A science committee that doesn’t get science(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
A science committee that doesn’t get science
http://arstechnica.com/staff/2012/10/editorial-meet-a-science-committee-that-doesnt-get-science/
13 comments
On one hand, you're right. On the other...
Well, "representation" is not quite what it sounds like. A representative is, by his office, held to a higher (and different) standard than non-elected non-officials. That's why you can say "I wish these people had never been elected".
Effectively, what you're describing here is analogous to a tolerance of intolerance, whereas actual tolerance requires an intolerance of intolerance. The relevant quotation, rather than being "I disagree with what you say, but I would die to defend your right to say it", is instead, "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."
Well, "representation" is not quite what it sounds like. A representative is, by his office, held to a higher (and different) standard than non-elected non-officials. That's why you can say "I wish these people had never been elected".
Effectively, what you're describing here is analogous to a tolerance of intolerance, whereas actual tolerance requires an intolerance of intolerance. The relevant quotation, rather than being "I disagree with what you say, but I would die to defend your right to say it", is instead, "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."
Officials not grasping reality? As sad as it is, but I think this stops being newsworthy.
This is basically a Daily Show segment from last week with some additional details thrown in.
Articles like this always renew my distaste for discussing politics. There are clear problems with the US's legislative process and elected officials, but there seems to be no way to effectively induce change in them, especially as an individual. Not just riding the science bandwagon here either; partisanship in general, etc. are all incredibly frustrating to discuss, and I'll almost always just stay out of discussions on politics as a result.
I'd love to help change these kinds of things, but I don't feel I could give up my job to start some sort of organization against it, nor do I feel such an organization would gain much traction anyhow. Maybe I'm just an a-typical slacktivist.
Any suggestions on stifling my feelings of futility? It seems the only way to affect change in this country is to get enough upvotes on reddit (see: SOPA). So I'm upvoting this.
I'd love to help change these kinds of things, but I don't feel I could give up my job to start some sort of organization against it, nor do I feel such an organization would gain much traction anyhow. Maybe I'm just an a-typical slacktivist.
Any suggestions on stifling my feelings of futility? It seems the only way to affect change in this country is to get enough upvotes on reddit (see: SOPA). So I'm upvoting this.
I think the best thing is to cultivate some perspective, and not hold the political system to unrealistically high standards.
We live in a 236 year old democracy of 310 million people. Let that sink in. We have more people than there are lines of code in an entire Linux distribution. Think of the complexity of a human being, over a human being's lifetime, versus a line of code. We're an incredibly heterogeneous, diverse country that has never agreed on anything, not even on our founding documents.* We are, by virtue of our post-WWII status, the de-facto political and military leader of the world. We're the world's largest economy. We're the world's reserve currency. We have all of the responsibility that comes with that status.
We do not blink twice when we hear of a company like Yahoo (14,000 employees) or Nortel (86,000 employees at peak) becoming unmanageable basket cases. Yet we rail on the President for not getting more done than he does! We forgive Windows for being layers upon tangled layers of bug-for-bug compatible code, but complain endlessly about the complexity of a tax code designed to regulate 300m people acting together in a $15 trillion economy.
I am of the opinion that too many people, especially engineers who maybe have a particular love of simplicity, simply expect too much of the country they live in, and as a result become disillusioned with the whole system.
It is my opinion that these expectations are unreasonable and counter productive. The fact of the matter is that the US government is a paragon of virtue and efficiency compared to most others. Some of the western European countries may have better governments, but they also have far simpler and more homogenous societies to govern. We certainly have a better government than most any country in Asia. China, which has no particular love of anything American, has spent the last couple of decades trying to model their legal system after America's. Think about that: something that most Americans consider to be a broken part of our society, is a model for a country looking to cement it's place among the world's great societies.
So if you're frustrated by the system, take a step back and appreciate the fact that it probably doesn't get any better than it is now. As I've gotten older and this realization has sunk in, I have found politics far more enjoyable.
*) The more you learn about the Constitution, the more you realize it's ridiculous to ask "what does the Constitution mean?" The 40 signatories to the Constitution had 40 different opinions about the meaning of the document they were signing!
We live in a 236 year old democracy of 310 million people. Let that sink in. We have more people than there are lines of code in an entire Linux distribution. Think of the complexity of a human being, over a human being's lifetime, versus a line of code. We're an incredibly heterogeneous, diverse country that has never agreed on anything, not even on our founding documents.* We are, by virtue of our post-WWII status, the de-facto political and military leader of the world. We're the world's largest economy. We're the world's reserve currency. We have all of the responsibility that comes with that status.
We do not blink twice when we hear of a company like Yahoo (14,000 employees) or Nortel (86,000 employees at peak) becoming unmanageable basket cases. Yet we rail on the President for not getting more done than he does! We forgive Windows for being layers upon tangled layers of bug-for-bug compatible code, but complain endlessly about the complexity of a tax code designed to regulate 300m people acting together in a $15 trillion economy.
I am of the opinion that too many people, especially engineers who maybe have a particular love of simplicity, simply expect too much of the country they live in, and as a result become disillusioned with the whole system.
It is my opinion that these expectations are unreasonable and counter productive. The fact of the matter is that the US government is a paragon of virtue and efficiency compared to most others. Some of the western European countries may have better governments, but they also have far simpler and more homogenous societies to govern. We certainly have a better government than most any country in Asia. China, which has no particular love of anything American, has spent the last couple of decades trying to model their legal system after America's. Think about that: something that most Americans consider to be a broken part of our society, is a model for a country looking to cement it's place among the world's great societies.
So if you're frustrated by the system, take a step back and appreciate the fact that it probably doesn't get any better than it is now. As I've gotten older and this realization has sunk in, I have found politics far more enjoyable.
*) The more you learn about the Constitution, the more you realize it's ridiculous to ask "what does the Constitution mean?" The 40 signatories to the Constitution had 40 different opinions about the meaning of the document they were signing!
The more you learn about the Constitution, the more you realize it's ridiculous to ask "what does the Constitution mean?" The 40 signatories to the Constitution had 40 different opinions about the meaning of the document they were signing!
And yet, it is the oldest working constitution that still grants rights to its citizens rarely found elsewhere. It has provided for our prosperity for over two centuries. Whatever it means, it means well.
And yet, it is the oldest working constitution that still grants rights to its citizens rarely found elsewhere. It has provided for our prosperity for over two centuries. Whatever it means, it means well.
Absolutely. Scandinavia is often held up as an example of a set of ideal democratic states. After a friend moved there, I start poking around for details and the first thing I found was a mild warning that they were xenophobic. Visiting Sweden was the first time I had ever felt visible because of my race. It's not that they're racist (they're not); it's just that they're more homogenous so differences become quickly obvious.
> appreciate the fact that it probably doesn't get any better than it is now
I can't agree with this line, but mainly because you're talking about the future. I agree that it probably couldn't be better than it is now, but we can certainly improve it.
> The more you learn about the Constitution, the more you realize it's ridiculous to ask "what does the Constitution mean?" The 40 signatories to the Constitution had 40 different opinions about the meaning of the document they were signing!
There's an entire branch of government dedicated to answering that question on a daily basis, too. Established by the very thing they're interpreting. How's that for meta?
> appreciate the fact that it probably doesn't get any better than it is now
I can't agree with this line, but mainly because you're talking about the future. I agree that it probably couldn't be better than it is now, but we can certainly improve it.
> The more you learn about the Constitution, the more you realize it's ridiculous to ask "what does the Constitution mean?" The 40 signatories to the Constitution had 40 different opinions about the meaning of the document they were signing!
There's an entire branch of government dedicated to answering that question on a daily basis, too. Established by the very thing they're interpreting. How's that for meta?
> I can't agree with this line, but mainly because you're talking about the future. I agree that it probably couldn't be better than it is now, but we can certainly improve it.
Oh, I'm not saying you can't improve it, even in the present. What I mean is "better" in a fundamentally different way. E.g. within the constraints of our existing society, you're always going to have partisanship, etc.
Oh, I'm not saying you can't improve it, even in the present. What I mean is "better" in a fundamentally different way. E.g. within the constraints of our existing society, you're always going to have partisanship, etc.
