That was troll-tastic.
That was troll-tastic.
While I agree the election process must be reformed, I think the big problem with the Constitution is the structure of our government as a whole. We need a new type of legislature (the Senate doesn't exist for any reason in its current form and the House is full of dunces beholden to various interests). We also need to accept that we live in a unitary and take education expenses to the national level. It's not right that the quality of education receives is dependent on where they live.
Overall, though, I'd want for a new constitution to be as limited in scope as possible. To account for the unaccountable, though, there should probably be some provision for drafting a new constitution every one hundred years.
Allowing the terrorists to shock and scare the population is doing exactly what the terrorists want... so why do they do it?
This is a question more people ought to be asking. The answers are probably unsettling. One could argue that the media, the government, and even large swaths of the population want the threat of terrorist. The media wants your attention, the government wants you afraid and submissive, and a lot of people just want someone like Emmanuel Goldstein to hate. Then there's the military industrial complex, tech companies that sell the NSA hordes of servers, fundamentalist Christians who get off on the idea of a modern Crusade, etc.
A government that believes in, upholds, and understands the constitution.. A 180 from what we have atm.
The Constitution hasn't mattered since the Civil War. What a court declares as "Constitutional" matters far more than anything else. At some point we as a nation need to accept that the Constitution is outdated and ill-suited to function as the blueprint of our government. We're a Federalist nation in name only as the Federal government uses the Commerce Clause excuse anytime it wants to intercede in something or they just stick and carrot states with federal funds when that's more convenient.
Back to the original point, the checks and balances that are worked into the Constitution also do a poor job of actually providing checks and balances in our bi-partisan environment. Check and balances have just become partisan tools both parties use to attack the other when they can get away with it. When it comes to protecting citizen's rights, both parties seem to agree that doing so isn't in their best interests, so various federal bureaus and agencies are permitted to do as they see fit. In essence, Constitution or no Constitution, no one watches the watchmen. Romanticizing the Constitution is detrimental to our rights as it feeds into the lies and illusions the government wants to distract us with.
It's hard to image that a company that collects so much data could really be caught that off guard. Sure, there might be a strange situation, like a modern Woodstock where thousands of people suddenly descend upon a low populated area for a weekend, but those situations are rare. For the most part, carriers know how much bandwidth they need where and they have the data necessary to predict most changes in the near future. If they're unable to do this then they're just bad at statistics, which is pretty inexcusable.
In today's global economy you can't just threaten to cut off trade with anyone. If China wants to trade with Iran then there is nothing Trump can do to stop it. The same goes for Canada or Mexico and half of Europe and East Asia. Cutting of trade to those countries hurts us just as much as them. You seem to share Trump's dangerous view of the world where everyone is subordinate to the U.S. while we don't depend on anyone.
On the other hand, a privacy zealot/encryption fan stands out like a sore thumb without raising the give-a-shit factor, potentially painting a target on your back.
That's precisely why you should encrypt. If there are too many "targets" out there then it becomes an ineffective targeting system. It's like a movie with too many red herrings.
The Investigatory Powers Act is world-leading legislation, that provides unprecedented transparency and substantial privacy protection.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
The problem with your post, much like Trump's rhetoric, is that it paints in very broad strokes. You can't just will positive change. It requires a nuanced understanding of the political system along with the connections and staff to manipulate Washington.
Pointing out the over half of people are on the brink of poverty as a way of insinuating that it's somehow Obama's fault and Hilary will maintain the status quo is disingenuous, at best. It wasn't as if things were any different eight years ago. Income disparity has been a growing issue in this country for many decades.
Trump's "make changes" proposals are all either extremely vague (make America great!) or untenable (mass deportations and magic tax plans). Personally, I think staying the course, which I see as gradual improvement, is much better than derailing the whole thing. It seems likely that had we stayed the course after Bill Clinton's presidency by electing Al Gore then we could have avoided a lot of the trouble caused by W.
Wikipedia is a real life Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Its organizational structure may be a bit chaotic and perhaps not as democratic as some think it should be, but in a couple thousand years it will probably be pretty difficult to make your way around the galaxy without it.
Regardless, all nonprofit organizations become "corporate bureaucracies" after a while once they start employing people. Once people make a career out of a nonprofit they will do whatever they can to sustain it because they want to stay employed. Mother's Against Drunk Driving is a good example of a nonprofit that persisted even after its original goals were attained because the people who ran the charity needed it to continue out of self interest. At least Wikipedia is a group whose work can never truly be finished.
I find it hard to believe that you have such a busy schedule that you can't take five minutes to download and fiddle around with a piece of free software yet you have plenty of time to post regularly on slashdot.
Furthermore, if it takes you more than an hour to figure out how to complete basic tasks in a word processor that uses UI metaphors that have been around since the eighties then I suspect your lack of free time comes not from your hyper productivity but from your inefficiency.
Sorry to be a bit snide, but you did just refer to me as a kid and a fanatic, on top of insinuating that I lead an unproductive lifestyle, so I guess it's par for the course.
I understand why you're hesitant to try it out and see for yourself, being such a costly program and all.
I'm pretty sure prosecutors are allowed to do pretty much anything. ianal either, but I've read quite a bit about how few restrictions there are on prosecutorial misconduct. Attorney General is one of the offices of government which has no sufficient checks or balances. As far as I know there's no law against an AG using their prosecutorial power in a biased, selective, or abusive manner. Prosecutorial discretion is one of the greatest injustices in America but it's not an issue most people know or care about so it's not something politicians often bring up.
The short term isn't short term for the individual who is out of work and whose skills have become anachronistic.
Also, I question your assertion that technology never decreases jobs. I live in the rust belt and around here you don't have to look far to see jobs lost to automation. A lot of factories are making a comeback around here but they employ about 10% of what they used to, despite producing more goods. When there's a surplus of labor, as there is in the rust belt, labor becomes a cheap commodity. No person wants to be treated as a cheap commodity. An economic system that treats huge swaths of its population as cheap commodities isn't one I find to be particularly appealing. Justifying it with some Star Trek type of dream of unlimited goods and terraformed planets butts against the realities of limited resources and technological limitations.
Accusing anyone of being a luddite for not being a gung-ho supporter of the capitalist machine that tramples over so many in its pursuit of goods produced for the upper echelons of society is just silly. Things are more nuanced than that. The pursuit of a distributive justice system that benefits all members of society isn't incongruous with technological progress.
Ask five economists and you'll get five different explanations (six if one went to Harvard). -- Edgar R. Fiedler