Smelling The Coffee: 2010

The violence in Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants was, in fact, extremely bloody and extremely common until very recently.American media isn't very good with anything that doesn't directly concern Americans. They'll cover Britney Spears shaving her head for a solid week, but you'll be lucky if you get more than 10 minutes in a month devoted to genocide in Darfur, or terrorist revolutionaries in South America.It's not just Fox. It's what passes for "journalism" in America today - Fox is just one of the worst for manufacturing extreme and blatant bias in their coverage and talk shows. It's all about ratings, not importance. You should know that. Outlawing all religion is no different from outlawing all but one religion.And communism by itself does not require the banning of religion. The most prevalent communist countries did it to increase the influence of the state and diminish outside loyalties, but communism is simply a form of economics. The totalitarian aspects are not necessary components; one could in principle have a democratic communist state with full freedom of religion. We just haven't seen a nation like that appear yet, because totalitarianism is tempting for revolutionary leaders. power corrupts, and all that. That's a pretty funny statement. The fact is, most people are very good at persecuting anything that deviates from the majority. It's basic tribalism - "you're not one of us." Religion just functions to give divine approval for the persecution, whether the persecutors are Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, Catholics, or anything else.Anyone who lives in a region where their own beliefs represent a minority that is opposed to the majority is likely to be persecuted in some way. The extremity of the persecution depends less on the specific belief system and more on the people. Fundamentalist Christians have been more than willing to participate in "fag drags" and other such monstrous acts, as well as the highly-fundamentalist Militia movement that spawned Timothy McVeigh.Psychopaths like McVeigh and bin Laden exist in nearly every belief system. They just use the religious wrappings to increase their numbers and support. If bin Laden were a Christian, he'd probably be one of the assholes suggesting the US should just nuke Mecca. And throw all the infidels into the lake of fire. How nice - peace through the murder and eternal torture of all dissidents.Perhaps the route to peace comes instead from recognizing that we're never all going to agree on everything, and that we should just accept that and live and let live. You know, maybe show just a little respect to others.For instance, Buz, I think you're a pretty giant asshole for some of your beliefs, but I respect you enough to recognize your right to have beliefs that I find despicable. And all I ask is the same in return. You and I haven't tried to blow each other up lately. Maybe if everyone in the world thought just a little more on those lines, of tolerance (even if grudging) rather than violence and hatred, we'd be in less of a mess.

The extremist fundamentalist Christian who recently murdered an abortion doctor outside of a church comes to mind.

That "one nutcase" is just the most recent and most publicised. See here. Shootings, assassinations, bombings, arson, threats, and even anthrax have been used in the undeniably Christian terrorist opposition to abortion. It's very plainly not just "one nutcase," but rather an entire movement.That also wasn't the only example raised. The Irish conflict between Protestants and Catholics was carried out using terrorism.Further, Islamic terrorism is (thankfully) only represented by an extremist minority of Muslims. If a majority of the Muslim population decided that violence were a good idea, we'd be in serious trouble - there are about 1.5 billion Muslims, after all.If you want to get down to the basic tenets of the faiths, Christianity and Islam both include instruction that we find reprehensible in the West. Christians no longer stone their rebellious children, or adulterers. Gays are no longer persecuted by law, blacks are no longer considered to suffer from the "curse of Ham," etc.The determining factor between a religion-crazed homicidal zealot and a devoted follower of a faith who is still able to function in a society with people of different faiths is still the person, not the instructions of the religion. The anti-abortion terrorists have decided that murdering doctors saves the lives and souls of many more. Islamic terrorists have decided that Western decadence is a threat to the moral fiber of humanity, and that violence is an acceptable means of combating it. Fortunately the vast majority of both Christians and Muslims don't believe that violence is the answer.Don't forget, Bush Jr. believed that invading Iraq was a mandate from God. He most definitely qualifies as a violent fundamentalist aggressor - it's the American equivalent of Iran invading Israel because Amediniwhatsit thinks Allah told him to. That's a laugh, Buz. Secularism and Atheism don;t even have any dictates to encourage violence. Or nonviolence. Or anything else, since there are no dictates whatsoever - atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. And China isn't an Atheist nation. Represented by an extreme minority of Muslims. Except for the Christians who actively desire the initiation of open and possibly nuclear warfare in the holy land. And the fundies who think we should just "rape the planet" (to use Ann Coulter's words) because Jesus is coming soon anyway. Read more about the founding fathers, Buz. Jefferson and others were hardly fundamentalist Christians - you'd run them right out of your church. Remember, Jefferson published a version of the Bible with all of the "magic" removed. Freedom of speech does not mean that speech expressed freely cannot be harmful or wrong, Buz. Some of the groups Granny mentioned are actifely fomenting violence and hatred. You bring up the Black Panthers, but Granny is talking about the modern militia movement. These are the crazt fundamentalist anti-government reactionary loons that include Timothy McVeigh, the OK City bomber. Their hatred and readiness to commit violent acts threatens a peaceful and just world. They also owned slaves, Buz. The Foundign Fathers were not gods. They weren;t perfect. And they weren;t a monolithic group that always agreed, either.But let's draw your attention to the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the US Congress in 1797:

