Right; patents aren't about common sense. Patents are about suppressing creative thought because some fool got to an office first. Probably the single greatest stumbling block to technology and progress humanity has ever had the misfortune to allow to be thrust upon itself.
if I sit down and analyse what the military is likely to do (and get it right) I have every right to put that one every billboard in the US
No, really, you don't. You put up the design of a nuke, you're going to jail. You put up the instructions for weaponizing anthrax, you're going to jail. You post the password to a military computer system, you're going to jail. Your speech is already restricted; you're just not aware of it.
But under you proposal I do not have the right to analyse what the politicans are going to do (This candidate supports gay marriage - he will clearly destroy marriage) and post that to all the billboards in the US. And that is against the 1 admentment.
Constitutional convention; all fixed.
Right now, the constitution is a lame document, because the government is ignoring it in both letter and intent. Some of that is for practical reasons, some of it is because it has failed to anticipate technology, and some of it is because the government is out of control. It seems to me that the political ideas we've been discussing entirely aside, the constitution needs a rewrite, and consequences need to be written in for government entities that violate the charter. Right now, the government uses the commerce clause to regulate in-state activities under some pretty vague fictions; it regulates free speech, when no such authority is given (at funerals, at political gatherings) it imposes ex post facto punishments and laws in multiple venues when this was explicitly forbidden... I could go on for quite a while. Given these problems, I'd say that the disparity between what the constitution says, and what the government does indicates both a governmental rework and a constitutional rework would be of benefit to the country.
I do think the precedents are already in place for restricting speech with regard to politics; but that's just an opinion.
We'd simply have to change the ground rules. It'd probably require a constitutional convention.
I would be willing to give up the illusion of political free speech we have now (it is really only truly free speech if you have money anyway) for a system that worked as I describe. Your idea of posting on every billboard is a specific instance of using money to out-shout everyone else, and it is a perfect example of exactly what is wrong with the system now. It is just the kind of thing people do when an idea can't stand on its merits, but instead, must be beaten in using repetition.
A voting requirement to get government services - water, electricity, licenses, etc.
Because forcing someone to vote for someone who does not represent any idea they support, or worse, opposes something you consider critical, is a terrible idea.
Here's why: Suppose I am a polygamist. I try to get a candidate who supports my views enough signatures. I fail. The candidates that remain are all anti-polygamy. Forcing me to vote for either them is politically absurd (and probably personally repugnant.) And of course the same thing applies within the current system. No, you should only vote if you can put your shoulder behind someone who will support enough of the same ideas you do so that you think voting is a step forward, or at a minimum, where voting for candidate A retards B, where B seems like they're worse to you.
Institute immediate recall of any politician, for any reason.
Given enough signatures to instigate a vote, and a corresponding vote for a replacement, I don't see why not. Many times I've thought it would be best if a legislator could be fired. It is, after all, a job, and when you suck at your job according to your employer (the people, in this case), you should definitely leave.
I did read it. That is why I pointed out that you can't stop someone from making an ad for a candidate because they are protected under the constitution. If I choose to stick a sign up in my yard saying "Vote for Quimby" you can't stop me because I have the right to free speech.
I can't stop you. Legislation can stop you, though. If required, a constitutional convention could make any changes needed and then legislation can stop you. The constitution needs some work anyway; right now, it's mostly interpreted by the government as a license to steal, as near as I can tell. I'm not saying this would plug right in; I'm just saying it's a lot better way to go about things than what we're doing now, which is broken, broken, broken.
The military analogy is flawed because you can claim safety/national security limits
You don't think getting legislators in based on merit as opposed to pocketbook will affect national security?
Believe me, I have tried to think of a way to do the same thing you are considering but you can't get around the "I'm acting independently and it is my right" response.
Yes, actually, you can. It is this idea: Money, and money-amplified speech, is force. If you get to use money, and I don't, the battle is unequal and you're committing assault on a weaker entity who is unable to compete to such a battle, which idea is not related to merit or equality. If we are to match our ideas based upon merit, then merit is all we should be allowed to bring to the table. Not how many times we repeat ourselves, or the ability to speak to a wider audience. There are plenty of laws that restrict this "independent action" with the idea of enhancing the system: You can't say certain things within certain distances of voting stations, for instance. The principle that speech must be controlled in order to maintain equal access is already well established at the lower levels. All we have to do is generalize it upwards.
The problem with the current system is that "liberty" is really "liberty X money", and therefore, equality falls by the wayside. Money as an idea-amplifier needs to become a non-factor, so that ideas stand, or not, on their perceived merits.
This is a huge change. Arguing that it won't work because it's a change is kind of disingenuous. Implementation would be a bitch, I'm perfectly ready to stipulate to that. But it could be done, and I'd like to see it happen. The merits of the idea are considerable, IMHO. I'm sure others could improve it, as well.
So you are in favor of abrogating my Constitutional right to back the candidate of my choice, directly?
