'll do it again and remind my "representation" of my position. Anybody else?
Your pleas are falling on deaf ears, because your representatives in Congress today don't work you anymore: to them it's all about the money they need to get re-elected, so now they only work for their donors. Even Obama, who received so many small donations, got 70% of his campaign cash from big donors, mainly from people on Wall Street (which is why he will never prosecute them).
Therefore, what we must do is fix the underlying problem first: by getting big money out of politics.
This would be difficult in any other country with a corrupt political system, but luckily the United States Constitution happens to include Article Five, which describes an alternative process through which the Constitution can be altered: by holding a national convention at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (34) of the country's 50 States. Any proposed amendments must then be ratified by at least three-quarters (38 States).
Is anybody doing this yet? Yes. WOLF-PAC was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since then, many volunteers have approached their State Legislators about this idea and their efforts have often been met with unexpected bi-partisan enthusiasm. So far, 50 State Legislators have authored or co-sponsored resolutions to call for a Constitutional Convention to get money out of politics! Notable successes have been in Texas, Idaho and Kentucky.
However, if the State Legislators are also corrupt, why are they helping us? Well, maybe they aren't as corrupt as you think. And even if they are, the important thing is that they seem to be just as fed up with the Federal government as we are -- so much so that they seem quite happy to help out with this effort. After all, it's a pretty simple proposal that speaks to both Democrats and Republicans.
If you think this idea makes sense, you can sign this petition, donate, or even take action by personally contacting your favorite State Legislator and asking for a meeting. It's easier than you might think and as a result we might be able to change this awful situation sooner than you think.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
Yes, I cheated on my wife, but I blame Edward Snowden for the mess I'm in now, because if he hadn't told my wife then everything would have been just fine! Besides, things are different for me these days and I need the extra sex.
This whole NSA spying debacle is nothing more than a self-licking ice cream cone if there ever was one, albeit a rather dangerous one for any democracy to be involved in.
In at least two court cases now the government has had to admit that its massive dragnet operation has, over the years, not prevented a single terrorist incident; the ones we did catch on time were thanks to tip-offs and good old fashioned detective work. Yet, why does the establishment seem to double down on this issue, even though it's clearly unconstitutional and public sentiment is against it?
Because of the money involved.
80% of the NSA consists of private companies that do almost all of the work and it's these companies that have such a massive stake in this gigantic data collecting operation. Normally the government should be able to simply tell them to stop, but the problem is that the tail is now wagging the dog: these companies don't want to see any drop in their profits, which is only their main interest and whole reason for being. So, they're fighting back using mainly legal methods, which these days includes the option to make donations to key politicians. Remember: money equals free speech these days.
The politicians involved, especially the members of the US House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Feinstein, Chambliss, et al.), are the most obvious targets for these donations. Like all other members of Congress, they know that 94-95% of the time the candidate with the most money will win the next election, so they actually spend most of their time raising money while in return doing and saying most anything that their most important donors want. Our representatives don't work for us anymore: they work for their donors. Consequently, the government squanders untold billions on so many unnecessary "employment projects" every year, but this NSA mega-project to spy on everyone and everything is a particularly dangerous one.
That's why we must put a stop to it ASAP: by getting big money out of politics.
Lucky for us, this is actually easier than you might think. It would be very difficult in any other country, but the United States Constitution happens to include Article Five, which describes an alternative process through which the Constitution can be altered: by holding a national convention at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (34) of the country's 50 States. Any proposed amendments must then be ratified by at least three-quarters (38 States).
Is anybody doing this yet? Yes indeed, and you too can get involved! WOLF-PAC was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since then, many volunteers have approached their State Legislators about this idea and their efforts have often been met with unexpected bi-partisan enthusiasm. So far, 50 State Legislators have authored or co-sponsored resolutions to call for a Constitutional Convention to get money out of politics! Notable successes have been in Texas, Idaho and Kentucky.
However, if the State Legislators are also corrupt, why are they helping us? Well, maybe they aren't as corrupt as you think. And even if they are, the important thing is that they seem to be just as fed up with the Federal government as we are -- so much so that they seem quite happy to help out with this effort. After all, it's a pretty simple proposal that speaks to both Democrats and Republicans.
It looks to me like this is going to happen. The only question is whether it will be sooner or later. As an ex-pat I can only donate, but if you live in the US you can also contact your favorite State Legislator and ask for a meeting. It's easier than you might think and as a result maybe we can change t
... Marketing works. Ads work. PR works. And this is very, very sad. It's like most people are controllable semi-conscious droids.