quote:

---

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

---

Next, let me point out the actual-factual words of Thomas Jefferson himself, one of the very Founding Fathers you pretend were fundamentalist Christians:

quote:

---

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

---

Clearly, the Founders did intend a barrier between church and state, to protect both the state and all religions from each other's influence. It's ironic - the separation of church and state is what guarantees that your church can never be outlawed by the state, that your kids will never have to pray to Allah in school. Yet you pretend it;s a bad thing because it also prevents you from using government authority to force your beliefs onto everybody else. What did Lincoln have to do with McCarthy?And of course Lincoln was a Republican. The Republicans were the liberal party of the time - they shifted to the right some time later. Things change over time, Buz. And Ann Coulter says we should convert all Muslims to Christianity and kill the rest. You're boring me, Buz. Opposition to forcing Christian beliefs into public classrooms attended by non-Christian children is hate speech?I love Christian claims of hate speech. Every time they get stopped from breaching other people's rights, they screech about how it's actually their rights that have been violated, as if Christians have some right to teach their Creationist hubbidyboo to my kids in a public school.Preventing Group A from oppressing Group B is not oppression of Group A, Buz. Even if you're a member of Group A. Uganda is also about to institute a new law that would make the first count of homosexual activity punishable by life in prison, with the second count carrying the death penalty. Being infected with HIV/AIDS would also be considered a violation of homosexual activity (regardless of the fact that it spreads just fine through heterosexual populations) and carry the death penalty as well. This law was encouraged by American Congressmen who are members of "The Family," a conservative fundamentalist Christian organization.That has nothing to do with any civil war. It's just Christians actually seeking to execute those whom they consider to be "abominations before God." With legal authority. This, of course, is what happens when you don;t have a separation between church and state.

Roving bands of Gay Banditos, actually.

Lack of technology isn't the reason direct democracy was avoided at all.TO paraphrase Benjamin Franklin:"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting for what's for dinner."

I notice that you completely ignore the rest of my post, where I mention the reason direct democracy should be avoided. Do you enjoy being dishonest?Direct democracy results in tyranny of the majority over the minority. As Benjamin Franklin said, it's just two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner - "majority rules" without restriction results in the horrific oppression of minorities. Travesties like the death penalty for homosexual activity, or "separate but equal" laws for blacks are possible under direct democracy, but at least have significant hurdles in a Representative Constitutional Republic.Beyond that, do you really think that every Tom, Dick, and Harry has the time, attention span, and intelligence to deal with voting on everything that the legislature normally does? Really? Imagine a debate over a bill where 300,000,000 people get to have their say. The technology for voting exists (debatable - we can't seem to get electronic voting down yet, either - American Idol and social networking votes are not held to the same degree of accuracy and accountability as an actual legislature, for reasons that should be blatantly obvious if you have more than a dozen neurons in your cranial cavity), but the ability to get anything done with that many voices and votes does not, unless you have a time machine stashed away somewhere.Direct democracy sounds nice, but like Communism, it just doesn't work in the real world.

The Bible mean Christianity, which is itself a specific religion. Are you retarded? "Freedom of religion" does not equate to "you can worship Jesus however you want to."

