Politics (formerly Election 2012)

[Klaudandus]

And here I go bashing Lousianna
http://www.alternet.org/story/155926/th ... _textbooks

[Dantriges]

Pretty much, IMO most western democracies have changed into oligarchies some time ago.

That's probably true, it certainly seems that it is in the US. Isn't that a bad thing though? In a world with technological advances like blogging, social media, crowd sourcing etc. that ought to be diminishing, but it isn't.

Given our broader political context and the free market system that it sits on, that result is the inevitable outcome of concentrating more power at the federal level. The weird thing is that culturally there's been a shift here. I'm old enough to remember when folks felt the same way about big gov't as they do about big business, and for good reason. These days big gov't is preached like it's not only the best solution for everything but the only solution. You can see great examples of that in this thread. The ultimate irony there is that it's even touted as the solution to this very problem which in reality it only exacerbates.

The process of concentrating power seems to be inevitable anyways. We had the same process repeating itself throughout history, during the antique, medieval ae and imperial age at least. Of course there were processes the other way round but seems that most of these resulted in the country being taken advantage of or even gobbled up by its neighbours. So countries had to enter the power race (leading to an increasing accumulation of power) because their neigbours will. We are rather fortunate that policy today is less cutthroat than it was earlier in history. But IMO you exchange big overbearing gov´t with internal conflict (not violent) and a subsequent loss of influence on the international stage if you transfer power from the fed.

That big business is on the rise is hardly surprising. Power is where the money is. And in the current age, other forms of power are waning and gov´s influence over money weakened quite a bit.

Changing to a small fed, power to the states model will IMO lead to business playing states against each other. No, I don´t mean that there is some kind of central big business conspiracy, I mean that money will just move to a location where it finds the best benefits like lower taxes, better benefits, etc. Or bugger the state to hand over better benefits.

AFAIK same happened in many smaller countries. People simply moved their business or part of it to another place.

[Skye1013]

Gotta love the onion.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorill ... tac,30860/

[Fivelives]

Leave it to the unholy love child of religion and politics to figure out a way to use dinosaurs to prove creationism. I mean, really - using beasties that lived millions of years ago as proof that the world was created 6,000 years ago?

[Koatanga]

Not just any dinosaur, but one that hasn't been documented apart from some fuzzy images and folk tales. Of all the places in the world for a large cold-blooded creature to survive, Scotland does not exactly top the list. Scotland has only 3 native reptiles because the climate is too cold for cold-blooded creatures.

I am actually surprised they are not claiming Bigfoot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well.

[Fivelives]

The fuzzy pictures were even an admitted hoax on the part of the photographers, but people refused to believe the person who shot the pictures and continue to think they're real.

[Koatanga]

And the Loch was frozen solid for 20,000 years (notoriously bad for cold-blooded reptiles). Although that evidence would be discarded by anyone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old.

[Fridmarr]

The process of concentrating power seems to be inevitable anyways. We had the same process repeating itself throughout history, during the antique, medieval ae and imperial age at least. Of course there were processes the other way round but seems that most of these resulted in the country being taken advantage of or even gobbled up by its neighbours. So countries had to enter the power race (leading to an increasing accumulation of power) because their neigbours will. We are rather fortunate that policy today is less cutthroat than it was earlier in history. But IMO you exchange big overbearing gov´t with internal conflict (not violent) and a subsequent loss of influence on the international stage if you transfer power from the fed.

Well it doesn't have to be inevitable, our federal braches show that. From an international perspective nothing would really change at all.

That big business is on the rise is hardly surprising. Power is where the money is. And in the current age, other forms of power are waning and gov´s influence over money weakened quite a bit.

Arguably it's a two way street, but really you have that exactly reversed. It's money that follows power. I'm not willing to just accept an oligarchy and shrug it off as the only possible result of successful government, that just seems silly. When you are dealing with the scale of the US on top of the free enterprise system that we have in place, of course as you concentrate power it's inevitable. That concentration incentivizes that flow of money, having the power centralized makes that money more "effective", and diminishes accountability all at the same time. It's an impressive trifecta.

Changing to a small fed, power to the states model will IMO lead to business playing states against each other. No, I don´t mean that there is some kind of central big business conspiracy, I mean that money will just move to a location where it finds the best benefits like lower taxes, better benefits, etc. Or bugger the state to hand over better benefits.