Boy, have I got news for you: we're all like that. Everyone finds it easy to see how marketing campaigns can mislead others, but its works on us as well; all that is required is a different message and presentation. We all see what we want to see.
You ought to read Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow, but there's also an interesting cover article in the January 2014 edition of Scientific American, titled Our Unconscious Mind, by John A. Bargh.
It won't be: you can't ever get rid of them, because there will always be a bit of them in all of us. Actually, there are even advantages to having people like that around. However, what we can and must do is always to regulate that kind of behavior as best we can so as to limit the harm it can do to society.
... And now my FUCKING GOVERNMENT is doing pretty much anything you can conceive of in the name of spying on everybody including the people of the United States.... I lower my head in FUCKING SHAME as to what has become of this country.
That's exactly how I feel. But, if our representatives in the Federal government no longer seem to be on our side, that's because they aren't. They don't work for us anymore: they work for their donors. Among the latter are a collection of corporations (e.g. Booz Allen Hamilton) that make up some 80% of the NSA. The problem is that the executives of those companies have learned that giving large political "donations" to key politicians is probably the best kind of investment they can ever make. As a result, the politicians involved have become heavily dependent on these companies in order to get re-elected and will do anything they are asked in order to keep those donations coming. Every other civilized country recognizes this as corruption, and we used to as well, but unfortunately our laws now say it's legal.
If you understand this, then you know there is only one solution to this problem: we urgently need to get big money out of politics.
How can we do that? It would be difficult to do in any other country, but the United States Constitution happens to include Article Five, which describes an alternative process through which the Constitution can be altered: by holding a national convention at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at least 34) of the country's 50 states. Any proposed amendments must then be ratified by at least three-quarters (38 States).
Are we using this yet? Yes we are! WOLF-PAC was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since then, many volunteers have approached their State Legislators about this idea and their efforts have often been met with unexpected bi-partisan enthusiasm! So far, 50 State Legislators have authored or co-sponsored resolutions to call for a Constitutional Convention to get money out of politics! Notable successes have been in Texas, Idaho and Kentucky.
But, if the State Legislators are also corrupt, why are they helping us? Well, maybe they aren't as corrupt as you think. But even if they are, the important thing is that they seem usually to be just as fed up with the Federal government as we are -- so much so that they are quite often happy to help out with this effort. After all, it's a pretty simple proposal that speaks to Democrats and Republicans alike.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
And I thought planets normally form in conjunction with stars, out of the disk of dust around them?...
Perhaps, but not necessarily. Studies published earlier this year about of microlensing events seen by the Kepler space telescope suggest that there may be trillions of rogue planets drifting between the stars of our galaxy alone. Did they all originally form around stars? Maybe, but regardless, if they exist now then why could there not have been at least a fraction of these bodies present during the Goldilocks era?
... Also while there were heavier elements (needed to form solid rocks, not just life), there wasn't very much of such material.
Very true, and I've also heard it said that with even more of the stuff available in the far future, planet formation should become even more common than it is now. But TFA is based on the premise that there should already have been enough heavy elements around at the time to form planets at least occasionally (remember, even the 15 million-year-old universe was an awfully big place where the law of large numbers already applied).
That period in the history of our universe may have been warm, but I imagine that, at the time, the average hospitable planetary surface would have been pretty dark. After all, if the Goldilocks zone is what you get without having a nearby star at all, then having a star nearby would make things too hot. So, any planetary surface suitable for life to evolve on would have been a necessarily dark place.
An unfortunate consequence of this warm universe is that it will have taken longer for planetary bodies to cool down after their formation. The question is, would even a Mars-sized body have have enough time to form and cool down so that standing water could have existed on its surface during this Goldilocks era? Somehow, I doubt it.
As the background temperature cooled to below the freezing point of water, the habitable volume of the universe suddenly became restricted to the areas around stars. These early stellar Goldilocks zones will initially have been huge, but would soon become much smaller. And as they became smaller, they also became more brightly lit.
That's assuming ALEC is as well organized as the conservative block in the US Congress; that they can block almost anything that is not in their interest. But how can that be when so far the most headway WOLF-PAC has made with State Legislators is with Republicans in red States (Texas, Idaho and Kentucky)? If anything it would seem that, despite ALEC, Republican State Legislators are even more averse to the current level of crony capitalism in Congress than are their Democratic counterparts. However, I agree that we should not expect this effort to be a cakewalk.