I'm right with you on your slactivism. I like the idea of being very involved in politics, but I just cannot stand (a) listening to politicians, or (b) talking about politics.
I just don't have the heart for the current discourse in the country. Every once in awhile, I'll try to go the good citizen route, look into the current issues, and then draw my own conclusion.. but what was all that effort for? I've tried my best to present logical rebuttals to people's points. I try to source only relevant, publicly available government data when possible, but it means nothing. The response I usually get? "Yeah, but.. still.." and then they go back to making their talking point.
"But still.." is not a rebuttal, people.
I spent several hours investigating the energy policy of the candidates. I pulled a bunch of charts from the EPA, compiled them all into an email, and then gave my armchair analysis of the policy given the available data. I was told that "I'm missing the important issue."
So... fuck it. I'll just go back to studying.
I just don't have the heart for the current discourse in the country. Every once in awhile, I'll try to go the good citizen route, look into the current issues, and then draw my own conclusion.. but what was all that effort for? I've tried my best to present logical rebuttals to people's points. I try to source only relevant, publicly available government data when possible, but it means nothing. The response I usually get? "Yeah, but.. still.." and then they go back to making their talking point.
"But still.." is not a rebuttal, people.
I spent several hours investigating the energy policy of the candidates. I pulled a bunch of charts from the EPA, compiled them all into an email, and then gave my armchair analysis of the policy given the available data. I was told that "I'm missing the important issue."
So... fuck it. I'll just go back to studying.
The current US government is mostly atrocious, but I'm convinced that the American people have the government they, or we, collectively deserve. Congress hasn't become horribly dysfunctional and stupid because they've somehow become disconnected from the people. Rather, the electorate has become horribly dysfunctional and stupid, and Congress simply follows along.
I think the main problem is that our system is set up so that fringe elements have much more power. Voting happens in the middle of the week and is not an official holiday. Who turns out to vote, then? The people who care most passionately will inevitably show up in much greater numbers than people who are less enthusiastic. Passion is great, all else being equal, but I believe that passion correlates strongly with craziness in the political arena. Primary elections are even worse in this respect, since most people don't care about them, and the result is that you end up with two major ballot choices, both of whom are nuts, because the primaries got decided by the fringes.
A lack of term limits means that members of Congress get deeply entrenched, with a result that turnover is not all that high. Why bother voting when the winner is a given anyway? Why bother voting even when the winner isn't a given if it's pretty much a given that the overall structure of power at the national level won't change? And even if that might happen, why bother voting when the other party will just filibuster the shit out of everything anyway?
Finally, the Electoral College means that the decision for the top man in government gets decided by, what, maybe 10% of the total population of the country? Presidential candidates concentrate on swing states because they're the only ones that actually count, and that makes the whole business even more fringe.
In short, it seems like the whole system is rigged to discourage moderate, sane people from wanting to participate in any meaningful way.
I know it works on me. I vote in Presidential elections and midterms, but not enthusiastically. I would never dream of joining a political party, let alone volunteering for one. I hang up on surveys, ignore campaign flyers, and never, ever donate. I haven't even written a letter to my representative in years, after realizing that all it does is generate a mail-merged form response.
I think the main problem is that our system is set up so that fringe elements have much more power. Voting happens in the middle of the week and is not an official holiday. Who turns out to vote, then? The people who care most passionately will inevitably show up in much greater numbers than people who are less enthusiastic. Passion is great, all else being equal, but I believe that passion correlates strongly with craziness in the political arena. Primary elections are even worse in this respect, since most people don't care about them, and the result is that you end up with two major ballot choices, both of whom are nuts, because the primaries got decided by the fringes.
A lack of term limits means that members of Congress get deeply entrenched, with a result that turnover is not all that high. Why bother voting when the winner is a given anyway? Why bother voting even when the winner isn't a given if it's pretty much a given that the overall structure of power at the national level won't change? And even if that might happen, why bother voting when the other party will just filibuster the shit out of everything anyway?
Finally, the Electoral College means that the decision for the top man in government gets decided by, what, maybe 10% of the total population of the country? Presidential candidates concentrate on swing states because they're the only ones that actually count, and that makes the whole business even more fringe.
In short, it seems like the whole system is rigged to discourage moderate, sane people from wanting to participate in any meaningful way.
I know it works on me. I vote in Presidential elections and midterms, but not enthusiastically. I would never dream of joining a political party, let alone volunteering for one. I hang up on surveys, ignore campaign flyers, and never, ever donate. I haven't even written a letter to my representative in years, after realizing that all it does is generate a mail-merged form response.
Term limits simply put even more power in the hands of unelected legislative aides, because they become the only people with the tenure to understand the issues involved, let alone the particular wording of the bills.
It's already the case that effective members of Congress are the ones who attract the best legislative aides.[1] Those who don't have high-quality aides rarely impact any legislation. If we enact term limits, our legislators will have even less room to impact the laws themselves -- either they'll hand over the whole way their office is run to great legislative aides, or they'll be irrelevant back benchers whose only role is to vote yea or nay on laws other people wrote. Whichever route they choose, the power of the legislators -- the people actually accountable to voters -- will be decreased.
[1] Put the arrows of causation wherever you'd like in that sentence.
It's already the case that effective members of Congress are the ones who attract the best legislative aides.[1] Those who don't have high-quality aides rarely impact any legislation. If we enact term limits, our legislators will have even less room to impact the laws themselves -- either they'll hand over the whole way their office is run to great legislative aides, or they'll be irrelevant back benchers whose only role is to vote yea or nay on laws other people wrote. Whichever route they choose, the power of the legislators -- the people actually accountable to voters -- will be decreased.
[1] Put the arrows of causation wherever you'd like in that sentence.
I'm sympathetic to much of your comment.
But I'm pretty skeptical that the solution to problems in American federal government is to make our federal government more similar to California's state government by adding term limits. That simply shifts power from individual legislators to unelected party apparatchiks.
But I'm pretty skeptical that the solution to problems in American federal government is to make our federal government more similar to California's state government by adding term limits. That simply shifts power from individual legislators to unelected party apparatchiks.
This whole business of dividing everybody up into political parties is pretty bad too, and I'd be for banning them if I thought it was even remotely practical.
Otherwise, maybe no term limits, but go for proportional representation instead of a bunch of plurality races?
Otherwise, maybe no term limits, but go for proportional representation instead of a bunch of plurality races?
I find it hard to fathom how in one sentence, you speak against political parties, and then in the next, you propose proportional representation as a solution.
I am very much in favour of electoral reform, but the most common suggestion is always proportional representation which I cannot support. Under proportional representation, I am no longer voting for my personal representative to government, I am forced to vote explicitly for a party. I lose having anyone directly responsible to me (or my district, anyway), and it becomes impossible for an independent to be elected.
So what are the answers to ensure minority representation? I don't know, but here are some ideas that I think are worth exploring:
1. cutting the number of electoral districts in half, but giving seats to the two top vote getters in each district.
2. preferential voting. It opens the door for third parties. I can give my first preference to a fringe party while still ranking my favoured major party ahead of the alternative. People always say that it is too hard to count, but Australia has managed for nearly a century.
3. Any candidate (within some area) that gets more than 100000 votes (or some appropriate threshold) is elected. This is sort of like #1, but with larger areas and more candidates.
4. Additional direct democracy; technology should open up new possibilities in this area.
These are simply suggestions to think about and should not be considered mutually exclusive.
I am very much in favour of electoral reform, but the most common suggestion is always proportional representation which I cannot support. Under proportional representation, I am no longer voting for my personal representative to government, I am forced to vote explicitly for a party. I lose having anyone directly responsible to me (or my district, anyway), and it becomes impossible for an independent to be elected.
So what are the answers to ensure minority representation? I don't know, but here are some ideas that I think are worth exploring:
1. cutting the number of electoral districts in half, but giving seats to the two top vote getters in each district.
2. preferential voting. It opens the door for third parties. I can give my first preference to a fringe party while still ranking my favoured major party ahead of the alternative. People always say that it is too hard to count, but Australia has managed for nearly a century.