You can back your candidate three ways: 1, you can sign for him or her so they can have a better chance to be a candidate instead of a wanna-be. 2, you can vote for them so they have a better chance to actually win the office; 3, you can talk to anyone you like about your ideas as long as you don't spend money, use a "free" information transfer medium you have unequal access to, or cause money to be spent. In other words, your "backing" is limited to the same degree of backing any other person would have. No, you can't leverage your backing with money. I'm trying to equalize your opinion's degree of expression so that the weight it has over another opinion is based on its relative merits, not the number of times more you got it on TV, I'm also trying not give you the means to lord it over everyone else using money as a lever, as the current system does. In the process, I'm trying to do the same thing for the candidates.
In other words, if I can get enough signatures, and so can you, and we have radically different opinions, but equal exposure of those opinions, then what is left? Only one thing: For the voters to decide which opinion is better based upon its perceived merits, instead of being only able to remember one because one is backed by a lot of money, and the other isn't — a factor that has absolutely no relationship to the quality you refer to elsewhere, that of actually being good for society.
Regarding your rights here, could you please point me to the section of the constitution you are referring to? Are you speaking of the 10th amendment reserving of unmentioned rights, or of something more specific?
And you propose to eliminate political parties as well?
Actually, if you forbid them to spend money and advertise in any venue, they have nothing left to do as near as I can tell; no need to make them illegal, they'll just go away when they have no more harmful paths to function in. People will have to make their own decisions. Shocking idea, I know.:)
I think there is an amendment that says something about "peaceably assembling" that kinda guarantees that you can form and operate political parties.
No, by all means, peaceably assemble citizens for political discussion all you want. Just don't bring any active legislators (job condition), don't advertise, don't spend any money in promoting the event. That puts you on the same playing field with any citizen who lives under a bridge. You can assemble. You can speak. That's all you can do. Same as everyone else.
Now funds are released, and Ms Pro-Foo gets 30, Mr Anti-Foo gets 30. Thanks for paying to get my views heard even though they may be inimical to yours and harmful to society.
Yes, you're quite welcome. The idea is that every candidate should be equally heard. You don't give to candidates, you give to the pool. The pool is equally distributed, with govt padding as and if required to meet some minimum standard. Even handed support of getting one's message out is what happens. So what's the problem? Apparently I'm missing something here?
And "Now with the political parties gone"... do I get a pony when I vote in that fantasy land of yours too?
I really don't know what you mean. What do political parties have to do with ponies or whatever pony means in this context? Are you talking about paybacks? The idea is to eliminate them, you know, not to encourage them.
So the government is going to tell independent TV news stations what they can and can not broadcast. Uh huh.
The government already does this. Seen the design for a modern nuclear weapon on the news lately? Heard any news anchors say "fuck"? Seen any naked breasts on the news, or crotch shots?
I don't mind the government doing something if it is actually going to improve everyone's situation. For example, I don't mind them stepping in if you wave a weapon in my face, even if you've not fired it, although I support your right to carry a weapon 100%. Likewise, in the above circumstance, I support them stepping in if someone tried to use the state of having more money than the other guy to impose their views on me, which is how it works right now. We need to treat legislators differently; they're a critical cog in how the machine works.
Read again; I already said only candidates can spend money on political ads, and only from the pool. So this problem would not arise. No political parties, no PACs. Individuals must speak up for what they stand for as legislators. Voters vote on that account. No other political advertising is allowed.
Regarding the 1st amendment issues, this is a job requirement. Just as a military scientist can't speak of what he's doing outside of specific, controlled circumstances, people wanting the job of legislator must also see to it that they conform to the job requirements regarding what they are doing and what the plan to do. Voting records would be public; so we know what they're actually doing and can compare that to what they said they would do. This has more value if we allow repeated terms; do what your constiuents want, and the odds of re-election go up. Job performance should count. it doesn't really count, if we limit terms. As far as the news goes, they get to report who wins an election; no more, no less. No opinions. How did we ever let one or two people get into the position of shoving their opinions off on the entire populace, anyway? We end up with choads like Rush Limbaugh spouting off and the ignorami sucking it up like it was mother's milk...
PACs and political parties have mutated into harmful organisms, whatever positive aspects they may have had in the past are long gone, IMHO.
Anyway... it's just an idea. I have a few others (not mutually compatible) and any discussion about this is healthy, agree or disagree. All I know is I'm really, really unhappy with how things work now. I can't even find anyone I'm willing to vote for under the current system.
Your existing Congressperson can get on TV for free in zillions of ways.
Ok, no more TV for legislators. TV can show votes, discuss issues, but no publicity for legislators. Being one means no TV. Judges too. They legislate 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year. In other words, they do their jobs, not pretend to be TV stars.
Any political contributions must be made to a government pool.
Candidates and their supporters must gather signatures on govt paper to a set threshold. No one can be paid for any part of this process.
Once qualified by signature count to run, govt supplies X dollars from the pool, which you can use any way you like. Every candidate gets the same amount.
People think about what they've been exposed to.
People vote.
Done till next election cycle; rinse; repeat.