Why is it that they are less corrupt? Is it because they are more ethical or because they are not as effective for influencing policies that favor the people who want to spend money on bribes?
I strongly suspect the latter.
If this was close to passing, wouldn't that shift things? I imagine that as an Evil Overlord of a large company's bribery division, I would then shift my focus to state officials in order to stop this from getting passed.
They might give it a shot and they might succeed, but I don't think so. They would have to bribe an awful lot of legislators in a relatively short span of time. From wolf-pac.com:
"Once an Article V. Convention has been called we will continue to put pressure on our Legislators to do exactly what they called the convention to do. There will be so much media attention at this point due to the historic nature of the event that no Legislator would dare propose an amendment that the vast majority of the country does not agree with. Once an Article V convention has proposed amendments, then they would have to be ratified by three-fourths of our state governments (i.e. 38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution. That is why we are confident that an amendment to deal with money in politics in the United States is the only possible amendment that could come from such a convention."
Huh. Well, how do we make it stop? Clearly voting isn't working.
See WOLF-PAC and help get big money out of politics. After that, voting will start to make a difference again.
WOLF-PAC was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators (who tend not to be nearly as corrupt as those who run for federal office) propose it via an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas, but now also Idaho and Kentucky. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians, not to mention a far more productive Congress, emerge within one or two election cycles.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
Yes, but America has far more economic influence and our representatives must also agree to those heinous provisions. The problem is that it's no longer us that they represent: it's their donors, and they're the ones who keep pushing for those provisions. However, these and other seemingly intractable problems will fix themselves as long as we first get big money out of politics.
... You must treat them with respect, charge them carefully, and never puncture them. Once you break any of these rules, they catch on fire.... Tesla, in their drive for performance, built these cars with their batteries mere inches from the surface of the road. No gasoline car has their tank that low and even R/C cars have them higher in the chassis and more protected from the surface.
If your theory is correct, and it does sound reasonable (even though I'm not an expert on the subject), then the Model S has a major design issue. Even the Concept One, Rimac's electric supercar, has a more conventional battery configuration. Musk won't be happy, but it will be interesting to see how he and his team respond.
lol... please... if everyone on the road had a robot driving the car, we wouldnt have need for car insurance.
Car insurance doesn't just cover the financial consequences of your own mistakes. You forgot about things like theft, intentional and unintentional mistakes by other people, as well as acts of nature (hail storms, flooding, collisions with wildlife), all of which can be very expensive for you unless you are properly insured. For driverless cars the insurance would also have to take into account the possibility that certain software errors could have costly consequences.
Nevertheless, with no possibility for human error, the insurance premiums for automated vehicles are bound to be lower than for manually driven cars, certainly if they are in the same price range.
also, it isnt the insurance that would get me to have a robotic car, but the fact that i can play video games while it drives me places.
Anything you want. Most of us are not used to having a personal chauffeur, but once automated vehicles become common I suspect that many of us will soon come to appreciate why rich folks are often willing, or even happy to employ people for this service.
where I live country, state and county take in way, way more taxes than the roads require
I believe that's true in the Netherlands as well, but at least they do maintain the roads around here. Living in a country with a functioning government does have its advantages.
Which reminds me: have you signed this petition yet?
of course, once a good number of people plug in instead of paying the petro tax, guess what the government will do then?
You're right, of course: the roads still have to be maintained and someone is going to have to foot the bill regardless. I understand and accept that. But, I would prefer an electric car anyway and not having to pay any fuel or road tax for a while just makes the idea even more appealing.
In July of 2001 a friend of mine and I rented a Porsche Boxster with a tiptronic gearbox (which is slower than the manual version, but less easily damaged) and took it for a three-day spin on the German autobahn network. Fantastic! I remember getting stuck behind other cars at 170 km/h (106 mph), then shifting down to 4th gear to accelerate again after the car ahead of us got out of the way. The acceleration would only begin to slow above about 230 km/h (142 mph). Our top speed was 256 km/h (159 mph), achieved on a long downhill section on the way to Frankfurt from the south (probably with a tailwind as well). So, that's just to put things in perspective.
For a few years after that I dreamed of owning that car, with its mid-mounted engine that makes it sound like you're being tailgated by a truck, only with some additional sounds of whirring gears. It was like music to me. I was a more aggressive driver in those days, but that car had a calming effect on me; like I didn't have to prove myself to anyone.