3. Any candidate (within some area) that gets more than 100000 votes (or some appropriate threshold) is elected. This is sort of like #1, but with larger areas and more candidates.
4. Additional direct democracy; technology should open up new possibilities in this area.
These are simply suggestions to think about and should not be considered mutually exclusive.
I'm an advocate of a hybrid between your #4 and #2. People can vote on most issues directly, with the ability to delegate particular issues or categories of issue to a number of representatives, ideally experts in their respective fields. The delegated authority can be issued or revoked by each voter at will, as many times as they want.
Unfortunately, this wouldn't solve the problem of media controlling public opinion by what they report and advertise.
Unfortunately, this wouldn't solve the problem of media controlling public opinion by what they report and advertise.
I'd get rid of political parties if I could, but I also think it's basically impossible, so the question then becomes how you deal with them. The best way to deal with them may not be at all how things would look if you could get rid of them. That's how I go from wanting to ban them to proposing proportional representation.
Fair enough. I prefer to think about what can be done to reduce their influence. I wouldn't actually ban them even if I could, freedom of association and all that, but it would be nicer if they didn't matter so much.
Government may be broken in many ways, but when I hear political discourse, I'm amazed public policy isn't worse.
What about the notion that switching from Electoral College to popular vote just changes the focus of power from a few key states to another few key states, specifically the states with the highest populations and/or voter turnout?
It's a silly complaint because putting most of the power in the most populated states is exactly how you'd expect it to work. California, with a huge population, should be vastly more influential than Montana. How much more influential? Well, I'd say about 38 times more.
Montana won't get much attention, but Montanans should get just as much attention per person as the rest of us, in that case.
Montana won't get much attention, but Montanans should get just as much attention per person as the rest of us, in that case.
Montana doesn't seem to get much attention now, including most other states. Only swing states get attention.
But the complaint you have doesn't make sense because what you speak of is problems the states would have with how Congress works. The electoral college has nothing to do with law, only how the President is elected. Well, Vice President too, supposedly, but the choice of who to vote for is determined for us. To say that California doesn't have enough influence in federal laws because of the electoral college seems misdirected. California already has more influence over Montana right now because both the electoral college electors and House of Representatives are based on population count while the Senate is not. The only place that a small state has the same level of influence on the federal level is in the Senate. Therefore California's complaint about smaller states is partly caused by themselves and the other more populous states.
Why does the Senate exist? To actually give the small states a chance in deciding things on a federal level. If everything was decided by popular vote then small states might as well not bother. Notice that the Senate has more powers than the House, which is as designed because each state has equal voting power. If treaties, for example, were ratified in the House then small states would most often have to follow the lead of the most populous states. That would open the possibility of our country being led by mob rule, which the Founders were fearful of and you call a dick comment.
The only people who seriously push for everything being decided by popular vote tend to have an agenda to push that can only be done by mob rule, to the detriment of the minority for the advantage of the majority.
Also note that most often the winner of the electoral college also wins the popular vote, it is rare for the reverse to happen. So it seems that whether we use electoral college or popular vote for electing the President it would rarely make a difference, other than the focus of campaigning.
Want to have some real fun? Force the states to stop using winner takes all in determining electors. But even then it still probably wouldn't make much of a difference.
But the complaint you have doesn't make sense because what you speak of is problems the states would have with how Congress works. The electoral college has nothing to do with law, only how the President is elected. Well, Vice President too, supposedly, but the choice of who to vote for is determined for us. To say that California doesn't have enough influence in federal laws because of the electoral college seems misdirected. California already has more influence over Montana right now because both the electoral college electors and House of Representatives are based on population count while the Senate is not. The only place that a small state has the same level of influence on the federal level is in the Senate. Therefore California's complaint about smaller states is partly caused by themselves and the other more populous states.
Why does the Senate exist? To actually give the small states a chance in deciding things on a federal level. If everything was decided by popular vote then small states might as well not bother. Notice that the Senate has more powers than the House, which is as designed because each state has equal voting power. If treaties, for example, were ratified in the House then small states would most often have to follow the lead of the most populous states. That would open the possibility of our country being led by mob rule, which the Founders were fearful of and you call a dick comment.
The only people who seriously push for everything being decided by popular vote tend to have an agenda to push that can only be done by mob rule, to the detriment of the minority for the advantage of the majority.
Also note that most often the winner of the electoral college also wins the popular vote, it is rare for the reverse to happen. So it seems that whether we use electoral college or popular vote for electing the President it would rarely make a difference, other than the focus of campaigning.
Want to have some real fun? Force the states to stop using winner takes all in determining electors. But even then it still probably wouldn't make much of a difference.
I disagree, and so did the founders when they made two houses, one based on population and one based on states. I don't think the current electoral college is the right answer, but I don't think a pure populist vote is right, either.
What do you mean, "the founders"? The two house system was a compromise.
It's a compromise that has worked fairly well, balancing population versus the independent needs of states. Throwing out that balance could fundamentally unsettle the US, because many states would quickly become tired of New York and California telling them how to live their lives.
...as opposed to people in California and New York, states which create disproportionately large amounts of the national wealth, being told what to do by people in small states which don't have to manage the issues California and New York have to in order to keep the national economy moving.
When you're in a small state with disproportional voting power you end up with more money coming back to your state than it contributes in federal taxes, so you can afford to act out and pretend we can all live in a screw the government utopia - the big states you're sticking your thumb in the eye of have to pay the tab.
When you're in a small state with disproportional voting power you end up with more money coming back to your state than it contributes in federal taxes, so you can afford to act out and pretend we can all live in a screw the government utopia - the big states you're sticking your thumb in the eye of have to pay the tab.
Considering that there has only been three elections where the winner of the electoral vote did not win the popular vote, per Wikipedia, it stands to reason that California and New York have roughly the same amount of influence either way. Therefore it is silly for them to complain over the system in place because it more than likely would still be what would be in place if the Presidential election was decided by popular vote.
Personally, I think this issue comes from a confusion of how the electoral college works and how Congress works. The things you say that bother California and New York are not determined by the electoral college, which is used to elect the President, it is in fact how Congress itself works. If those two states are bothered by smaller states telling them what to do then the problem lies with Congress, not how the President is elected.
It is only in the Senate where a smaller state gets the same amount of influence as every other state since they all get an equal number of votes. The electoral college electors and House of Representative members are determined by population count. The problem with a possible mismatch between popular vote and the electoral college is that states tend to be winner takes all, which they can change anytime they want since a state determines how its electors are chosen.
Personally, I think this issue comes from a confusion of how the electoral college works and how Congress works. The things you say that bother California and New York are not determined by the electoral college, which is used to elect the President, it is in fact how Congress itself works. If those two states are bothered by smaller states telling them what to do then the problem lies with Congress, not how the President is elected.
It is only in the Senate where a smaller state gets the same amount of influence as every other state since they all get an equal number of votes. The electoral college electors and House of Representative members are determined by population count. The problem with a possible mismatch between popular vote and the electoral college is that states tend to be winner takes all, which they can change anytime they want since a state determines how its electors are chosen.
It's true that the electoral college gives small states a slight boost in representation in the presidential election. This is due to the fact that the number of electors is a function of the number of congresspeople and small states have, relative to their population, more congresspeople because of the existence of the senate and rounding error when determining number of representatives.
With regard to whether getting rid of that advantage in electors in order to modernize the system would unfairly shift the balance of power, read the above paragraph again. The small states already have an advantage in representation in Congress. That doesn't go away if we make the election of the president rely on a popular vote.
With regard to whether getting rid of that advantage in electors in order to modernize the system would unfairly shift the balance of power, read the above paragraph again. The small states already have an advantage in representation in Congress. That doesn't go away if we make the election of the president rely on a popular vote.
I'm well aware that I disagree with the founders on this question. After all, it's hardly the only thing I disagree with. Other items include whether women should be allowed to vote and whether people should be able to own other people.
I think the federal government's original setup makes a great deal of sense when you're trying to tie together a loose collection of independent states, but no longer makes much sense today, now that the states have almost completely been subordinated to the federal government.