This evens the playing field such that people who are probably electable (demonstrated by signature gathering) all have equal access to media, etc. Those who manage that access best and send the voters the most successful message are elected. No "sideways" moneys may be used at any time, including moneys from the candidate's own fund EXCEPT if the candidate wants to opt out of the govt pool, in which case the candidate may spend up to the amount the other candidates get from their own pocket. This amounts to a nice civic gesture, but cannot affect the amount of marketing available to the candidate as it does not result in a difference in the amount of funding. As a registered voter, you could sign one or more "I want to run" lists; that way, if there are two candidates you'd like to see run, you could help get them both on the ballot. This in turn would do away with the two party system (because political parties would not be allowed to market themselves in any way that involved spending money, only individuals would and even then, only when they have enough certified signatures.)
With the political parties gone, two thresholds have to be set. One to pass laws; another to disenfranchise them. My thought is that about 80% should have to vote for a law to get it operative, and about 40% should have to vote against an in-place law to knock it out. 30% of the representatives asking for a vote on an in-place law forces a vote. This biases the system towards only passing, and keeping, laws that really apply to the population in general instead of one group of loud crazies. If something turns out to be a social fad (like these idiots who are voting "defense of marriage" into law) then it is relatively easy to retreat from such a stance, just a small change in outlook, one vote, and bingo, it is gone.
Anyone caught taking bribes or falsifying a signature on a vote-for-me list goes to jail for life. Or we can shoot them. Just so long as they don't get to spend the bribe, run for office, or otherwise continue to screw up the system.
Tiger requires you enter a serial at first boot or during the install process.
I just got a brand new C2D 17" Macbook Pro this morning via FedEx; it runs Tiger (10.4.something). Upon booting up, it asked me the usual stuff about what keyboard layout I'd like (usa), if I'd like to import from my other Mac using Fireware (no), and my name and address. It found my wifi network, a few other things, then it then tried hard (3 screens worth) to get me to sign up for, or at least try for free,.Mac (no thanks; no, really, no thanks; look here, fuck off, eh?) and then it booted.
No serial number; I've not opened the disk pack that came with it yet (will, because Xwindows is hiding there) and the machine is up and 100% running. As a matter of fact, it should be fully charged by now, gotta go.:-)
TV (I'm not talking about the art of making movies here, I'm talking about television programming) is 99.99% meaningless mindsturbation. Of all the technologies humankind has come up with, surely television is the one that has almost completely failed to reach the potential it offered.
The web, on the other hand, is able to actually be endlessly engaging and at least does contain enormous amounts of worthwhile content available at any hour of the day if you simply seek it out. We can interact, as we do here, we can study endless hours, we can create content for others to study, we can visit other places and societies, we can search out reviews and counter-opinions. The web strongly defies the pressure from commercial entities to reduce it to its least common denominator.
Television... that is not the case. Television, as near as I can tell, is constantly reaching for the least common denominator, and what's more, getting there without any trouble at all. Faux News. Lost. Survivor. Infomercials. Religious broadcasts. Medium and Psychic Detectives. Blind Date. TV is like a sewer of the mind; all decayed, toxic matter, nothing suitable for human consumption.
Honestly, the most valuable thing I've seen on television in the last few months was an HGTV show that gave tips on how to go about room renovation. The only worthwhile news show on the box is the bloody daily show, and "science" on television seems to simply mean Yet Another UFO Show For Rubes.
Jump from the web to TV? No, I think the correct phrase might be "Fall from the web to TV", or "Slip from the web to TV", or even "Television claims another victim."
Look — you get back to me when she and her cronies do something. Sure politicians talk. Talking isn't action. I will truly be impressed when — if — some of this crap is actually rolled back. Until then, my opinion will remain as is. As for your middle-school characterizations, good luck with that. It really helps make your point. Not.
Am I the only one who thinks Justin Long seems like a nice kid who plays a good straightman... ?
Yes, I think you might be. Or at least, close. The guy is amazingly annoying, condescending, and not particularly representative of anyone I can think of in this role except himself. He fails to represent the spirit of the machine's users, which is pretty much one of independent thinking and an appreciation of fine design for the most part; and he fails to represent the machine itself in the sense that there is no clue from these commercials that the Mac is truly much easier to use at the top level, yet far more sophisticated, flexible, extensible and secure underneath. PC users can come out of the woodwork and scream about that characterization, and they probably will, but the fact is, it is bang-on true. Windows is so far behind any version of *nix that I can't see it ever catching up in terms of flexibility, no matter how many times they patch it and give it a new name. Now, if you want to argue that Long is prettier than Hodgman, I can't really go there, and I'll have to leave that in your lap, as it were. Guys don't send me "pretty" signals. But Macs do.:)
Maybe Aishwara Rai? Now that is one exotic, beautiful, sexy, and smart human being.
Truly, Apple needs better advertising people. Mac ads are just terrible. I wasn't even remotely sold until I got a Mac in my hands, because the ads transfer no information whatsoever. Just fluff. Which I have no use for. And the Mac is not fluff. Not by any means. Yet that's how they try and sell it. And with Long... they don't even do that very well.:(
10 or so years ago, the Kuwaitis asked us to help toss Saddam's troops out. We agreed, and as we were invited into Kuwait, I consider that a legitimate expedition. Activities in Iraq not directly related to that, I don't. As soon as his troops were out and the plunder recovered as best it could be, I consider our interests, and the Kuwaitis reasonable claim on us as allies, satisfied.