Yet, I no longer dream of owning a car with an internal combustion engine. The next road vehicle I buy is going to be electric. Part of my change of heart on this subject has to do with the technical appeal. No more complicated internal combustion engines, none of the heat, the sound or the smell, no matter how glorious they once seemed to me. None of the oil and associated dirt either. Just the simplicity of a battery and a compact, yet powerful electric motor that is almost silent, yet gives surprising acceleration and speed.
Moreover, there is the environmental aspect. My petrol-head friends keep reminding me that the necessary electricity mostly comes from coal-fired power plants, making each mile traveled a bit dirtier than I would hope. True, but at least I would not be to blame for that, since I would be able to run it on 100% clean, renewable energy as soon as I had the choice.
Also appealing is the fact that I would never have to visit any more gasoline stations. All I'd have to do is plug it into a wall socket in the garage when I get home. Okay, it would be more of a drag if I didn't have a garage (not many folks around here do), but still. Luckily this country is so small that on a single charge I would be able to drive to work and back using almost any electric vehicle available on the market today.
Finally, there is the fact that I live in the Netherlands, which has higher gasoline prices than anywhere else in the world: over 60% of it is tax and the last time I paid $8.73 per gallon. Oh, how I despise being such a cash cow. If I could afford one I would certainly buy a Tesla Model S, but for now I look forward to receiving an even more frugal (and more agile) Lit C-1.
Yes it will, but there's something else that we have to do first.
The problem is that the vast majority of Repubmocrats don't work for us anymore: they work for the corporations. Feinstein and Rogers, for instance, they speak for companies like Booz Allen Hamilton -- their donors -- so of course they condemn Snowdon.
The reason why US politics is like this nowadays is because bribery is legal. Those in Congress know that 94-95% of the time the candidate with the most money wins, so they spend most of their time "following the green" in order to stay in office. And since that kind of money always comes with strings attached, they do exactly what their donors tell them to do. If not, the donors will simply back another candidate. Obviously, this is not how it should be.
To fix that and many other problems, we first need to get money out of politics.
If that makes sense to you, I would suggest signing this petition: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators (who tend not to be nearly as corrupt as those who run for federal office) propose it via an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians emerge within one or two election cycles.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
Yes, and the Koch brothers et al. will stop at nothing to keep the world addicted to fossil fuels for as long as possible: the more scarce it becomes, the more its price goes up and the more they earn. If it's up to them there will always be enough of their toxic products to sell, so it's going to be up to the rest of us to kick this filthy habit before it ruins everything for us.
Corruption is hardly unknown among state legislatures, but apparently it is different (e.g. more localized) and not nearly as bad as it is on Capitol Hill. For instance, big corporations spend relatively little money greasing state politicians, of which there are also many more than in the nation's capitol. Consequently, state representatives are far less dependent on that sort of money for their campaigns, are thus more likely to listen to their constituents, and often even share people's resentment towards their counterparts in Congress who seem not to care at all about what people think (other than their donors). It must also not be lost upon them that the state governments are actually far more effective overall then what we see in Washington D.C. today. All of this has resulted in a lot more sympathy than might have been expected among state representatives for the idea of calling an Article V Convention to get money out of politics. Hey, it's working in Texas of all places, so if people elsewhere get angry enough, it should work in other states as well.
True, it's not like corruption in unknown in the state legislatures, but apparently it is different and not nearly as bad at this level as it is on Capitol Hill. For example, the big corporations spend relatively little money on state politicians, of which there are also many more than in the nation's capitol. Consequently, state representatives are far less dependent on that sort of money for their campaigns, are thus more likely to listen to their constituents, and often even share people's resentment towards their counterparts in Congress who seem to care so little about what anyone thinks. It must also not lost upon them that their legislatures are actually far more effective overall then what we see in Washington D.C. today. All of this has resulted in a lot more sympathy than might have been expected among state representatives for the idea of calling an Article V Convention to get money out of politics.
Slashdot Mirror
More likely is that this project is another self-licking ice cream cone and fool's errand conceived by Booz Allen Hamilton, or some other NSA contracting company. The sole purpose of the project will be to take the US Government to the bank, as they will forever be "this close" to making it work while their profits soar regardless. With the current mindset, the NSA director will never dream of shutting down this project for fear of not being the first to get their hands on this ultimate of cryptographic tools.
... IMO the only way to get the big money out of politics is to get the money out of politics, period. ...
There are some advantages to your idea, but I don't think the nation is ready for it just yet. WOLF-PAC's aim is to address the core problem affecting our political system today with two simple ideas that have broad appeal. Remember, this is a democracy, so if you want anything done for sure you have to be prepared to compromise and do things one step at a time or else risk getting nothing in return for your efforts.