I think the federal government's original setup makes a great deal of sense when you're trying to tie together a loose collection of independent states, but no longer makes much sense today, now that the states have almost completely been subordinated to the federal government.
> California, with a huge population, should be vastly more influential than Montana.
Justify this, please.
Justify this, please.
Sure. One person, one vote.
If you need justification for that, well, that gets thornier. But I don't know what level of justification you're after, so let's start with this.
If you need justification for that, well, that gets thornier. But I don't know what level of justification you're after, so let's start with this.
No, go ahead. I'd love to see how you justify mob rule.
Can't see any reason to continue the conversation after that dickish reply.
Agreed the grandparent's reply was a smarmy way of saying it, but, avoidance of majority rule is indeed why we use it. And to look at it another way: to keep one state (or a tiny few) from deciding the direction the rest of the states in the union must go.
I don't think it's a stretch to say we've become a more singular nation state, so that second part may not be as obvious, but, it's definitely still a factor. Imagine the general mentality in a state whose populace you have a low opinion of can now dictate things formerly decided in your state.
In a few words? That really sucks.
I don't think it's a stretch to say we've become a more singular nation state, so that second part may not be as obvious, but, it's definitely still a factor. Imagine the general mentality in a state whose populace you have a low opinion of can now dictate things formerly decided in your state.
In a few words? That really sucks.
The system doesn't seem to work to prevent a tiny few states from deciding the direction the rest must go, it just shuffles them around. Instead of states like California, Texas, and New York having the biggest say, we have states like Ohio, Virginia, and Florida doing it. I don't see how that's an improvement, and it actually looks substantially worse to me.
States like CA, TX, and NY still have their say, AND states like OH, VA, and FL. It only takes 11 states to win the electoral college (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, NJ, NC), but those never agree, and likely won't, that's when other states come into play.
With a popular vote, instead of candidates trying to vie for states by visiting regions in them, would hit a few hundred cities that they would already hit in the Electoral College process, but then stop there. It would effectively leave entire states out of the campaign process. That will only be magnified as we switch to the Internet for our media, so I think it's still worthwhile to get candidates out there hustling for votes, in front of hundreds of local media outlets while they exist. I genuinely think it helps vet them, as it gives the more opportunities to say things, including "the wrong things", and things that will change peoples mind's.
I fear when we start cutting back on physical appearances, we'll get to the point where the Internet is all that's left. Then they'll control the message completely. Imagine candidates who not only don't answer question, but seemingly don't get asked them. At least we currently have people who throw metaphorical wrenches at the seemingly monolithic candidates, hoping to snag them.
With a popular vote, instead of candidates trying to vie for states by visiting regions in them, would hit a few hundred cities that they would already hit in the Electoral College process, but then stop there. It would effectively leave entire states out of the campaign process. That will only be magnified as we switch to the Internet for our media, so I think it's still worthwhile to get candidates out there hustling for votes, in front of hundreds of local media outlets while they exist. I genuinely think it helps vet them, as it gives the more opportunities to say things, including "the wrong things", and things that will change peoples mind's.
I fear when we start cutting back on physical appearances, we'll get to the point where the Internet is all that's left. Then they'll control the message completely. Imagine candidates who not only don't answer question, but seemingly don't get asked them. At least we currently have people who throw metaphorical wrenches at the seemingly monolithic candidates, hoping to snag them.
Because implying that someone who needs a justification for "One person, one vote" is below you is not dickish at all. I saw my post as doing you a favor: giving you my return argument so that you could write up a proper rebuttal ahead of time.
But hey. You can poison the well all you like. The burden of proof is not on me.
But hey. You can poison the well all you like. The burden of proof is not on me.
Your curt replies would hardly give mikeash sufficient context to understand either your intentions or what your return argument was going to be. I presume he thought you were simply going to twist his words ("one person, one vote" -> "mob rule") and was irked.
Your reply to ktizo was much more informative and appreciable.
Your reply to ktizo was much more informative and appreciable.
> I presume he thought you were simply going to twist his words ("one person, one vote" -> "mob rule")
No, that's what I did. "Mob rule" is a proxy for the entire notion that direct democracy cannot work; the only other responses are that people don't want it or people can't do it. It's a blatantly obvious response from anyone who did not already buy into whatever mikeash is selling. The fact that he was framing his next response to be a sophisticated, high-fallutin, knock-your-socks-off thesis of epic proportions was disgusting and offensive. I'm not surprised that a taste of his own medicine cornered him into name-calling and running away.
> Your reply to ktizo was much more informative and appreciable.
Because ktizo was asking for information. If someone asks a question, I answer it earnestly. If someone is clearly ignorant, I try to explain what they're missing. If someone claims to have a solution to a well-known problem like "ZOMG!SHEEPLE", I expect them to actually have the damn solution ready at hand and not dangle it like a fucking carrot.
He could have called me on my tone and then answered the question. But I suspect he has no answer. All he has is an intuitive appeal to fairness completely unsupported by thousands of years of world history.
No, that's what I did. "Mob rule" is a proxy for the entire notion that direct democracy cannot work; the only other responses are that people don't want it or people can't do it. It's a blatantly obvious response from anyone who did not already buy into whatever mikeash is selling. The fact that he was framing his next response to be a sophisticated, high-fallutin, knock-your-socks-off thesis of epic proportions was disgusting and offensive. I'm not surprised that a taste of his own medicine cornered him into name-calling and running away.
> Your reply to ktizo was much more informative and appreciable.
Because ktizo was asking for information. If someone asks a question, I answer it earnestly. If someone is clearly ignorant, I try to explain what they're missing. If someone claims to have a solution to a well-known problem like "ZOMG!SHEEPLE", I expect them to actually have the damn solution ready at hand and not dangle it like a fucking carrot.
He could have called me on my tone and then answered the question. But I suspect he has no answer. All he has is an intuitive appeal to fairness completely unsupported by thousands of years of world history.
> Because implying that someone who needs a justification for "One person, one vote" is below you is not dickish at all.
I don't know what the hell you think you read, but you need to go back and try again. I never implied anything of the sort. I didn't know what level of justification you were after, so I started off with the most obvious rationale and left the door open to further discussion.
I have no idea how you could interpret that as "implying that someone... is below you". Maybe jerks think everyone is jerks, I don't know.
I don't know what the hell you think you read, but you need to go back and try again. I never implied anything of the sort. I didn't know what level of justification you were after, so I started off with the most obvious rationale and left the door open to further discussion.
I have no idea how you could interpret that as "implying that someone... is below you". Maybe jerks think everyone is jerks, I don't know.
How would giving equal weight to all votes in elections, compared to giving diferent weights according to geographic location, be any more or less 'mob-rule'?
The purpose of the electoral college is to acknowledge the states as mostly-sovereign entities in their own right. This used to be quite important; it remains an issue, though largely a proxy war, today. I don't know whether or not I support the electoral college. I actually quite like liquid democracy, but I'm not yet sold on the system; I have a friend currently working on implementing it and it's interesting to watch him work through its issues. It's one of those things that wouldn't have been feasible in 1800 but is far more feasible today.
Digression aside, the acknowledgement of the states is a neutralization of pure people power. It is the same reason that the Supreme Court is not elected, and executive appointees are not elected. These are things that are intended to be a check against the people. This is also why the tax-exempt status of churches is supposed to depend on the fact that they are to be politically neutral, and why Kennedy's Catholicism was such a hot issue when he ran for office. This is why charities frequently remain neutral in political discourse, why HN was divided on whether a business should be allowed to take sides on a political issue. This is why you're not allowed to discuss who you're voting for, or campaign for a candidate or issue, within a certain radius of a polling station.
Because "one person, one vote" never is. In any group of people larger than approximately 25 and definitely larger than 150, you will never actually get "one person, one vote". You will get political parties, who give you flyers saying "Vote for these 5 dudes, vote yes on A, B, and D, vote no on C and E," and those flyers will be followed to the letter.
It is probably possible to maintain the argument for "one person, one vote" despite all of these reasons not to, of course. I'd like to see the argument made that can account for the problem of demagoguery, the problem of charisma, especially enhanced as it's been by the advent of television. I haven't seen it yet.
