you should not have a problem with individual Americans, but you should a big problem with "the US people."
This odd problem is most likely due to the rampant gerrymandering of districts which tends to overrepresent the majority and underrepresent the minority. One would assume that since House members get re-elected at a ~95% rate every two years, Americans think their government is great. Of course, this is not the case. Most people think their local member is great, but consider the other members of congress to be "liars, crooks, etc."
A paper I read made mention that with clever gerrymandering, a party with 25% of the support could gain 75% of the districts. Simply pack your opponent into 100% strength districts and spread yourself over ~%50 districts.
We voted for all these unconstitutional laws and so-called leaders.
Speak for yourself. There is not a single politician in power for whom I voted (barring no-contest races).
You indirectly bring up an interesting point. Namely, what is the "breaking point" of the average US citizen?
I've asked my less politically aware friends questions like "how bad would it have to get for you to 'do something' (write to congress, get politically active, anything semi-subversive)?" Most of them say that nothing they would ever do would matter, so staying put and keeping their mouths shut is the best way to go through life.
But all the same, I wonder what event could create a critical mass of disgruntled citizens that would be up for some serious reform.
I'm reminded of the movie "Bowling for Columbine" where Michael Moore makes the point that a strict reading of the Constitution could include nuclear weapons as 'arms', the point being that it is hard to know exactly what they meant at the time and what they would have to say about private citizens having RPGs, etc.
If you want the 2nd to say something else, you need to follow the proper procedure for having the constitution amended.
I think its just fine the way it is. I am pragmatic enough to know that outlawing certain weapons will not alleviate any problems. I was just noting that when people invoke the "founding fathers" they cannot know how the founding fathers would want the Constitution interpreted in today's context.
Well, I'm not expecting to get on the ballot if I do run simply because I won't have enough resources to get 5,000 valid signatures spread out over the state (ie. I can't sit in Dayton and get them all, IIRC). Hell, Ralph Nader couldn't even get on the ballot.
It is my opinion that ballot access laws coupled with incumbency (and party) protection in the form of gerrymandering is the single most important issue facing our republic.
Blackwell does have the inside track (perhaps because of his work in the 2004 election) with the only serious opposition being Jerry Springer. I think you know where this is going.
Indeed, I made a bet with a friend that if Springer and Blackwell are the major party nominees, I will attempt to get on the ballot and run as an independent.
While I don't disagree with your reading of the 2nd amendment, there are a few things to point out:
Arms in the late 18th century were single-shot muskets. Arms nowadays can often be fully automatic with large magazines. That would be similar to defining 'Arms' as any weapon in the old days. That is, I don't think the founding fathers meant to have the modern day equivalent of cannons protected by the 2nd amendment.
I am not for adding layer upon layer of useless laws when old laws will do just fine. This reminds me of the guy who likened the federal code to trying to maintain the same source for over 200 years.
Supreme court has ruled you DO NOT have the right to a jury trial if the sentence has a maximum of six months, PER CHARGE.
Could you provide a citation? I'm not trolling... just seriously interested.
If the Supreme Court can look at the part of the constitution that says you have the right to a jury trial in plain english and then turn around and say "um, no it doesn't say that", then we are in deep shit.
How many congresspeople do you know who run for re-election on a platform of, "Hey, y'know, we've pretty much got a law for every possible crime imaginable, I just spent my term minimizing bureacracy so Justice, the cops and the courts could do their thing" ?
Its rather unfortunate they don't run on that platform. I would probably vote for that candidate. Hell, I can't do any worse. I live in a conservative area, and, not being a conservative, every last person I voted for in the 2004 election lost (save those who ran unopposed).
... providing free wifi [is] not a proper function of government. Government exists only to provide services that cannot be provided by the free market...
Really? Is that a universal truth or just your opinion?
I think keeping the economic playing field level is a proper function of government, and that the government should compete with private businesses in order to do that. What makes you right and me wrong?
On point two, I agree that the state should not interfere in what is essentially a local issue, but we must remember that the local governments govern at the behest of the state governments. Really, the USA is 50 seperate unitary governments united under a single national government (or at least it is that way in theory).
In federal elections, no contributions are tax deductable, although they do sometimes count double for the candidate if they are recieving federal matching funds.