... I want us spying on Russia and China - and I don't want them knowing how we do it. This information should have been kept to himself.
Personally, I haven't heard of or seen any Snowden revelations about how the NSA spied on countries like Russia or China in particular; only about how they spied on everyone, our NATO allies and the American people included. Also, if our government were functioning properly, Snowden would not have had to ask anyone for asylum. However, I'm sure the NSA is using your exact same argument to justify everything they did, including congressional perjury, and to be allowed to continue on as before. That should teach everyone to think twice about questioning anything they do!
... I'm getting tired of writing these letters, yet I'll do it again and remind my "representation" of my position. Anybody else?
Your pleas are falling on deaf ears, because your representatives in Congress today don't work you anymore: to them it's all about the money they need to get re-elected, so now they only work for their donors. Even Obama, who received so many small donations, got 70% of his campaign cash from big donors, mainly from people on Wall Street (which is why he will never prosecute them).
Therefore, what we must do is fix the underlying problem first: by getting big money out of politics.
This would be difficult in any other country with a corrupt political system, but luckily the United States Constitution happens to include Article Five, which describes an alternative process through which the Constitution can be altered: by holding a national convention at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (34) of the country's 50 States. Any proposed amendments must then be ratified by at least three-quarters (38 States).
Is anybody doing this yet? Yes. WOLF-PAC was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since then, many volunteers have approached their State Legislators about this idea and their efforts have often been met with unexpected bi-partisan enthusiasm. So far, 50 State Legislators have authored or co-sponsored resolutions to call for a Constitutional Convention to get money out of politics! Notable successes have been in Texas, Idaho and Kentucky.
However, if the State Legislators are also corrupt, why are they helping us? Well, maybe they aren't as corrupt as you think. And even if they are, the important thing is that they seem to be just as fed up with the Federal government as we are -- so much so that they seem quite happy to help out with this effort. After all, it's a pretty simple proposal that speaks to both Democrats and Republicans.
If you think this idea makes sense, you can sign this petition, donate, or even take action by personally contacting your favorite State Legislator and asking for a meeting. It's easier than you might think and as a result we might be able to change this awful situation sooner than you think.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
Yes, I cheated on my wife, but I blame Edward Snowden for the mess I'm in now, because if he hadn't told my wife then everything would have been just fine! Besides, things are different for me these days and I need the extra sex.
This whole NSA spying debacle is nothing more than a self-licking ice cream cone if there ever was one, albeit a rather dangerous one for any democracy to be involved in.
In at least two court cases now the government has had to admit that its massive dragnet operation has, over the years, not prevented a single terrorist incident; the ones we did catch on time were thanks to tip-offs and good old fashioned detective work. Yet, why does the establishment seem to double down on this issue, even though it's clearly unconstitutional and public sentiment is against it?
Because of the money involved.
80% of the NSA consists of private companies that do almost all of the work and it's these companies that have such a massive stake in this gigantic data collecting operation. Normally the government should be able to simply tell them to stop, but the problem is that the tail is now wagging the dog: these companies don't want to see any drop in their profits, which is only their main interest and whole reason for being. So, they're fighting back using mainly legal methods, which these days includes the option to make donations to key politicians. Remember: money equals free speech these days.
The politicians involved, especially the members of the US House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Feinstein, Chambliss, et al.), are the most obvious targets for these donations. Like all other members of Congress, they know that 94-95% of the time the candidate with the most money will win the next election, so they actually spend most of their time raising money while in return doing and saying most anything that their most important donors want. Our representatives don't work for us anymore: they work for their donors. Consequently, the government squanders untold billions on so many unnecessary "employment projects" every year, but this NSA mega-project to spy on everyone and everything is a particularly dangerous one.
That's why we must put a stop to it ASAP: by getting big money out of politics.
Lucky for us, this is actually easier than you might think. It would be very difficult in any other country, but the United States Constitution happens to include Article Five, which describes an alternative process through which the Constitution can be altered: by holding a national convention at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (34) of the country's 50 States. Any proposed amendments must then be ratified by at least three-quarters (38 States).
Is anybody doing this yet? Yes indeed, and you too can get involved! WOLF-PAC was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since then, many volunteers have approached their State Legislators about this idea and their efforts have often been met with unexpected bi-partisan enthusiasm. So far, 50 State Legislators have authored or co-sponsored resolutions to call for a Constitutional Convention to get money out of politics! Notable successes have been in Texas, Idaho and Kentucky.