My list of generally legitimate activities is limited to things done within our own borders, or where we were invited in and we have a legitimate state interest of some kind, be it oil, bananas, or fishing rights. Such interests would not include forcing our style of government on a sovereign country.
While major problems remain to be solved at home, I don't think we ought to be off on expeditions in other countries for most any reason, much less be making war on them.
Yes. That's precisely what they want you to think. That's how they keep the population placated. Ritual sacrifice of an entirely replaceable pawn. Now, over the next two years, you try to evaluate what actual effect this replacement had. Then you'll learn something worthwhile. To save you time, and so you'll know what you're looking for, I'll tell you what changes you'll see: None.
That is how the entire system works, from voting to subpoena even right through to impeachment, rare as that might be. Individuals are sacrificed and the system changes not one teeny, tiny, bit.
Didn't you hear the democrats last night, babbling about 9/11 and "security"? Didn't you hear them talking about a "new direction" in Iraq? Not restoration of rights, not repeal of any of these bullshit laws, nothing about Bush's signing statements, nothing about torture, nothing about the (barely) 3-day congressional workweek and the blatant corporate funds driven legislation mechanism, nothing about all the illegal wiretapping, nothing about funneling billions of dollars to Haliburton et al without so much as a single competitive bid, nothing about the lies about WMD, nothing about Bush's admission (yesterday) that this was about oil, after all, not a word about habeas corpus, nothing about pulling out troops -- it's business as usual in Washington, and you can count on it. -Rumsfeld, +Gates, that's all. They're both pawns and mouthpieces, no more, no less.
First of all, I speak my mind, and I try to be clear about it. I respond to my critics, unless I feel they are not serious. You see this here. You also see direct attempts to muzzle (moderation: "troll"... statements: shut the fuck up... etc) which arise from those opposed to free speech. It'd be frightening if it wasn't so pitiful. If you search my comment history here, you'll see a broad spectrum of remarks and responses along these lines.
Secondly, I contribute funds to causes that I see as creating effects that are counter to mainstream politics as usual. Not everyone can do this, but I can, and I do.
Third, I study specific areas of law with regard to how those laws mesh (or not) with the constitution. I am working on my law degree (at age 50+) so as to have the technical chops to maneuver within the system, or at the very least, have an understanding of what is wrong with it.
The day one refuses to pay taxes is the day one must pick up a weapon, or sacrifice what remains of one's liberty. I am not prepared to do the latter for citizens that are unaware that there is even a problem. Taxes are not "voluntary", despite the wording to that effect; they are both imposed and collected using coercion, coercion backed by the threat of violence to both liberty and property. Refusing to fund the government is precisely as revolutionary as walking up to the white house with a weapon. I don't believe that is a reasonable course of action. If the citizens wake up and politically change the system (and I'm not talking about voting, I'm talking about wholesale replacement of the congress, and senate, and the vast majority of legislation, particularly with regard to constitutionality), I will participate. However, I'm not going to attempt to lead the unwilling to a trough from which they refuse to drink at a cost to my family of everything we have.
I've taken the time to note what is wrong here, in a forum that arguably has some pretty smart people running around in it. What do I get? A lecture on "statistics", delivered from someone of obvious intelligence, yet with blinders on so tight their eyes are squished back to their ears.
I would not sacrifice my circumstances for this person. Nothing would be gained.
...well then shut the fuck up, I don't want to hear your whining.
<sarcasm>I'm sorry, I must have missed that modification to the first amendment where what you want gets you the privilege to muzzle others. Good thing for everyone else that you keep up with those sub-rosa changes to the constitution no one else knows about, eh?</sarcasm>
"Statistical basis", my aching ear. You're just another sycophant with a mouthful of high-syllable excuses for pretending voting has an effect. There is no "instability", the parties are the same. Didn't you hear the democrats last night, babbling about 9/11 and "security"? Didn't you hear them talking about a "new direction" in Iraq? Not restoration of rights, not repeal of any of these bullshit laws, nothing about Bush's signing statements, nothing about torture, nothing about the (barely) 3-day congressional workweek and the blatant corporate funds driven legislation mechanism, nothing about all the illegal wiretapping, nothing about funneling billions of dollars to Haliburton et al without so much as a single competitive bid, not a word about habeas corpus, nothing about pulling out troops — it's business as usual in Washington, and you can count on it. I don't need to explain it; I'll just watch it happen, like it always does.
Vote for whoever you want. It's an exercise that does nothing but make you think you did something, while diluting the effect to as near zero as they can possibly keep it. And that's pretty near zero. That's the point of the party system that exists today; if the voters knock one politician down, another one with the same essential set of goals and pushed buttons pops up to replace them, and the system trundles on with no effect on direction, goals, or procedure. You're supposed to be doing this. It keeps the citizens from picking up weapons, but it does not engender the changes they want.