AFAIK same happened in many smaller countries. People simply moved their business or part of it to another place.

That's massively overstated. A large federal gov't has not exactly had a positive effect on offshoring. We have a high standard of living and therefore the cost to do business here is high. Some businesses do find cheaper places to conduct parts of their business but that's not related to our government layout, it's just business. I wouldn't expect there to be much of a change in that aspect.

As far as competition, cost isn't the only factor. The US actually has traditionally high costs, besides high labor costs (these days with the much lower value of the dollar labor costs are actually on the lower side), we have nearly the highest (or maybe it is the highest) corporate tax of any OECD country. From a cost perspective, we aren't business friendly. Yet, we are kind of a big player in the corporate world as are many westernized countries that share similar costs, because we provide many other benefits. Our production level for instance is quite high. If your logic were true, the world would be a vastly different place.

Likewise, we do currently have competition at the state level, not as much as I'd like but it exists. States have their own tax systems and some control over labor laws and other practices that can affect business. However, while you may see some movement to states with more corporate friendly legal structures it's hardly massive. In fact, our major business sectors are in states that have the highest costs. Ultimately, the concept of "playing states against each other" is essentially competition and in the long run that's far more of a positive than a negative.

[Klaudandus]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/5565 ... s.html.csp

[Klaudandus]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... r=Politics

[Fivelives]

President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college... I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.

I don't know about you guys, but I think the highest political office in our country is a pretty good goal to shoot for, for pretty much anyone.

[Klaudandus]

President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college... I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.

I don't know about you guys, but I think the highest political office in our country is a pretty good goal to shoot for, for pretty much anyone.

And Santorum was in the run to be a presidential candidate...

[Skye1013]

President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college... I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.

I don't know about you guys, but I think the highest political office in our country is a pretty good goal to shoot for, for pretty much anyone.

And Santorum was in the run to be a presidential candidate...

Thank god he failed... I'd hate to be remolded into his image...

[Klaudandus]

http://news.yahoo.com/five-shot-dead-al ... 38159.html

*Resets the "Days since last Assault Rifle used in a killing" counter*

[Sagara]

Maybe you guys should swtich to hours since - you're not going to need a third number on days...

[Klaudandus]

*snort*

[Klaudandus]

Remember when I said that Education across the country sucks mostly because Texas gets to decide what kids learn in school?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magaz ... ed=1&_r=2&

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/ ... -make-over

[Klaudandus]

http://www.uproxx.com/tv/2013/01/fox-an ... ssing-day/

[Klaudandus]

Paging Gerry Mander....
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013 ... ration.php

[Klaudandus]

Another day, another shooting...

[Koatanga]

Another day, another shooting...

Maybe if there are enough of them, they'll be too commonplace to bother reporting, and people won't have to worry about it anymore.

[Koatanga]

I know guns don't kill people and that alcohol doesn't make people become alcoholics, but it's getting near time someone stages an intervention and gets the US to sober up with regard to its gun usage.

Persons are safe and responsible. People are idiotic and careless. A person can handle owning a gun, but can people? I have my doubts.

[Amirya]

Do you mean this one, Klaud?

[Klaudandus]

Do you mean this one, Klaud?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/us/sh ... .html?_r=0

[Koatanga]

Do you mean this one, Klaud?

Ridiculous on the surface, but schools generally don't act without a complaint and don't suspend for talk of playing with toys.

We're talking about 5-year-olds here, so it's entirely possible one little girl who heard about the recent shootings could have thought that a Hello Kittle Bubble Gun could have killed her. Absurd to you and I, but I have a 7-year-old daughter, and around 5 years old she had serious concerns that absurd things would kill her.

This is to the extent that she would cry about them until we explained how silly she was being. She's not weird or anything, just a normal well-adjusted, imaginative, bright kid. She heard about a meteor wiping out the dinosaurs, so talk of a meteor shower meant imminent death to her.

So now imagine some 5-year-old girl going home to mom and dad, upset that another girl was going to shoot her with a gun and kill her like the kids in Sandy Hook. The parents would flip out and contact the school at once, and the school would have to take every precaution to assure they didn't have a Sandy Hook incident, because if they ignored it and an incident happened, they would be liable.

So this whole things looks absurd to us, but if that's the way the scenario went down, I can easily see it happening as reported.