However, if the State Legislators are also corrupt, why are they helping us? Well, maybe they aren't as corrupt as you think. And even if they are, the important thing is that they seem to be just as fed up with the Federal government as we are -- so much so that they seem quite happy to help out with this effort. After all, it's a pretty simple proposal that speaks to both Democrats and Republicans.
It looks to me like this is going to happen. The only question is whether it will be sooner or later. As an ex-pat I can only donate, but if you live in the US you can also contact your favorite State Legislator and ask for a meeting. It's easier than you might think and as a result maybe we can change t
... Marketing works. Ads work. PR works. And this is very, very sad. It's like most people are controllable semi-conscious droids.
Boy, have I got news for you: we're all like that. Everyone finds it easy to see how marketing campaigns can mislead others, but its works on us as well; all that is required is a different message and presentation. We all see what we want to see.
You ought to read Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow, but there's also an interesting cover article in the January 2014 edition of Scientific American, titled Our Unconscious Mind, by John A. Bargh.
It won't be: you can't ever get rid of them, because there will always be a bit of them in all of us. Actually, there are even advantages to having people like that around. However, what we can and must do is always to regulate that kind of behavior as best we can so as to limit the harm it can do to society.
... And now my FUCKING GOVERNMENT is doing pretty much anything you can conceive of in the name of spying on everybody including the people of the United States. ... I lower my head in FUCKING SHAME as to what has become of this country.
That's exactly how I feel. But, if our representatives in the Federal government no longer seem to be on our side, that's because they aren't. They don't work for us anymore: they work for their donors. Among the latter are a collection of corporations (e.g. Booz Allen Hamilton) that make up some 80% of the NSA. The problem is that the executives of those companies have learned that giving large political "donations" to key politicians is probably the best kind of investment they can ever make. As a result, the politicians involved have become heavily dependent on these companies in order to get re-elected and will do anything they are asked in order to keep those donations coming. Every other civilized country recognizes this as corruption, and we used to as well, but unfortunately our laws now say it's legal.
If you understand this, then you know there is only one solution to this problem: we urgently need to get big money out of politics.
How can we do that? It would be difficult to do in any other country, but the United States Constitution happens to include Article Five, which describes an alternative process through which the Constitution can be altered: by holding a national convention at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at least 34) of the country's 50 states. Any proposed amendments must then be ratified by at least three-quarters (38 States).
Are we using this yet? Yes we are! WOLF-PAC was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since then, many volunteers have approached their State Legislators about this idea and their efforts have often been met with unexpected bi-partisan enthusiasm! So far, 50 State Legislators have authored or co-sponsored resolutions to call for a Constitutional Convention to get money out of politics! Notable successes have been in Texas, Idaho and Kentucky.
But, if the State Legislators are also corrupt, why are they helping us? Well, maybe they aren't as corrupt as you think. But even if they are, the important thing is that they seem usually to be just as fed up with the Federal government as we are -- so much so that they are quite often happy to help out with this effort. After all, it's a pretty simple proposal that speaks to Democrats and Republicans alike.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
... then the problem would be solved. Next, the only thing I'll want is for the car to wake me up when the destination has been reached.
And I thought planets normally form in conjunction with stars, out of the disk of dust around them? ...
Perhaps, but not necessarily. Studies published earlier this year about of microlensing events seen by the Kepler space telescope suggest that there may be trillions of rogue planets drifting between the stars of our galaxy alone. Did they all originally form around stars? Maybe, but regardless, if they exist now then why could there not have been at least a fraction of these bodies present during the Goldilocks era?
... Also while there were heavier elements (needed to form solid rocks, not just life), there wasn't very much of such material.
Very true, and I've also heard it said that with even more of the stuff available in the far future, planet formation should become even more common than it is now. But TFA is based on the premise that there should already have been enough heavy elements around at the time to form planets at least occasionally (remember, even the 15 million-year-old universe was an awfully big place where the law of large numbers already applied).
That period in the history of our universe may have been warm, but I imagine that, at the time, the average hospitable planetary surface would have been pretty dark. After all, if the Goldilocks zone is what you get without having a nearby star at all, then having a star nearby would make things too hot. So, any planetary surface suitable for life to evolve on would have been a necessarily dark place.
An unfortunate consequence of this warm universe is that it will have taken longer for planetary bodies to cool down after their formation. The question is, would even a Mars-sized body have have enough time to form and cool down so that standing water could have existed on its surface during this Goldilocks era? Somehow, I doubt it.
