Are you saying that democracy cannot work in a federalized government...? Many existing, successful countries with this system indicate that it is not the case.

I believe that propping up ineffective, incompetent, corrupt, valueless state governments just for the sake of having them is insane.

Hyperbole.

Why do you make the distinction between "paper pushers" in washing or in your own states capital? Perhaps you are under the illusion that they are more interested in your personal needs and desires - only naïveté will lead down that path. California contains 38 million people. How responsive do you think the California state government is and/or can be to the individual needs of their residents? I would prefer nobody tell me how to live my life, but that's not the way the world works.

When the US was founded, the population is estimated to have been 2.5 million people total. This is less than the current population of Chicago. We are now over 300 million. There is no longer any personal representation anywhere, except perhaps in small municipal or county government situations.

I do not believe in separatism, xenophobia, nepotism, bureaucracy or corruption. If you REALLY feel that these are the ideals that make America great, I'd prefer that you move somewhere else, and leave America to myself and others who love it.

I assume that is a rhetorical question, so I will answer it with one of my own: what has yours, mine, or ANY state government done to "fight the federal government" on the NSA surveillance issue? The answer is absolutely nothing.

I understand why states were originally somewhat autonomous, and I certainly understand the ideals behind limiting centralized government, but I am not an idealist, I am a realist and a pragmatist. At this point in our civilization the idea of the states limiting the centralization of our government is a sham. The state governments provide, in most cases, very little value at astronomical cost.

But you are okay with the politicians that make up your state legislature and executive branch deciding for you how to live? If you think the people who work in your state government have your best interest at heart, you are being rather shockingly naïve.

All Americans should have the same freedom to choose how they live their lives, regardless of which state they happen to live in. The dramatic variance in state law on a plethora of topics is burdensome to say the least, and in many cases abusive. Eradicating state governments would merely cause all of the philosophical groups who currently maintain a regional majority to live under laws that are decided (in theory, because democracy) by the national majority. This is how all philosophical (usually cultural) minority groups live right now.

State governments are largely redundant at this point. They are also largely inefficient, ineffective, and corrupt (yes, even in comparison to the federal government, cue the jokes). If it was feasible to do, I would strongly advocate complete removal of state governments.

What advantage does a fragmented government have over a centralized national government? It does not, in practice, seem to reduce corruption, efficiency, or tyranny. The primary thing that this structure effectively maintains is cultural homogeneity in particular areas, which, to me, is not a positive thing.

It's like the poker adage - if you can't spot this fish at the table...

And some scientists believe that we have been drawn much closer to extinction that one might think. Our close relatives the Neanderthal and Denisovan were not so lucky.

The existence of a historical Arthur is somewhat contentious. The existence of a historical Jesus is significantly less so, but otherwise the comparison is workable.

Neither person can be aptly characterized as "mythical", however, unless you determine (or believe) that they did not actually exist. Many of their attributed deeds and characteristics are likely mythical, but this is not grounds to categorize the person themselves as mythical.

Unfortunately, speciation is not as simple as you make it out to be. The fact that two animals cannot breed does not necessarily mean they are different species, and the fact that two animals CAN breed does not necessarily mean they are the same species.

I agree with globaljustin that in many cases those who seek to defend the elegant, transcendent concept of evolution against the slavering masses of religious extremists all too often stoop to the level of their opponents, using anecdote, exaggeration and condescension, which is a problem.

For useful definitions of "prove", this is accurate, but YEC's often prefer non-useful definitions. One popular reality-bending theory is that God created the 'light streams' emanating from the galaxies that you mention in transit, which gives us the illusion that the universe is old.

When your priorities lean heavily towards preparing for an afterlife, the observable reality of this life takes a back seat. This seems to be a strong psychological driver of religious belief, allowing humans to escape from the terrors and hardship of the world.

For the layman, the concept of evolution is certainly not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof - this is the source of the "controversy". A layman who believes in the overarching theory of evolution, as presented by relative consensus among the scientific community, places his faith in this consensus.

The theory of gravity, on the other hand, is immediately and easily observable as "stuff falls down". The layman has no need to believe in any of the details of the theory, because the manner of it's workings are of little importance, and do not conflict with his religious beliefs.

As Biosci777 stated, selection itself is not controversial for the layman, because he can observe it happening first-hand in dogs, cows, horses, or whatever. The mechanism of selection, and the process and timeline of it might be controversial, if he believes that his god has told him that life began shortly before the pyramids were built, and that humans (and other life forms) were created instantly in their current form.

Like it or not, most people trust anecdotes from their own lives far more than they trust science.

Well, not to invalidate your point that Euro-bashing is not a useful endeavor, but the US as a whole shouldn't be compared to the best performing areas of Europe, just as Europe as a whole shouldn't be compared to the best-performing areas of the US. European education systems are not centralized, just as the education systems in the US are not. Each state is essentially responsible for the education of their own population, with some (seemingly token, in some cases) federal guidance and oversight.

This is why this particular study is interesting, because it compares the individual US states to the individual European (and worldwide) countries. These comparisons are useful.

However, the headline and summary are rather sensational. The "deep south" states referred to are the usual suspects: Louisiana, West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi. These particular states have pervasive problems impacting educational performance. They are somewhat economically depressed in general, and put very little emphasis on education. They also suffer from dramatic residential and educational economic segregation. The very poor in these states essentially all have their own schools, with minimal funding, that are little more than K-12 daycare centers, while the rich (and/or middle class) have their own schools which perform significantly better. If you look at specific school districts in metropolitan areas, you will notice peculiar boundaries in some cases, akin to gerrymandering. Also, rural areas in these states often have terrible educational performance, correlating with the abject poverty common in large swaths of these states.

If the US had not become so vested in automobiles and the infrastructure to support them, the country would likely be more urbanized, with public transportation a must. As it is, 82% of the US population lives in cities or suburbs. Without cars and interstates, that number would likely be higher, and the suburban sprawl that developed over the last 75 years or so would have been dramatically reduced.

As I said, it's a pipe dream at this point, but if certain decisions had been made differently in the mid-20th century, the transportation landscape of the US would be dramatically different.

Yes, I'm sure their arms were twisted.

Suicide is generally caused by mental illness. Whether you characterize it as cowardice or not is a philosophical distinction, but portraying the "cowardly act" of a mentally ill person as a correctable character flaw vs. an illness that needs medical attention is unproductive.

The issue could be framed equally usefully as "Public transportation could cripple law enforcement budgets". How silly.

The EV movement makes me somewhat sad, because we already have a solution for the "encourage people to use less gas" problem - public transportation. I would wager a significant portion of people would never drive if they had access to a functional public transportation system.

The problem in the US is that everything is so spread out public transportation is difficult and expensive to implement, and the infrastructure that we do have is geared around a massive fleet of personal vehicles. I almost wish the interstate highway system had never been implemented, because by now we would have reasonable public transportation instead.

At this point it's probably a pipe dream.