Nice post. You have a good one. Sorry if I took your words (re solar output) out of context. Wasn't intentional. It is something I have been convinced of for quite some time now, between the official solar reports and things like the amazing and unprecedented X28 class solar flare in 2003. Now, that got my attention. The only good news about that puppy is that it didn't hit us. Anyway, thanks, and good night. I ramble.:-)
You are arguing simply that the presence of the M16 gives the person's speech credibility, even if their "speech" is just the implied threat of pointing a weapon at you
No. I'm arguing that if you stick an M16 in my face, I'm going to disable you. You won't have to say anything. I'm telling you that your speech is no longer this issue. You should have left the gun home. Pointing a gun in-range is not "speech", and any implication that you make otherwise just makes you look unhinged.
You may have the last word. I'll read it, and leave it go. I think I've been quite clear.
Slashdot Mirror
Right; patents aren't about common sense. Patents are about suppressing creative thought because some fool got to an office first. Probably the single greatest stumbling block to technology and progress humanity has ever had the misfortune to allow to be thrust upon itself.
No, really, you don't. You put up the design of a nuke, you're going to jail. You put up the instructions for weaponizing anthrax, you're going to jail. You post the password to a military computer system, you're going to jail. Your speech is already restricted; you're just not aware of it.
Constitutional convention; all fixed.
Right now, the constitution is a lame document, because the government is ignoring it in both letter and intent. Some of that is for practical reasons, some of it is because it has failed to anticipate technology, and some of it is because the government is out of control. It seems to me that the political ideas we've been discussing entirely aside, the constitution needs a rewrite, and consequences need to be written in for government entities that violate the charter. Right now, the government uses the commerce clause to regulate in-state activities under some pretty vague fictions; it regulates free speech, when no such authority is given (at funerals, at political gatherings) it imposes ex post facto punishments and laws in multiple venues when this was explicitly forbidden... I could go on for quite a while. Given these problems, I'd say that the disparity between what the constitution says, and what the government does indicates both a governmental rework and a constitutional rework would be of benefit to the country.
I do think the precedents are already in place for restricting speech with regard to politics; but that's just an opinion.
We'd simply have to change the ground rules. It'd probably require a constitutional convention.
I would be willing to give up the illusion of political free speech we have now (it is really only truly free speech if you have money anyway) for a system that worked as I describe. Your idea of posting on every billboard is a specific instance of using money to out-shout everyone else, and it is a perfect example of exactly what is wrong with the system now. It is just the kind of thing people do when an idea can't stand on its merits, but instead, must be beaten in using repetition.
Just curious... what happens when "none of the above" is the "winner"?
Assuming you want the job, of course... What if you got elected through some fluke?
Because forcing someone to vote for someone who does not represent any idea they support, or worse, opposes something you consider critical, is a terrible idea.
Here's why: Suppose I am a polygamist. I try to get a candidate who supports my views enough signatures. I fail. The candidates that remain are all anti-polygamy. Forcing me to vote for either them is politically absurd (and probably personally repugnant.) And of course the same thing applies within the current system. No, you should only vote if you can put your shoulder behind someone who will support enough of the same ideas you do so that you think voting is a step forward, or at a minimum, where voting for candidate A retards B, where B seems like they're worse to you.
Given enough signatures to instigate a vote, and a corresponding vote for a replacement, I don't see why not. Many times I've thought it would be best if a legislator could be fired. It is, after all, a job, and when you suck at your job according to your employer (the people, in this case), you should definitely leave.
I can't stop you. Legislation can stop you, though. If required, a constitutional convention could make any changes needed and then legislation can stop you. The constitution needs some work anyway; right now, it's mostly interpreted by the government as a license to steal, as near as I can tell. I'm not saying this would plug right in; I'm just saying it's a lot better way to go about things than what we're doing now, which is broken, broken, broken.
You don't think getting legislators in based on merit as opposed to pocketbook will affect national security?
Yes, actually, you can. It is this idea: Money, and money-amplified speech, is force. If you get to use money, and I don't, the battle is unequal and you're committing assault on a weaker entity who is unable to compete to such a battle, which idea is not related to merit or equality. If we are to match our ideas based upon merit, then merit is all we should be allowed to bring to the table. Not how many times we repeat ourselves, or the ability to speak to a wider audience. There are plenty of laws that restrict this "independent action" with the idea of enhancing the system: You can't say certain things within certain distances of voting stations, for instance. The principle that speech must be controlled in order to maintain equal access is already well established at the lower levels. All we have to do is generalize it upwards.
The problem with the current system is that "liberty" is really "liberty X money", and therefore, equality falls by the wayside. Money as an idea-amplifier needs to become a non-factor, so that ideas stand, or not, on their perceived merits.
This is a huge change. Arguing that it won't work because it's a change is kind of disingenuous. Implementation would be a bitch, I'm perfectly ready to stipulate to that. But it could be done, and I'd like to see it happen. The merits of the idea are considerable, IMHO. I'm sure others could improve it, as well.