Digression aside, the acknowledgement of the states is a neutralization of pure people power. It is the same reason that the Supreme Court is not elected, and executive appointees are not elected. These are things that are intended to be a check against the people. This is also why the tax-exempt status of churches is supposed to depend on the fact that they are to be politically neutral, and why Kennedy's Catholicism was such a hot issue when he ran for office. This is why charities frequently remain neutral in political discourse, why HN was divided on whether a business should be allowed to take sides on a political issue. This is why you're not allowed to discuss who you're voting for, or campaign for a candidate or issue, within a certain radius of a polling station.
Because "one person, one vote" never is. In any group of people larger than approximately 25 and definitely larger than 150, you will never actually get "one person, one vote". You will get political parties, who give you flyers saying "Vote for these 5 dudes, vote yes on A, B, and D, vote no on C and E," and those flyers will be followed to the letter.
It is probably possible to maintain the argument for "one person, one vote" despite all of these reasons not to, of course. I'd like to see the argument made that can account for the problem of demagoguery, the problem of charisma, especially enhanced as it's been by the advent of television. I haven't seen it yet.
Don't forget that Civics isn't a required course in school anymore.
IME the role of logic in decision-making has been greatly overemphasized. People need to first be convinced in an emotional/intuitive way, then given logical arguments to support what they are experiencing.
The idea that a person -- anyone, not just "dumb people" -- think first about a matter rationally and then act in a matter consistent with logic, is failing to address a huge component of human behavior: people only behave in their rational best interests if/when they are not emotionally invested in the outcome.
The idea that a person -- anyone, not just "dumb people" -- think first about a matter rationally and then act in a matter consistent with logic, is failing to address a huge component of human behavior: people only behave in their rational best interests if/when they are not emotionally invested in the outcome.
Well, an obvious way to address this would be to become emotionally invested in acting rationally. It's a pity that so many people aren't.
I'd be writing from the Moon right now if obvious-to-state were the same thing as obvious-to-achieve. Even if we accept your unwarranted assumption that strict rationality is unilaterally superior to experiential and intuitive modes of being, which is not at all a given: how do you propose we induce a widespread emotional investment in living life like a Vulcan, something that runs counter to the instincts of many/most people?
Edit: sorry that came out quite jerk-like. Point is, why is rational always better than intuitive, and how could anyone hope to create such a massive emotional investment in an intellectual concept.
Edit: sorry that came out quite jerk-like. Point is, why is rational always better than intuitive, and how could anyone hope to create such a massive emotional investment in an intellectual concept.
I think it's easy to miss the forest for the trees. There are billions of problems with the American system, but if you take a step back you see that, as a whole, it works pretty well -- especially in comparison to the rest of the world.
Consider science funding, for instance. Despite the neanderthals on the house committee, US funding is still comparatively extremely generous on a per-capita basis:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone...
Consider science funding, for instance. Despite the neanderthals on the house committee, US funding is still comparatively extremely generous on a per-capita basis:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone...
Hands down the best way to affect change in politics is to get involved locally. (e.g. School board, voluntary emergency response services, local PACs etc...)
The only thing more powerful than the lobby is true grass roots (not astroturf). And I don't mean voting in gerrymandered districts, I mean true political activism.
The only thing more powerful than the lobby is true grass roots (not astroturf). And I don't mean voting in gerrymandered districts, I mean true political activism.
Partisanship is not the problem, anti-science is the problem. A major political party should not be anti-science and until people who respect science stop voting GOP, this won't get solved.
Have you considered voting with your feet?
This is Hacker News. Most of us are either entrepreneurs or understand the fundamental thinking behind being entrepreneurial. Surely we can do better than upvoting.
If you can't do anything effective as an individual, stop being just an individual. My path has been to develop an idea of what I want government to look like, and then start convincing other people, getting feedback to tweak my vision, and convincing more people. I won't recommend my path, since it's slow and probably will take longer than my lifetime; I have friends who are bootstrapping legislative bodies and know other people who are working on creating better cross-partisan dialogue and so on and so on.
Figure out what you want, figure out what it would take, and start climbing. This is a lot like entrepreneurship. Don't sit in your cube and imagine how much better it'd be to be your own boss; get an idea, get a prototype, get a notion of the market, get going.
If you can't do anything effective as an individual, stop being just an individual. My path has been to develop an idea of what I want government to look like, and then start convincing other people, getting feedback to tweak my vision, and convincing more people. I won't recommend my path, since it's slow and probably will take longer than my lifetime; I have friends who are bootstrapping legislative bodies and know other people who are working on creating better cross-partisan dialogue and so on and so on.
Figure out what you want, figure out what it would take, and start climbing. This is a lot like entrepreneurship. Don't sit in your cube and imagine how much better it'd be to be your own boss; get an idea, get a prototype, get a notion of the market, get going.
Well Jesus, you can't say something like this and then not share your vision! Not an effective strategy.
/me snickers. I have my whole lifetime to finish writing it out and you want it now? Geez. Such a hurry.
Here's what I can give you. You'll see no lasting systemic change until people start growing up understanding the ins and outs of democracy by the age of 15. This does not even happen in the most affluent neighborhoods today. Education focuses on producing workers for the job market, rather than producing citizens for a democratic society. That's what needs to change. An adult graduating from high school needs to be capable of the highest offices of government immediately, even if they don't meet the age qualification. That capability gives them the tools to intelligently engage with their representatives and public servants as equals: as co-governors. Lobbying cannot be the job of an elite minority; it has to be that thing we all do from 4-6pm, after working from 8-4 and before enjoying dinner and leisure from 6-10.
Because the capacity to govern is properly distributed, you should see the end of the career politician. Instead, occupying offices should have a higher churn rate as more people run and more people qualify and more people have jobs to return to after their stint in office; the actual electoral result approaches random, negating any effective campaign strategy and thus any influence of money. Instead of campaigning for office, office-holders become facilitators for citizen discussion of policy. Their job is primarily to gather and synthesize, to properly weight authority, and to transparently explain how they determined which policy to adopt. The vote becomes a formality, rather than a nail-biting contest aired on national television.
That's what I have right now. It's not much, and it's pretty flimsy, but it's a skeleton to hang my coat on.
Enjoy.
Here's what I can give you. You'll see no lasting systemic change until people start growing up understanding the ins and outs of democracy by the age of 15. This does not even happen in the most affluent neighborhoods today. Education focuses on producing workers for the job market, rather than producing citizens for a democratic society. That's what needs to change. An adult graduating from high school needs to be capable of the highest offices of government immediately, even if they don't meet the age qualification. That capability gives them the tools to intelligently engage with their representatives and public servants as equals: as co-governors. Lobbying cannot be the job of an elite minority; it has to be that thing we all do from 4-6pm, after working from 8-4 and before enjoying dinner and leisure from 6-10.
Because the capacity to govern is properly distributed, you should see the end of the career politician. Instead, occupying offices should have a higher churn rate as more people run and more people qualify and more people have jobs to return to after their stint in office; the actual electoral result approaches random, negating any effective campaign strategy and thus any influence of money. Instead of campaigning for office, office-holders become facilitators for citizen discussion of policy. Their job is primarily to gather and synthesize, to properly weight authority, and to transparently explain how they determined which policy to adopt. The vote becomes a formality, rather than a nail-biting contest aired on national television.
That's what I have right now. It's not much, and it's pretty flimsy, but it's a skeleton to hang my coat on.
Enjoy.
I like it! There is certainly a big hole in our school systems - two big holes, actually. The first is, as you say, no real treatment of being a citizen. "How a bill becomes a law" is a (bad) joke. Children need to learn about politics sooner, rather than later. The second hole is the total lack of any personal economic or financial training - how to budget, plan, save, invest, when to get credit, etc. People are thrust into the world with no idea what they are getting into with loans, and the banks get fat from fees and interest, or, when things get really bad, from bailouts.
I agree w/ this too, there needs to be more emphasis on "growing-up sooner". Right now, we are getting/producing more of an extended adolescence. That's why no emphasis on these skills: practical politics/economics. Rather than using education to foister rapid maturity. We are (socially) using the education institution for a hybrid: learning/babystitting. It is like if we arm students with practical skills they might become a problem, WTF?
doesn't instead of dosen't
What would we do without government committees, and how did we ever survive without them?