As the background temperature cooled to below the freezing point of water, the habitable volume of the universe suddenly became restricted to the areas around stars. These early stellar Goldilocks zones will initially have been huge, but would soon become much smaller. And as they became smaller, they also became more brightly lit.
That's assuming ALEC is as well organized as the conservative block in the US Congress; that they can block almost anything that is not in their interest. But how can that be when so far the most headway WOLF-PAC has made with State Legislators is with Republicans in red States (Texas, Idaho and Kentucky)? If anything it would seem that, despite ALEC, Republican State Legislators are even more averse to the current level of crony capitalism in Congress than are their Democratic counterparts. However, I agree that we should not expect this effort to be a cakewalk.
Why is it that they are less corrupt? Is it because they are more ethical or because they are not as effective for influencing policies that favor the people who want to spend money on bribes?
I strongly suspect the latter.
If this was close to passing, wouldn't that shift things? I imagine that as an Evil Overlord of a large company's bribery division, I would then shift my focus to state officials in order to stop this from getting passed.
They might give it a shot and they might succeed, but I don't think so. They would have to bribe an awful lot of legislators in a relatively short span of time. From wolf-pac.com:
"Once an Article V. Convention has been called we will continue to put pressure on our Legislators to do exactly what they called the convention to do. There will be so much media attention at this point due to the historic nature of the event that no Legislator would dare propose an amendment that the vast majority of the country does not agree with. Once an Article V convention has proposed amendments, then they would have to be ratified by three-fourths of our state governments (i.e. 38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution. That is why we are confident that an amendment to deal with money in politics in the United States is the only possible amendment that could come from such a convention."
Huh. Well, how do we make it stop? Clearly voting isn't working.
See WOLF-PAC and help get big money out of politics. After that, voting will start to make a difference again.
WOLF-PAC was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators (who tend not to be nearly as corrupt as those who run for federal office) propose it via an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas, but now also Idaho and Kentucky. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians, not to mention a far more productive Congress, emerge within one or two election cycles.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
Yes, but America has far more economic influence and our representatives must also agree to those heinous provisions. The problem is that it's no longer us that they represent: it's their donors, and they're the ones who keep pushing for those provisions. However, these and other seemingly intractable problems will fix themselves as long as we first get big money out of politics.
... You must treat them with respect, charge them carefully, and never puncture them. Once you break any of these rules, they catch on fire. ... Tesla, in their drive for performance, built these cars with their batteries mere inches from the surface of the road. No gasoline car has their tank that low and even R/C cars have them higher in the chassis and more protected from the surface.
If your theory is correct, and it does sound reasonable (even though I'm not an expert on the subject), then the Model S has a major design issue. Even the Concept One, Rimac's electric supercar, has a more conventional battery configuration. Musk won't be happy, but it will be interesting to see how he and his team respond.
lol... please... if everyone on the road had a robot driving the car, we wouldnt have need for car insurance.
Car insurance doesn't just cover the financial consequences of your own mistakes. You forgot about things like theft, intentional and unintentional mistakes by other people, as well as acts of nature (hail storms, flooding, collisions with wildlife), all of which can be very expensive for you unless you are properly insured. For driverless cars the insurance would also have to take into account the possibility that certain software errors could have costly consequences.
Nevertheless, with no possibility for human error, the insurance premiums for automated vehicles are bound to be lower than for manually driven cars, certainly if they are in the same price range.
also, it isnt the insurance that would get me to have a robotic car, but the fact that i can play video games while it drives me places.
Anything you want. Most of us are not used to having a personal chauffeur, but once automated vehicles become common I suspect that many of us will soon come to appreciate why rich folks are often willing, or even happy to employ people for this service.
where I live country, state and county take in way, way more taxes than the roads require
I believe that's true in the Netherlands as well, but at least they do maintain the roads around here. Living in a country with a functioning government does have its advantages.
Which reminds me: have you signed this petition yet?
of course, once a good number of people plug in instead of paying the petro tax, guess what the government will do then?
You're right, of course: the roads still have to be maintained and someone is going to have to foot the bill regardless. I understand and accept that. But, I would prefer an electric car anyway and not having to pay any fuel or road tax for a while just makes the idea even more appealing.
In July of 2001 a friend of mine and I rented a Porsche Boxster with a tiptronic gearbox (which is slower than the manual version, but less easily damaged) and took it for a three-day spin on the German autobahn network. Fantastic! I remember getting stuck behind other cars at 170 km/h (106 mph), then shifting down to 4th gear to accelerate again after the car ahead of us got out of the way. The acceleration would only begin to slow above about 230 km/h (142 mph). Our top speed was 256 km/h (159 mph), achieved on a long downhill section on the way to Frankfurt from the south (probably with a tailwind as well). So, that's just to put things in perspective.