You can back your candidate three ways: 1, you can sign for him or her so they can have a better chance to be a candidate instead of a wanna-be. 2, you can vote for them so they have a better chance to actually win the office; 3, you can talk to anyone you like about your ideas as long as you don't spend money, use a "free" information transfer medium you have unequal access to, or cause money to be spent. In other words, your "backing" is limited to the same degree of backing any other person would have. No, you can't leverage your backing with money. I'm trying to equalize your opinion's degree of expression so that the weight it has over another opinion is based on its relative merits, not the number of times more you got it on TV, I'm also trying not give you the means to lord it over everyone else using money as a lever, as the current system does. In the process, I'm trying to do the same thing for the candidates.
In other words, if I can get enough signatures, and so can you, and we have radically different opinions, but equal exposure of those opinions, then what is left? Only one thing: For the voters to decide which opinion is better based upon its perceived merits, instead of being only able to remember one because one is backed by a lot of money, and the other isn't — a factor that has absolutely no relationship to the quality you refer to elsewhere, that of actually being good for society.
Regarding your rights here, could you please point me to the section of the constitution you are referring to? Are you speaking of the 10th amendment reserving of unmentioned rights, or of something more specific?
Actually, if you forbid them to spend money and advertise in any venue, they have nothing left to do as near as I can tell; no need to make them illegal, they'll just go away when they have no more harmful paths to function in. People will have to make their own decisions. Shocking idea, I know. :)
No, by all means, peaceably assemble citizens for political discussion all you want. Just don't bring any active legislators (job condition), don't advertise, don't spend any money in promoting the event. That puts you on the same playing field with any citizen who lives under a bridge. You can assemble. You can speak. That's all you can do. Same as everyone else.
Yes, you're quite welcome. The idea is that every candidate should be equally heard. You don't give to candidates, you give to the pool. The pool is equally distributed, with govt padding as and if required to meet some minimum standard. Even handed support of getting one's message out is what happens. So what's the problem? Apparently I'm missing something here?
I really don't know what you mean. What do political parties have to do with ponies or whatever pony means in this context? Are you talking about paybacks? The idea is to eliminate them, you know, not to encourage them.
The government already does this. Seen the design for a modern nuclear weapon on the news lately? Heard any news anchors say "fuck"? Seen any naked breasts on the news, or crotch shots?
I don't mind the government doing something if it is actually going to improve everyone's situation. For example, I don't mind them stepping in if you wave a weapon in my face, even if you've not fired it, although I support your right to carry a weapon 100%. Likewise, in the above circumstance, I support them stepping in if someone tried to use the state of having more money than the other guy to impose their views on me, which is how it works right now. We need to treat legislators differently; they're a critical cog in how the machine works.
Read again; I already said only candidates can spend money on political ads, and only from the pool. So this problem would not arise. No political parties, no PACs. Individuals must speak up for what they stand for as legislators. Voters vote on that account. No other political advertising is allowed.
Regarding the 1st amendment issues, this is a job requirement. Just as a military scientist can't speak of what he's doing outside of specific, controlled circumstances, people wanting the job of legislator must also see to it that they conform to the job requirements regarding what they are doing and what the plan to do. Voting records would be public; so we know what they're actually doing and can compare that to what they said they would do. This has more value if we allow repeated terms; do what your constiuents want, and the odds of re-election go up. Job performance should count. it doesn't really count, if we limit terms. As far as the news goes, they get to report who wins an election; no more, no less. No opinions. How did we ever let one or two people get into the position of shoving their opinions off on the entire populace, anyway? We end up with choads like Rush Limbaugh spouting off and the ignorami sucking it up like it was mother's milk...
PACs and political parties have mutated into harmful organisms, whatever positive aspects they may have had in the past are long gone, IMHO.
Anyway... it's just an idea. I have a few others (not mutually compatible) and any discussion about this is healthy, agree or disagree. All I know is I'm really, really unhappy with how things work now. I can't even find anyone I'm willing to vote for under the current system.
Ok, no more TV for legislators. TV can show votes, discuss issues, but no publicity for legislators. Being one means no TV. Judges too. They legislate 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year. In other words, they do their jobs, not pretend to be TV stars.
Yes, I have a better idea.
This evens the playing field such that people who are probably electable (demonstrated by signature gathering) all have equal access to media, etc. Those who manage that access best and send the voters the most successful message are elected. No "sideways" moneys may be used at any time, including moneys from the candidate's own fund EXCEPT if the candidate wants to opt out of the govt pool, in which case the candidate may spend up to the amount the other candidates get from their own pocket. This amounts to a nice civic gesture, but cannot affect the amount of marketing available to the candidate as it does not result in a difference in the amount of funding. As a registered voter, you could sign one or more "I want to run" lists; that way, if there are two candidates you'd like to see run, you could help get them both on the ballot. This in turn would do away with the two party system (because political parties would not be allowed to market themselves in any way that involved spending money, only individuals would and even then, only when they have enough certified signatures.)