We had kings to make our laws unilaterally without parliamentary scrutiny.
Not in the US of A.
About 1.75 centuries elapsed between 1776 (when the US said a farewell to kings) and 1958 (when the predecessor committee was established). I guess science in the United States just progressed without non-scientific scrutiny during that time.
At least for the topic at hand.
About 1.75 centuries elapsed between 1776 (when the US said a farewell to kings) and 1958 (when the predecessor committee was established). I guess science in the United States just progressed without non-scientific scrutiny during that time.
At least for the topic at hand.
This post is partisan and too short on supporting facts. The author claims that a couple of goofy public statements by 3 lawmakers mean they don't "get science". That's 3 members on a committee of 40. Also, the scientific debate over climate change is far from settled.
The scientific debate over climate change is only not "settled" in the sense that scientists still debate the particularities of climate models.
It is settled in the sense that it is known that anthropogenic carbon emissions are a major driver of global surface temperatures.
It is settled in the sense that it is known that anthropogenic carbon emissions are a major driver of global surface temperatures.
What are some questions you feel aren't accounted for in existing climate models? Do they significantly alter the IPCC predictions?
I'm guessing that articles like this are what's he's talking about: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Globa...
Oh good, the Daily Mail, this looks like a reliable source. I'll certainly believe what it has to say over the consensus of climate scientists.
How is this partisan? He explicitly calls out both parties.
And even if only one party was called out, it doesn't mean its partisan. Not all opinions deserve equal weight. If someone started the Anti-Science Party and said the Earth was flat and only 7 years old, it wouldn't be partisan to say they're insane and you wouldn't want them in charge of important decisions, it would just be that this one party happens to be even more insane than the rest and you're calling them on it. The other party might believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, but fact remains that this hypothetical Anti-Science Party is basing their entire campaign on their belief rather than their understanding.
Playing the partisan card is just deflection to avoid the realization that some things simply cannot be argued seriously in a respectable conversation. Pointing the finger and saying "they do it too!" doesn't make your side any better.
Playing the partisan card is just deflection to avoid the realization that some things simply cannot be argued seriously in a respectable conversation. Pointing the finger and saying "they do it too!" doesn't make your side any better.
I assume partisan is being used in place of 'heavily biased'. I can see it is a reasonable substitution in most cases.
The 'Pure Science' people (similar grouping to the militant atheists) are, like it or not, pretty dismissive of any non scientific opinions and beliefs. This makes many religious people take a very defensive (aggressively so) position on many matters.
This is simply a different version of the "two parties facing each other and calling each other dumb" political system.
Edit: I could be misreading though
The 'Pure Science' people (similar grouping to the militant atheists) are, like it or not, pretty dismissive of any non scientific opinions and beliefs. This makes many religious people take a very defensive (aggressively so) position on many matters.
This is simply a different version of the "two parties facing each other and calling each other dumb" political system.
Edit: I could be misreading though
You are correct only in the sense that atheists and science committees are completely dismissive of non scientific opinions.
But I take great issue with the rest of your post. This is not a case of two parties calling each other dumb, nor is it the case that positions of science and positions of opinion are equal. Science does not deal in opinions. There are very specific requirements that need to be met for an idea to be considered a scientific theory. Religious ideas by and large do not meet these criteria. There is no such thing as "non-pure science." This is by definition of the term and process.
Further, your use of the term "militant atheist" is offensive. You call an atheist "militant" merely because she dares to voice her thoughts? This is what religious individuals due daily in church and other places, yet never are they called militant for it. Worse, religious advertising routinely gets away with suggestions that non-believers will suffer eternally or are otherwise evil or immoral. Such rhetoric is a far cry from a logical discussion of what we actually know that you might find from a typical vocal atheist.
Slurs like "militant atheist" are so common you no longer ever recognize them for what they are: insults and a labels intended to marginalize.
But I take great issue with the rest of your post. This is not a case of two parties calling each other dumb, nor is it the case that positions of science and positions of opinion are equal. Science does not deal in opinions. There are very specific requirements that need to be met for an idea to be considered a scientific theory. Religious ideas by and large do not meet these criteria. There is no such thing as "non-pure science." This is by definition of the term and process.
Further, your use of the term "militant atheist" is offensive. You call an atheist "militant" merely because she dares to voice her thoughts? This is what religious individuals due daily in church and other places, yet never are they called militant for it. Worse, religious advertising routinely gets away with suggestions that non-believers will suffer eternally or are otherwise evil or immoral. Such rhetoric is a far cry from a logical discussion of what we actually know that you might find from a typical vocal atheist.
Slurs like "militant atheist" are so common you no longer ever recognize them for what they are: insults and a labels intended to marginalize.
I think you're overreacting. I'm an atheist and regularly use "militant atheist" to characterize the sort of atheist who I don't want to be associated with--i.e., the douchey ones.
I am no fan of religion, but I'm also not a fan of assholes.
I am no fan of religion, but I'm also not a fan of assholes.
"Militant" Christians bomb abortion clinics, "militant" Islamists blow themselves up, "militant" atheists hurt people's feelings... err... sometimes causing tears!
"The 'Pure Science' people (similar grouping to the militant atheists) are, like it or not, pretty dismissive of any non scientific opinions and beliefs."
When applied to scientific fact, this is correct. The religious persons attempt to meddle in what would otherwise be "pure" science and inject pseudoscience.
When applied to scientific fact, this is correct. The religious persons attempt to meddle in what would otherwise be "pure" science and inject pseudoscience.
"Also, the scientific debate over climate change is far from settled."
Well of course you think the article is bad. You're one of the people they're railing against!
Well of course you think the article is bad. You're one of the people they're railing against!
Assignment to the House Science Committee correlates with a -$46,000 drop in fundraising relative to all other committees in the House. Though Science has oversight over important agencies, like NOAA and NASA, they aren't a lobbying target. The result is that the best & brightest in Congress avoid Science, and adverse selection produces the worst possible Committee.
What's particularly aggravating about this is that there are agencies properly in the purview of Science & Technology that are lobbyist targets, but that aren't managed by House Science. FCC, for instance, is overseen by House Commerce; DARPA, obviously, is House Defense.
The fact of Congress is that if you don't play the game, and get the best committee assignments you can, you lose your seat. Each Congressperson can only have 2 committee assignments. Principled pursuit of the right assignments is thus a bit of a stag hunt.
What's particularly aggravating about this is that there are agencies properly in the purview of Science & Technology that are lobbyist targets, but that aren't managed by House Science. FCC, for instance, is overseen by House Commerce; DARPA, obviously, is House Defense.
The fact of Congress is that if you don't play the game, and get the best committee assignments you can, you lose your seat. Each Congressperson can only have 2 committee assignments. Principled pursuit of the right assignments is thus a bit of a stag hunt.
Planet Money did an excellent podcast on committee assignments and fundraising:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/06/149714908/the-most...
I figured that's where Thomas got his 46k figure but it doesn't seem to be on their graph.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/06/149714908/the-most...
I figured that's where Thomas got his 46k figure but it doesn't seem to be on their graph.
Nope, The Sunlight Foundation.
I think we agreed. It's clear that you didn't get your number from Planet Money since it's not there.
It is good to get the source though. So thanks for your reply.
For those who are interested, the sunlight foundation post is here: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/04/02/housecommittee...
According to that post, the numbers were calculated at Planet Money's request, so there you go.
It is good to get the source though. So thanks for your reply.
For those who are interested, the sunlight foundation post is here: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/04/02/housecommittee...
According to that post, the numbers were calculated at Planet Money's request, so there you go.
Call me a pessimist. When I see guys like Akin and Broun on a science committee, I assume that it didn't happen by accident, and that they probably have an axe to grind. At best, they may be looking to have their ethics represented on subjects like the ethics or morality of subjects like stem-cell research.
It's not an accident. It is exactly what tptacek described. Every other smarter/better representative wanted, and got committees which pay them more. And that forced these losers to end up on the science committee.