For a few years after that I dreamed of owning that car, with its mid-mounted engine that makes it sound like you're being tailgated by a truck, only with some additional sounds of whirring gears. It was like music to me. I was a more aggressive driver in those days, but that car had a calming effect on me; like I didn't have to prove myself to anyone.
Yet, I no longer dream of owning a car with an internal combustion engine. The next road vehicle I buy is going to be electric. Part of my change of heart on this subject has to do with the technical appeal. No more complicated internal combustion engines, none of the heat, the sound or the smell, no matter how glorious they once seemed to me. None of the oil and associated dirt either. Just the simplicity of a battery and a compact, yet powerful electric motor that is almost silent, yet gives surprising acceleration and speed.
Moreover, there is the environmental aspect. My petrol-head friends keep reminding me that the necessary electricity mostly comes from coal-fired power plants, making each mile traveled a bit dirtier than I would hope. True, but at least I would not be to blame for that, since I would be able to run it on 100% clean, renewable energy as soon as I had the choice.
Also appealing is the fact that I would never have to visit any more gasoline stations. All I'd have to do is plug it into a wall socket in the garage when I get home. Okay, it would be more of a drag if I didn't have a garage (not many folks around here do), but still. Luckily this country is so small that on a single charge I would be able to drive to work and back using almost any electric vehicle available on the market today.
Finally, there is the fact that I live in the Netherlands, which has higher gasoline prices than anywhere else in the world: over 60% of it is tax and the last time I paid $8.73 per gallon. Oh, how I despise being such a cash cow. If I could afford one I would certainly buy a Tesla Model S, but for now I look forward to receiving an even more frugal (and more agile) Lit C-1.
I doubt voting will solve the problem, ...
Yes it will, but there's something else that we have to do first.
The problem is that the vast majority of Repubmocrats don't work for us anymore: they work for the corporations. Feinstein and Rogers, for instance, they speak for companies like Booz Allen Hamilton -- their donors -- so of course they condemn Snowdon.
The reason why US politics is like this nowadays is because bribery is legal. Those in Congress know that 94-95% of the time the candidate with the most money wins, so they spend most of their time "following the green" in order to stay in office. And since that kind of money always comes with strings attached, they do exactly what their donors tell them to do. If not, the donors will simply back another candidate. Obviously, this is not how it should be.
To fix that and many other problems, we first need to get money out of politics.
If that makes sense to you, I would suggest signing this petition: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators (who tend not to be nearly as corrupt as those who run for federal office) propose it via an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians emerge within one or two election cycles.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
Yes, and the Koch brothers et al. will stop at nothing to keep the world addicted to fossil fuels for as long as possible: the more scarce it becomes, the more its price goes up and the more they earn. If it's up to them there will always be enough of their toxic products to sell, so it's going to be up to the rest of us to kick this filthy habit before it ruins everything for us.
Corruption is hardly unknown among state legislatures, but apparently it is different (e.g. more localized) and not nearly as bad as it is on Capitol Hill. For instance, big corporations spend relatively little money greasing state politicians, of which there are also many more than in the nation's capitol. Consequently, state representatives are far less dependent on that sort of money for their campaigns, are thus more likely to listen to their constituents, and often even share people's resentment towards their counterparts in Congress who seem not to care at all about what people think (other than their donors). It must also not be lost upon them that the state governments are actually far more effective overall then what we see in Washington D.C. today. All of this has resulted in a lot more sympathy than might have been expected among state representatives for the idea of calling an Article V Convention to get money out of politics. Hey, it's working in Texas of all places, so if people elsewhere get angry enough, it should work in other states as well.
True, it's not like corruption in unknown in the state legislatures, but apparently it is different and not nearly as bad at this level as it is on Capitol Hill. For example, the big corporations spend relatively little money on state politicians, of which there are also many more than in the nation's capitol. Consequently, state representatives are far less dependent on that sort of money for their campaigns, are thus more likely to listen to their constituents, and often even share people's resentment towards their counterparts in Congress who seem to care so little about what anyone thinks. It must also not lost upon them that their legislatures are actually far more effective overall then what we see in Washington D.C. today. All of this has resulted in a lot more sympathy than might have been expected among state representatives for the idea of calling an Article V Convention to get money out of politics.