With the political parties gone, two thresholds have to be set. One to pass laws; another to disenfranchise them. My thought is that about 80% should have to vote for a law to get it operative, and about 40% should have to vote against an in-place law to knock it out. 30% of the representatives asking for a vote on an in-place law forces a vote. This biases the system towards only passing, and keeping, laws that really apply to the population in general instead of one group of loud crazies. If something turns out to be a social fad (like these idiots who are voting "defense of marriage" into law) then it is relatively easy to retreat from such a stance, just a small change in outlook, one vote, and bingo, it is gone.
Anyone caught taking bribes or falsifying a signature on a vote-for-me list goes to jail for life. Or we can shoot them. Just so long as they don't get to spend the bribe, run for office, or otherwise continue to screw up the system.
I just got a brand new C2D 17" Macbook Pro this morning via FedEx; it runs Tiger (10.4.something). Upon booting up, it asked me the usual stuff about what keyboard layout I'd like (usa), if I'd like to import from my other Mac using Fireware (no), and my name and address. It found my wifi network, a few other things, then it then tried hard (3 screens worth) to get me to sign up for, or at least try for free, .Mac (no thanks; no, really, no thanks; look here, fuck off, eh?) and then it booted.
No serial number; I've not opened the disk pack that came with it yet (will, because Xwindows is hiding there) and the machine is up and 100% running. As a matter of fact, it should be fully charged by now, gotta go. :-)
Ew. I mean, why "jump" backwards?
TV (I'm not talking about the art of making movies here, I'm talking about television programming) is 99.99% meaningless mindsturbation. Of all the technologies humankind has come up with, surely television is the one that has almost completely failed to reach the potential it offered.
The web, on the other hand, is able to actually be endlessly engaging and at least does contain enormous amounts of worthwhile content available at any hour of the day if you simply seek it out. We can interact, as we do here, we can study endless hours, we can create content for others to study, we can visit other places and societies, we can search out reviews and counter-opinions. The web strongly defies the pressure from commercial entities to reduce it to its least common denominator.
Television... that is not the case. Television, as near as I can tell, is constantly reaching for the least common denominator, and what's more, getting there without any trouble at all. Faux News. Lost. Survivor. Infomercials. Religious broadcasts. Medium and Psychic Detectives. Blind Date. TV is like a sewer of the mind; all decayed, toxic matter, nothing suitable for human consumption.
Honestly, the most valuable thing I've seen on television in the last few months was an HGTV show that gave tips on how to go about room renovation. The only worthwhile news show on the box is the bloody daily show, and "science" on television seems to simply mean Yet Another UFO Show For Rubes.
Jump from the web to TV? No, I think the correct phrase might be "Fall from the web to TV", or "Slip from the web to TV", or even "Television claims another victim."
Look — you get back to me when she and her cronies do something. Sure politicians talk. Talking isn't action. I will truly be impressed when — if — some of this crap is actually rolled back. Until then, my opinion will remain as is. As for your middle-school characterizations, good luck with that. It really helps make your point. Not.
Yes, I think you might be. Or at least, close. The guy is amazingly annoying, condescending, and not particularly representative of anyone I can think of in this role except himself. He fails to represent the spirit of the machine's users, which is pretty much one of independent thinking and an appreciation of fine design for the most part; and he fails to represent the machine itself in the sense that there is no clue from these commercials that the Mac is truly much easier to use at the top level, yet far more sophisticated, flexible, extensible and secure underneath. PC users can come out of the woodwork and scream about that characterization, and they probably will, but the fact is, it is bang-on true. Windows is so far behind any version of *nix that I can't see it ever catching up in terms of flexibility, no matter how many times they patch it and give it a new name. Now, if you want to argue that Long is prettier than Hodgman, I can't really go there, and I'll have to leave that in your lap, as it were. Guys don't send me "pretty" signals. But Macs do. :)
Maybe Aishwara Rai? Now that is one exotic, beautiful, sexy, and smart human being.
Truly, Apple needs better advertising people. Mac ads are just terrible. I wasn't even remotely sold until I got a Mac in my hands, because the ads transfer no information whatsoever. Just fluff. Which I have no use for. And the Mac is not fluff. Not by any means. Yet that's how they try and sell it. And with Long... they don't even do that very well. :(
I look at my Mac and Justin Long isn't what comes to mind. He's a dork.
Maybe Catherine Zeta-Jones. Mature, sexy, fun. Looks really nice. Makes me want to fool around with her.
On the other hand, John Hodgman makes a terrific PC. Well, except my PCs aren't very funny. :(
10 or so years ago, the Kuwaitis asked us to help toss Saddam's troops out. We agreed, and as we were invited into Kuwait, I consider that a legitimate expedition. Activities in Iraq not directly related to that, I don't. As soon as his troops were out and the plunder recovered as best it could be, I consider our interests, and the Kuwaitis reasonable claim on us as allies, satisfied.
My list of generally legitimate activities is limited to things done within our own borders, or where we were invited in and we have a legitimate state interest of some kind, be it oil, bananas, or fishing rights. Such interests would not include forcing our style of government on a sovereign country.
While major problems remain to be solved at home, I don't think we ought to be off on expeditions in other countries for most any reason, much less be making war on them.