No accident, but also no "axe grinding" conspiracy. Just simply money.
No accident, but also no "axe grinding" conspiracy. Just simply money.
Perhaps we should be encouraged that even the Republican House leadership views these clowns as deserving of exile?
Just trying to find some glimmer of hope in this sad story...
Just trying to find some glimmer of hope in this sad story...
Off-topic: How do you remember your username?
I don't. I don't give a damn about karma. This is like my 3rd HN account. Not that I had any reason to create new accounts, besides logged out for some reason and didn't remember credentials.
Now watch everyone else in horror down-vote this, and for someone to post the link to the HN change your password page.
Now watch everyone else in horror down-vote this, and for someone to post the link to the HN change your password page.
If that second h was 3 then you'd simply have 4 triples of inline keys on a qwerty keyboard. Doesn't seem especially hard to remember.
fgh-345-sdf-hr3 : bet that's someone's password.
fgh-345-sdf-hr3 : bet that's someone's password.
God damn it now I'm going to remember the name of some guy's throwaway account until the day I die.
[deleted]
He could also use something like Lastpass to store/track it all.
That key bit of information puts the article in a completely different light. Without this information it is not unreasonable to interpret it as an anti-science stance from the Republicans. Ars Technica's reporting is usually excellent, but this is a serious omission.
Some committees collect members that senior leadership do not want on other, more important, committees. You can pretty much tell how low that committee is by the amount of vacant seats. It sounds important to us, but as tptacek points out, much business in this area is handled elsewhere.
<pedantry>
You're confusing pessimism with cynicism.
Pessimism is about what is going to happen; like its opposite, it deals entirely in possible futures. A pessimist can say, "Call me a pessimist, but Akin is going to join the Science committee because he's got an axe to grind." Or "Call me an optimist, but Akin was false flagging all this time and when he joins the Science committee, he'll do great things on behalf of science."
</pedantry>
Pessimism is about what is going to happen; like its opposite, it deals entirely in possible futures. A pessimist can say, "Call me a pessimist, but Akin is going to join the Science committee because he's got an axe to grind." Or "Call me an optimist, but Akin was false flagging all this time and when he joins the Science committee, he'll do great things on behalf of science."
</pedantry>
> They've been put in place when the US is arguably more dependent upon science and technology than at any time since World War II.
I could say the US is arguably less dependent upon the government's role in science and technology than at any time since World War II. I honestly don't know if that's true, but it would at least be an interesting discussion (I'm thinking of the transitioning privatization of space exploration, for starters); I don't see that it's clearly obvious either way.
I could say the US is arguably less dependent upon the government's role in science and technology than at any time since World War II. I honestly don't know if that's true, but it would at least be an interesting discussion (I'm thinking of the transitioning privatization of space exploration, for starters); I don't see that it's clearly obvious either way.
I think operationally this is getting more true, but not as much funding-wise, so intelligent control over appropriations is still important. For example, SpaceX is a private company, but largely publicly financed: government contracts provide the majority of their revenue, since they don't yet have significant private-sector clients. If their NASA contract were cancelled (e.g. because a committee cut that program), they wouldn't be solvent as a company.
Also common in the private-sector research world, outside a few big places like MSR that are mainly privately funded. A lot of biotech companies depend on public/private NIH research grants, and the SBIR/STTR programs are also a big source of funds for riskier research in small companies (http://www.sbir.gov/).
Also common in the private-sector research world, outside a few big places like MSR that are mainly privately funded. A lot of biotech companies depend on public/private NIH research grants, and the SBIR/STTR programs are also a big source of funds for riskier research in small companies (http://www.sbir.gov/).
It would be very interesting to see some data on the impact of government-funded blue-sky research (in other words, science that didn't have an obvious short-term commercial application).
Intuitively, it seems like such spending would open up new commercial frontiers for the private sector, but I'm not personally aware of specific examples of net payoff.
Intuitively, it seems like such spending would open up new commercial frontiers for the private sector, but I'm not personally aware of specific examples of net payoff.
We all know it's an awful situation. But what do you do about it?
You know, I feel ashamed every time I think this because I know I haven't fully thought it through, but why do we need to share the same country with these bird-brained politicians? I mean, would it really be so bad to let these people secede and have their own country? Yes, there is the argument that we are stronger (in some sense of the word) together than apart, but who really gains from this arrangement? Let them live in their own middle ages like the Taliban and leave everyone else alone.
Because it would only take a single generation for each group to split in half.
Are you planning to to do mass migrations every few years to force people with different opinions to go to a new location?
And why is there a need for geographical separation of ideas anyway?
People have wrong ideas about TONS of things. What makes this one so important that you would split the country over it? For most people the biological origin of the world is a very unimportant issue.
And do NOT answer me that the difference is scientific belief of not, because most people have no understanding of the science at all, no matter what they believe.
What it's actually a proxy for is acceptance of authority or not. Some people believe this authority, some this one - but there is no real difference between them - neither one actually understands the subject matter at all.
Are you planning to to do mass migrations every few years to force people with different opinions to go to a new location?
And why is there a need for geographical separation of ideas anyway?
People have wrong ideas about TONS of things. What makes this one so important that you would split the country over it? For most people the biological origin of the world is a very unimportant issue.
And do NOT answer me that the difference is scientific belief of not, because most people have no understanding of the science at all, no matter what they believe.
What it's actually a proxy for is acceptance of authority or not. Some people believe this authority, some this one - but there is no real difference between them - neither one actually understands the subject matter at all.
Blame Lincoln. The South tried to secede, but the Union of course did not let them. Big mistake, if you ask me, as "holy" as the fighting of the Civil War is presented in this country's history. I think the Northern US would have been better off without the South, culturally and economically.
But what do I know, as most of my ancestors (except for a few natives) came here after the Civil War.
But what do I know, as most of my ancestors (except for a few natives) came here after the Civil War.
It's been years since I've had a history class, so I'll just speak hypothetically. If I were running a country at risk of being divided, I might go to war to prevent secession if the rebelling territories had resources I needed. Examples include cotton, rivers/ports/shipping lanes, farmland, etc.
I know I'll probably get down-votes for this, but its probably good that there ARE people who would at least question Evolution and the Big Bang. There are significant problems with both theories, but most people just assume "its a fact" not because they KNOW, just because thats what they've always been told. But there are plenty of reasons to doubt without having to invoke religion.
One should always be open to the possibility that a pet theory can be falsified, but doubting some form of evolution and the big bang theory is probably irrational at this point. Quite simply, there are no better explanations for the universe and the diversity of life on earth. If you doubt some form of evolution, then you will have your work cut out for you to find a better theory. An alternative theory will have to explain geological and biological data at least as well as evolution without falling prey to falsifying data. It'll also have to make non-trivial predictions about future geological and biological observations. If you're determined to doubt something you can certainly do better than doubting evolution and big bang theories.
People do question evolution and the Big Bang. They do it by developing alternate models that take into account all the evidence we already have available to us, and see if their alternate model has sufficient explanatory power.
If you're not doing this, you're not questioning the prevailing models. Making a public statement from a position of secular authority is not questioning evolution and Big Bang; it's a demonstration of your own ignorance and nothing more.
If you're not doing this, you're not questioning the prevailing models. Making a public statement from a position of secular authority is not questioning evolution and Big Bang; it's a demonstration of your own ignorance and nothing more.
Pick one.
Honestly, the solution here would be to give the federal government less control and allow the states to have more control.
The states were established so that U.S. citizens could move to the state with the laws that best suited them.
The states were established so that U.S. citizens could move to the state with the laws that best suited them.
That's not really an accurate description of why the states were established. The initial states were the consequence of different centers of colonization and the limits of transportation and communication speeds. Their borders were mostly arbitrary geographical boundaries (hey, there's a river!). They developed unique economic and cultural traditions based on what could be grown, produced, or not, in their borders. That people didn't want to join them up into one stronger federal government has stronger ties to the general tribal nature of people and the significantly different economic and cultural needs. Movement between them was hardly the motivation.
> That people didn't want to join them up into one stronger federal government has stronger ties to the general tribal nature of people and the significantly different economic and cultural needs.
