It's not just a matter of "obscure related topics", as you put it, although you're quite right, obscurity will definitely matter in many cases. It's also an 'artifact of language' issue, where the various sides on an issue may use different names for the same topic. For example, it's become a widepsread tactic for the right wing to call the Democratic party the "Democrat Party" instead. Google for that phrase, and you will see an enquiry offering the user a chance to search for Democratic party instead and most of the initial links will come up with the name "corrected". Wikipedia uses a disambiguation page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_party to offer the searcher various choices for the same phrase. Note that a disambiguation page is an external way to try and fight bias (in this case, at least). It exists outside the articles, and has to be created separately where somebody thinks it's needed. So another good question is: Is the use of such disambiguation pages proof that articles aren't being corrected for initial bias internally, or just a second line of defense in the overall struggle to reduce bias?
          Interested readers might note that the disambiguation page explains in a fairly simple way that the phrase "Democrat party" is an epithet when used for the US party, but if the reader doesn't know what an epithet is and clicks that link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epithet they have to read through over a dozen paragraphs to find out that there is a contemporary usage of the term and that while Shakespeare and Homer used epithets without meaning to be insulting, abusive or derogatory, the modern useage is all of these things. So much for being unbiased.

Polling places are so close to where people live that buses aren't necessary.

Except when Republicans make them so far from Democrats that they are indeed too hard to reach. Like how you Republicans stole Ohio in 2004. Which is precisely why your Fox masters feed you BS like you just regurgitated: because that is your crime, that you blame on the victims.

Both the Drug War and all our foreign wars since December 1941 have violated the Constitution. The Constitution prevents the Federal government from running a military budget for longer than 2 years, requires Congress declares war, and even discourages a standing army in favor of a National Guard. We have never actually abided the Constitutional prescription for war. And we have been perpetually at war since we started the country with one. After a while we even gave up the formalities.

But we've been doing it so long now that the country might be running out of steam. Certainly the perpetual Drug War is harder every day to keep funding and fighting. The foreign wars too, since we've also lost every war we've started, minus a few exceptions that prove the rule, since we stopped declaring them.

We should insist on war declarations and a permanent end to civil wars like the Drug War. We should insist that deficits be voted only in the same terms that we declare war: to deal with a specific cause, as a last resort, and with a declared exit strategy before committing. Until we run the country like that, we'll stay screwed. These days seem like the best time to make that point enough that we actually act on it.

Madison's Constitutional system has lived for over 2 centuries, usually prospering more than any other contemporary or predecessor.

There's no other government system today that is older than Madison's Constitutional system, with the arguable exceptions of Egypt and China.

The US government is both closer to Madison's specified system and further from it in different ways, but overall this system is very long lived and stable. Even the features for modifying the system are remarkably rarely used.

The Diebold voting machines that Bush/Cheney used to steal 2000 and 2004 elections were supplied by Diebold, which was primarily an ATM supplier.

Both kinds of machines operated to protect Diebold's best interests. In the ATM case those interests coincided with the people using the machine. In the voting machine, not so much.

But the best part of democratic voting is securing the consent of the governed. Not because the polled public makes the best decisions, but because they had their say in the decision and the majority ruled. The rest of the system that gives people a chance to persuade the majority makes that consent a consensus.

Of course, that's the theory. In practice, so much bad government and politics has alienated a large minority of eligible voters, who don't vote. The rest are highly polarized when voting, even if not very polarized in disagreement about actual policies.

  The root of the problem with this system is the ease with which the powerful manipulate the voters through media that is bought and concocted to produce election results both specific in resulting policy, and general in overall ideology.

So yes, better communications among the people is the best solution to the real problems.

Our legislatures are designed to be re-publics: members of the public who represent the public at large. Representatives are supposed to be leaders who represent the people, but not necessarily their day to day whims. It's one reason why we don't have direct democracy, putting every vote to public ballot.

What would be good would be a poll before every vote, published before every vote. Then the rep voting however they best decided to represent the public's interest. Voting in the legislature against the result of the public poll would require explaining to the public how they were exercising leadership, and give undeniable facts to back their accountability in the next election. Political risks are all too rare, and the cowardice that avoids them in favor of "go along to get along" a strong root of why the public dislikes and distrusts politicians.

Nonbinding polls as a basis for comparison to the rep's track record would make for a very strong communication between the electorate and the elected. But I expect that if only one or a few reps do it, they'll be smothered in the herd mentality on the part of both the voters who reject their "disobeying the poll", and the other reps who don't poll so they can easily disobey their constituents and their best interests.

That's not a synthetic womb, it's an outsourced womb. The rest of the phases I itemized can all be automated. But the role of the womb seems to require a human for gestation.

No, not every aspect of their doctrine was fixated on eugenics and race. They killed millions of Catholics, homosexuals, communists, trade unionists and others, especially the extremely hybrid Gypsies, without regard to actual genetics. Hitler was not only not Aryan, but had Jewish ancestors - as did many if not most of the other Nazis pursuing genocide among other diabolical tyrannies.

Nazis cared about power. Race was a means to that end. Of course such means are part of the end, and Nazis did spend a lot of time on genocide and racist abuses and propaganda. But not because they actually cared about genetics as much as they cared about power.

Nationalism is properly defined simply as valuing one's nation extremely highly, typically devaluing any other nation to the extreme. A value that motivates competition with other nations that usually becomes violent, as there's no moral inhibition in harming "inferior" nations. The US is not at all alone in this, though its not usually as violent towards say France as it is towards say countries primarily inhabited by people who aren't White. You are correct in identifying some current US nationalism, but it goes even further: this week the Republican presidential candidate is embracing the rich idiot pushing the idea that the first Black president couldn't have been born in Hawaii, but must be a foreigner. Because that kind of racism is not just very popular in a large minority of Republicans, it's not rejected by the large majority of them. Obama must be Kenyan and inferior - nationalism in the service of racism. Not at all unique to the US.

Racism, nationalism and socialism are practiced more or less by many countries, and have been for centuries (and longer). They are not so simple as to be thrown around as if the Nazis define nationalism, racism, socialism, national socialism, or any other value system. The Nazis valued power above all, mainly the power to destroy as the power to control. They called themselves all kinds of things that they weren't, and all kinds of things they were that didn't really matter.

Most nationalist socialist governments have proven for generations they're not cataloging anyone for extermination. In fact they tend to be among the most accepting of diversity. And very specifically socialism is very different from fascism, even if they do have some configurations in common, like highly centralized government and economy . Nazis were the epitome of fascism, but called themselves socialists because socialism was popular and fascism wasn't.

The point is that if you're going to point out that genome sequencing is highly abusable by a government like the Nazis, just say "Nazis". Saying "nationalist socialists" just confuses the issue.

FFS, we still have rotary telephones!

LK