In Ohio, the first $50 we contribute to a political campaign for state/local races is tax deductable. Many other states have similar laws.
I think alot of this double standard type legislation has to do with the lawmakers not knowing WTF they are talking about.
For instance, most lawmakers know about cars and guns. It follows that they know better than to hold car and gun manufacturers responsible for what people do with their products. Most lawmakers have not the slightest clue how a computer works. And as we have seen these days, people lash out at things they don't understand.
Its high time some nerds start running for office and educate people (especially legislators... hell even judges) about what computers are and are not.
Conspiracy theorists may have been correct that they moved it to that night in order to use low ratings to justify killing a show that had a very loyal, yet small, viewer base.
You'd figure that they'd give the benefit of the doubt to a series they built their entire network around (recall Voyager was the first Trek to be non-syndicated), but who knows these days.
Being grateful to ones predecessors isn't in style these days.
By far the most accurate (~100%) system is as follows:
1) Voter gets paper ballot 2) Voter puts mark next to name of candidate of choice 3) Voter gives ballot to poll worker to be placed in sealed box that shall not leave the sight of any representative of each party's candidate through the duration of the election. 4) Election done. Open box. 5) Count paper ballots in plain view of aformentioned representatives and any who care to watch. 6) Repeat 5 for as many days as is needed.
During the Ohio recount, steps 5 and 6 were done with no error on the 3% counts I observed. It was mundane, boring, and incredibly accurate.
And why why why do people keep thinking that a hand count done by humans would be more accurate than a machine count?
Machines can be tampered with. It is much harder to get several people from different parties to look the other way.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't need any special skills to justify "piracy". I have my own morals and ethical principles to guide me.
you should not have a problem with individual Americans, but you should a big problem with "the US people."
This odd problem is most likely due to the rampant gerrymandering of districts which tends to overrepresent the majority and underrepresent the minority. One would assume that since House members get re-elected at a ~95% rate every two years, Americans think their government is great. Of course, this is not the case. Most people think their local member is great, but consider the other members of congress to be "liars, crooks, etc."
A paper I read made mention that with clever gerrymandering, a party with 25% of the support could gain 75% of the districts. Simply pack your opponent into 100% strength districts and spread yourself over ~%50 districts.
We voted for all these unconstitutional laws and so-called leaders.
Speak for yourself. There is not a single politician in power for whom I voted (barring no-contest races).
You indirectly bring up an interesting point. Namely, what is the "breaking point" of the average US citizen?
I've asked my less politically aware friends questions like "how bad would it have to get for you to 'do something' (write to congress, get politically active, anything semi-subversive)?" Most of them say that nothing they would ever do would matter, so staying put and keeping their mouths shut is the best way to go through life.
But all the same, I wonder what event could create a critical mass of disgruntled citizens that would be up for some serious reform.
I'm reminded of the movie "Bowling for Columbine" where Michael Moore makes the point that a strict reading of the Constitution could include nuclear weapons as 'arms', the point being that it is hard to know exactly what they meant at the time and what they would have to say about private citizens having RPGs, etc.
If you want the 2nd to say something else, you need to follow the proper procedure for having the constitution amended.
I think its just fine the way it is. I am pragmatic enough to know that outlawing certain weapons will not alleviate any problems. I was just noting that when people invoke the "founding fathers" they cannot know how the founding fathers would want the Constitution interpreted in today's context.
Better yet, I'll pay you $5 to not do what you suggest.
Well, I'm not expecting to get on the ballot if I do run simply because I won't have enough resources to get 5,000 valid signatures spread out over the state (ie. I can't sit in Dayton and get them all, IIRC). Hell, Ralph Nader couldn't even get on the ballot.
It is my opinion that ballot access laws coupled with incumbency (and party) protection in the form of gerrymandering is the single most important issue facing our republic.
I backup my media, so should you!
<pedantic>
You backup the data, not the media.
</pedantic>
Well put.
Blackwell does have the inside track (perhaps because of his work in the 2004 election) with the only serious opposition being Jerry Springer. I think you know where this is going.
Indeed, I made a bet with a friend that if Springer and Blackwell are the major party nominees, I will attempt to get on the ballot and run as an independent.