To be fair, one of the reasons was to limit the power of the federal government. But that power was limited partly in order to prevent one state from having power over another; that's why the Senate is so laid out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise), and one of the reasons the federal government is seated in neutral territory (Federalist #43).
To be fair, one of the reasons was to limit the power of the federal government. But that power was limited partly in order to prevent one state from having power over another; that's why the Senate is so laid out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise), and one of the reasons the federal government is seated in neutral territory (Federalist #43).
That sounds fantastic, and it's a good thought---but at a certain point we are all interdependent on one-another. Relative to belief in science and global warming, what Arkansas does with its air certainly affects areas outside of Arkansas.
That's why we have a federal court system, right? If areas outside of Arkansas have a problem with what Arkansas is doing to their air, they can produce evidence in a court of law and put a stop to it.
If the areas outside of Arkansas have a problem with what they teach their students (and it's really that damaging), well, just let a clear winner emerge over time.
(Not sure why we're picking on Arkansas)
If the areas outside of Arkansas have a problem with what they teach their students (and it's really that damaging), well, just let a clear winner emerge over time.
(Not sure why we're picking on Arkansas)
"the solution here would be to give the federal government less control and allow the states to have more control"
{{Citation needed}}
{{Citation needed}}
> The states were established so that U.S. citizens could move to the state with the laws that best suited them.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
I wonder why people don't see political campaigns as a system ripe for disruption. People are basically voting for their rulers the same way they vote their favorite movie. Kind of scary how anachronistic the election procedures have remained. Certainly a number of actors benefit from it.
Because you can't just say "we're going to disrupt the way people campaign/vote/get elected." It is a staggeringly massive government bureaucracy even at the most local levels, and it prevents that kind of change at every point possible.
Edit: Not to mention the fact that as much as we like to pretend all politicians and millionaire slime balls, they're working people providing for their families. Very few are going to entertain the idea of running their campaign in an entirely different way because chances are they'll lose their job if they do.
Edit: Not to mention the fact that as much as we like to pretend all politicians and millionaire slime balls, they're working people providing for their families. Very few are going to entertain the idea of running their campaign in an entirely different way because chances are they'll lose their job if they do.
I don't see a reason you can't. I believe mass media dominate campaigns because of the sheer amount of money thrown onto them.
> I don't see a reason you can't.
I've worked on campaigns professionally from 2002-2010 and I've run local and state races, including my own for borough council and school board.
Why can't we change the way campaigns are run?
Campaigns would be the easy part to change, but even then it depends what you want to change. Are you talking about new technology? The Romney campaign is doing a decent job of utilizing technology in how they're collecting voter contact results from phones and doors, organizing volunteers and managing fundraisers. Obama did an excellent job as well in 2008, especially compared to the CF that was the McCain campaign.
If you want to make changes to the way fundraising works and the influence of money in politics, it will need to be incremental. That isn't something you can just cut off overnight for several reasons, the two biggest being that (A) nothing happens overnight in Congress, and (B) Members of Congress would essentially be shutting down their means of securing re-election.
Why can't we change the way people vote?
For the same reason a PA court placed an injunction on that state's Voter ID law: you can't deprive an otherwise qualified individual of his or her constitutional right to vote.
You want to have internet voting? You better have a plan to give everyone in the country high speed internet access and be prepared for the unrelenting torrent of lawsuits when the server goes down.
I'd personally like to see internet voting someday, but you really need to have massive redundancy systems in place and plenty of checks to prevent fraud. What happens if the server is down all day? What about peak traffic? What if the database gets wiped 30 minutes before the end of voting? Anyone who knows about how government contracts are structured knows that would be an IBM and/or Diebold contract in the hundreds of billions. And it still wouldn't work.
> I believe mass media dominate campaigns because of the sheer amount of money thrown into them.
This statement makes it look like you think one is correlated to the other, which I'm not inclined to agree with. Because there's a lot of money in politics, that somehow means mass media "dominates" campaigns, whatever that means?
I'm not sure what your alternative would be aside from information directly from the campaigns themselves (which is almost guaranteed to be skewed, if not incorrect).
I've worked on campaigns professionally from 2002-2010 and I've run local and state races, including my own for borough council and school board.
Why can't we change the way campaigns are run?
Campaigns would be the easy part to change, but even then it depends what you want to change. Are you talking about new technology? The Romney campaign is doing a decent job of utilizing technology in how they're collecting voter contact results from phones and doors, organizing volunteers and managing fundraisers. Obama did an excellent job as well in 2008, especially compared to the CF that was the McCain campaign.
If you want to make changes to the way fundraising works and the influence of money in politics, it will need to be incremental. That isn't something you can just cut off overnight for several reasons, the two biggest being that (A) nothing happens overnight in Congress, and (B) Members of Congress would essentially be shutting down their means of securing re-election.
Why can't we change the way people vote?
For the same reason a PA court placed an injunction on that state's Voter ID law: you can't deprive an otherwise qualified individual of his or her constitutional right to vote.
You want to have internet voting? You better have a plan to give everyone in the country high speed internet access and be prepared for the unrelenting torrent of lawsuits when the server goes down.
I'd personally like to see internet voting someday, but you really need to have massive redundancy systems in place and plenty of checks to prevent fraud. What happens if the server is down all day? What about peak traffic? What if the database gets wiped 30 minutes before the end of voting? Anyone who knows about how government contracts are structured knows that would be an IBM and/or Diebold contract in the hundreds of billions. And it still wouldn't work.
> I believe mass media dominate campaigns because of the sheer amount of money thrown into them.
This statement makes it look like you think one is correlated to the other, which I'm not inclined to agree with. Because there's a lot of money in politics, that somehow means mass media "dominates" campaigns, whatever that means?
I'm not sure what your alternative would be aside from information directly from the campaigns themselves (which is almost guaranteed to be skewed, if not incorrect).
I was thinking of self-organized citizens, in the way some self-governed open access projects on the net have established hierarchies (i.e. wikipedia). Everyone can be a candidate, people can judge their contributions almost directly, and thus be more informed voters. Politics in much of the west depends too much on who you know, and who pays you to pay old media pundits to promote you. The tech sector has barely touched the way politics is conducted (i believe mainly because geeks detest the way politics is run and opt to escape to libertarianism).'
I don't really think it's a big deal if online-voting servers go down. It's not like you have to pay billions to re-run the elections.
I don't really think it's a big deal if online-voting servers go down. It's not like you have to pay billions to re-run the elections.
Because there's no easy fix, only massive trade-offs between different values.
Does the USA have an exceptionally bad system of government and of political economy right now? Yes, undeniably. The problem is, any talk of improvement brings up fairly deep-running conflicts between Americans about what they actually want from the systems that run their lives.
Does the USA have an exceptionally bad system of government and of political economy right now? Yes, undeniably. The problem is, any talk of improvement brings up fairly deep-running conflicts between Americans about what they actually want from the systems that run their lives.
Most people don't actually understand political campaigns. They just think it's that thing over there that I hear about on occasion, and maybe get a phone call from one day.
Now I've seen everything! !Bang!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeenItAllSuicide
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeenItAllSuicide
Downvotes? I don't believe it. To that title, I now humbly add: A scientific audience that doesn’t get humour!
I just want to point out something I haven't seen anyone else discuss.
It's politicians like this who push CISPA or the laws in DC attempting to protect the cab industry from Uber's disruption.
While politics seems distant and has totally gone off the deep end these days, this stuff does matter. It helps shape the direction our society decides to take. If everyone in science and tech checks out of politics, politics will move on without and possibly against us. It is unimaginably important for us to continue advocating for science, math, and technology in politics.
It's politicians like this who push CISPA or the laws in DC attempting to protect the cab industry from Uber's disruption.
While politics seems distant and has totally gone off the deep end these days, this stuff does matter. It helps shape the direction our society decides to take. If everyone in science and tech checks out of politics, politics will move on without and possibly against us. It is unimaginably important for us to continue advocating for science, math, and technology in politics.
EDIT: For the record, I wish these people had never been elected, and think the American government should increase science funding significantly. It's not my call, though.