Of course, that's just my opinion. :/
Kindly let me re-phrase that for you:
Yes. That's precisely what they want you to think. That's how they keep the population placated. Ritual sacrifice of an entirely replaceable pawn. Now, over the next two years, you try to evaluate what actual effect this replacement had. Then you'll learn something worthwhile. To save you time, and so you'll know what you're looking for, I'll tell you what changes you'll see: None.
That is how the entire system works, from voting to subpoena even right through to impeachment, rare as that might be. Individuals are sacrificed and the system changes not one teeny, tiny, bit.
Didn't you hear the democrats last night, babbling about 9/11 and "security"? Didn't you hear them talking about a "new direction" in Iraq? Not restoration of rights, not repeal of any of these bullshit laws, nothing about Bush's signing statements, nothing about torture, nothing about the (barely) 3-day congressional workweek and the blatant corporate funds driven legislation mechanism, nothing about all the illegal wiretapping, nothing about funneling billions of dollars to Haliburton et al without so much as a single competitive bid, nothing about the lies about WMD, nothing about Bush's admission (yesterday) that this was about oil, after all, not a word about habeas corpus, nothing about pulling out troops -- it's business as usual in Washington, and you can count on it. -Rumsfeld, +Gates, that's all. They're both pawns and mouthpieces, no more, no less.
First of all, I speak my mind, and I try to be clear about it. I respond to my critics, unless I feel they are not serious. You see this here. You also see direct attempts to muzzle (moderation: "troll"... statements: shut the fuck up... etc) which arise from those opposed to free speech. It'd be frightening if it wasn't so pitiful. If you search my comment history here, you'll see a broad spectrum of remarks and responses along these lines.
Secondly, I contribute funds to causes that I see as creating effects that are counter to mainstream politics as usual. Not everyone can do this, but I can, and I do.
Third, I study specific areas of law with regard to how those laws mesh (or not) with the constitution. I am working on my law degree (at age 50+) so as to have the technical chops to maneuver within the system, or at the very least, have an understanding of what is wrong with it.
The day one refuses to pay taxes is the day one must pick up a weapon, or sacrifice what remains of one's liberty. I am not prepared to do the latter for citizens that are unaware that there is even a problem. Taxes are not "voluntary", despite the wording to that effect; they are both imposed and collected using coercion, coercion backed by the threat of violence to both liberty and property. Refusing to fund the government is precisely as revolutionary as walking up to the white house with a weapon. I don't believe that is a reasonable course of action. If the citizens wake up and politically change the system (and I'm not talking about voting, I'm talking about wholesale replacement of the congress, and senate, and the vast majority of legislation, particularly with regard to constitutionality), I will participate. However, I'm not going to attempt to lead the unwilling to a trough from which they refuse to drink at a cost to my family of everything we have.
I've taken the time to note what is wrong here, in a forum that arguably has some pretty smart people running around in it. What do I get? A lecture on "statistics", delivered from someone of obvious intelligence, yet with blinders on so tight their eyes are squished back to their ears.
I would not sacrifice my circumstances for this person. Nothing would be gained.
<sarcasm>I'm sorry, I must have missed that modification to the first amendment where what you want gets you the privilege to muzzle others. Good thing for everyone else that you keep up with those sub-rosa changes to the constitution no one else knows about, eh?</sarcasm>
"Statistical basis", my aching ear. You're just another sycophant with a mouthful of high-syllable excuses for pretending voting has an effect. There is no "instability", the parties are the same. Didn't you hear the democrats last night, babbling about 9/11 and "security"? Didn't you hear them talking about a "new direction" in Iraq? Not restoration of rights, not repeal of any of these bullshit laws, nothing about Bush's signing statements, nothing about torture, nothing about the (barely) 3-day congressional workweek and the blatant corporate funds driven legislation mechanism, nothing about all the illegal wiretapping, nothing about funneling billions of dollars to Haliburton et al without so much as a single competitive bid, not a word about habeas corpus, nothing about pulling out troops — it's business as usual in Washington, and you can count on it. I don't need to explain it; I'll just watch it happen, like it always does.
Vote for whoever you want. It's an exercise that does nothing but make you think you did something, while diluting the effect to as near zero as they can possibly keep it. And that's pretty near zero. That's the point of the party system that exists today; if the voters knock one politician down, another one with the same essential set of goals and pushed buttons pops up to replace them, and the system trundles on with no effect on direction, goals, or procedure. You're supposed to be doing this. It keeps the citizens from picking up weapons, but it does not engender the changes they want.
Nice post. You have a good one. Sorry if I took your words (re solar output) out of context. Wasn't intentional. It is something I have been convinced of for quite some time now, between the official solar reports and things like the amazing and unprecedented X28 class solar flare in 2003. Now, that got my attention. The only good news about that puppy is that it didn't hit us. Anyway, thanks, and good night. I ramble. :-)
No. I'm arguing that if you stick an M16 in my face, I'm going to disable you. You won't have to say anything. I'm telling you that your speech is no longer this issue. You should have left the gun home. Pointing a gun in-range is not "speech", and any implication that you make otherwise just makes you look unhinged.
You may have the last word. I'll read it, and leave it go. I think I've been quite clear.