While I don't disagree with your reading of the 2nd amendment, there are a few things to point out:
Arms in the late 18th century were single-shot muskets. Arms nowadays can often be fully automatic with large magazines. That would be similar to defining 'Arms' as any weapon in the old days. That is, I don't think the founding fathers meant to have the modern day equivalent of cannons protected by the 2nd amendment.
Where should the line be drawn?
Is posting "I think George W. Bush is a douche bag" a good enough reason to fire someone? Is it allowable to have a Republican-only shop?
Using your definition, it would be damn hard to fire someone. Discrimination comes in all shapes in sizes.
You are allowed to say whatever you want, and if your employer doesn't like it, he's allowed to fire you.
That is true. But, more importantly, should your employer be allowed to fire you for speaking your mind?
... and as all things that can be good, it will only be used for evil.
No, no, no!
I am not for adding layer upon layer of useless laws when old laws will do just fine. This reminds me of the guy who likened the federal code to trying to maintain the same source for over 200 years.
Its high time for a complete rewrite.
Supreme court has ruled you DO NOT have the right to a jury trial if the sentence has a maximum of six months, PER CHARGE.
... just seriously interested.
Could you provide a citation? I'm not trolling
If the Supreme Court can look at the part of the constitution that says you have the right to a jury trial in plain english and then turn around and say "um, no it doesn't say that", then we are in deep shit.
How many congresspeople do you know who run for re-election on a platform of, "Hey, y'know, we've pretty much got a law for every possible crime imaginable, I just spent my term minimizing bureacracy so Justice, the cops and the courts could do their thing" ?
Its rather unfortunate they don't run on that platform. I would probably vote for that candidate. Hell, I can't do any worse. I live in a conservative area, and, not being a conservative, every last person I voted for in the 2004 election lost (save those who ran unopposed).
... providing free wifi [is] not a proper function of government. Government exists only to provide services that cannot be provided by the free market ...
Really? Is that a universal truth or just your opinion?
I think keeping the economic playing field level is a proper function of government, and that the government should compete with private businesses in order to do that. What makes you right and me wrong?
On point two, I agree that the state should not interfere in what is essentially a local issue, but we must remember that the local governments govern at the behest of the state governments. Really, the USA is 50 seperate unitary governments united under a single national government (or at least it is that way in theory).
Not so fast!
In federal elections, no contributions are tax deductable, although they do sometimes count double for the candidate if they are recieving federal matching funds.
In Ohio, the first $50 we contribute to a political campaign for state/local races is tax deductable. Many other states have similar laws.
I think alot of this double standard type legislation has to do with the lawmakers not knowing WTF they are talking about.
... hell even judges) about what computers are and are not.
For instance, most lawmakers know about cars and guns. It follows that they know better than to hold car and gun manufacturers responsible for what people do with their products. Most lawmakers have not the slightest clue how a computer works. And as we have seen these days, people lash out at things they don't understand.
Its high time some nerds start running for office and educate people (especially legislators
All the same, thanks for the correction. You can understand since I wasn't born then.
If that is true, the Roddenberrys should sue Berman and Braga for defamation of character.
Conspiracy theorists may have been correct that they moved it to that night in order to use low ratings to justify killing a show that had a very loyal, yet small, viewer base.
You'd figure that they'd give the benefit of the doubt to a series they built their entire network around (recall Voyager was the first Trek to be non-syndicated), but who knows these days.
Being grateful to ones predecessors isn't in style these days.
Good one ...
You're joking, right?
Hopefully this will increase the performance of two dimensional arrays! A boon for the graphics industry! Matrix multiplication carried out in O(1)!!!
By far the most accurate (~100%) system is as follows:
1) Voter gets paper ballot
2) Voter puts mark next to name of candidate of choice
3) Voter gives ballot to poll worker to be placed in sealed box that shall not leave the sight of any representative of each party's candidate through the duration of the election.
4) Election done. Open box.
5) Count paper ballots in plain view of aformentioned representatives and any who care to watch.
6) Repeat 5 for as many days as is needed.
During the Ohio recount, steps 5 and 6 were done with no error on the 3% counts I observed. It was mundane, boring, and incredibly accurate.
And why why why do people keep thinking that a hand count done by humans would be more accurate than a machine count?
Machines can be tampered with. It is much harder to get several people from different parties to look the other way.