Personally...I don't think a representative Republic is a bad idea from teh start. Honestly, Joe on the street, whether intellectually capable of forming an opinion or not, simply cannot have the time to participate in a meaningful way to the legislative process and still go about his life. Sure, COngress takes plenty of vacations and isn't always in session. But really, even they don;t individually read through every bill - tghey have staff members summarize extremely complex legislation for them so that they can understand it all more quickly. How many days can every citizen take off from work to focus on the issues? There's a reason our news is filtered down to us in the form of soundbytes,with major stories taking less than 10 minutes. We just don;t have the time, or the attention spans. Participating in government is a full-time (or a LEAST a part-time) job in and of itself.Oni's issues seem to stem from the fact that a financial elite tend to retain full control, and the everyman is given only a token representation if that in exchange for votes. I think the problem stems from a few factors:1) term limits. Granted, we do sometimes have representatives that do a decent job, and are worth retaining. The experience in legislature that is gained by serving multiple terms is also valuable. But allowing representatives to become career politicians carries its own dangers.2) the two-party system. Even among those who identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans, how many can actually say that they are well-represented by their party? The fact is, American politics has become more about voting against the other guy (when we vote at all) than voting for a candidate you like. Obama is the closest I've seen to a politician that I like, and he's still a loooong way off. The two-party system means that minority parties and views typically get no representation at all in teh political process. I know some other countries (the Brits?) have something more percentage based - if party A get's 1/10 of the vote, B gets 3/10, and C gets 6/10, then party A gets 1 representative, B gets 3, and C gets 6. THis allows minority views to have a voice in the process, while still allowing representation based on the will of the majority.3) campaign financing. How much of our political process is dictated by campaigns? The fact is, you can't be a poor man and win the Presidency. More, you can't get elected without courting the wealthy elite and big business. Basically, the ability of a person to get elected is dependant entirely on money, to the detriment of message, and this makes our representatives far more beholden to financial benefactors than to the actual people. I think campaigns should be exclusively financed through a public pool (if you want to donate, it all goes in teh same pot and every candidate gets an equal share, no privatre spending allowed). I'd also support the FCC making rules that force media companies (TV, radio) to allow specific amounts of time at reasonable timeslots for political campaigns. No more getting bombarded with ads for candidate A while candidate B can't afford it.THis is a big one. Campaign donations are like the fuel that drive our politics, far more than public opinion.4) Lobbyists. Yes, it's important for our representatives to receive information from the industries and groups they're representing. We don't want members of the committee that regulates internet legislation comparing the web to a dump truck, when it's really like a series of tubes.But really, lobbyists are the way that wealthy special interests and businesses take the ears of our representatives while the actual citizenry writes letters that are never read. Why should the health care industry, who has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo or forcing silly things like mandatory self-paid health insurance, be listened to when almost everyone agrees that the health care industry as it is today is fundamentally broken and wrong?Omni Consumer Products doesn't deserve more direct access to the legislature than the citizenry. This is the most basic point at which we can say that the system is broken. OCP doesn't even have the ability to vote, but it has more influence on our representatives than we do. They can get Congress to approve the purchase of 1000 ED-209's, even if the military says they're useless and the public thinks they're dangerous, just because they can influence the politicians directly.Basically, I just don't think that direct democracy can feasibly work, even assuming the technical challenges of secure universal voting were solved tomorrow. I do, however, think that relatively small changes in the way we do business can have major effects, and that we can increase public representation while downplaying corporate/elite ownership of the country.

And I agree with that - I even mentioned that the experience gained by serving multiple terms is definitely a benefit.But I'm looking at the reality of legislative representation. I don't like "mavericks." I like the representation of teh people. I think that a very good argument can be made for both sides of this sub-issue. My concern is the establishment of an ivory tower of sorts, where politicians become more and more isolated from their constituents. We know perfectly well that many elections are carried out by name recognition only. I also don't like the idea of career politicians - I want my representatives to serve because they want to serve, not because they want to build a position of power and wealth. I don't want money to be an incentive for politicians at all - I want them doing what they believe is best for the country, and I want us to elect the representatives whose idea of "best" is closest to ours.But I completely understand that experience carries a great cdeal of value. The workings of Congress aren't something you can pick up in a week. I'm jsut not certain where the best value lies.As an aside - I'd also like to see a harsh penalty for lying in Congress. There's already a legal penalty for lying to Congress - I'd really like our representatives to be held accountable for making statements that are objectively false (as opposed to differing matters of opinion).And I don;t mean just being booted from office. When dealing with a representative who repeatedly makes statements he/she knows or reasonably should have known are false, I mean jail time. Our elected representatives should be held to a very high standard for honestly debating the issues that we, as a nation, need them to make decisions on. The job is too important for anything less.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Part of the problem is that the American media refuses to challenge anything that's said. There's precious little fact checking, and almost never is anyone called out for making outright lies.CNN/Fox/MSNBC all draw our attention to the important issues of the day, but they don't equip the general public to understand them. The typical tactic is to invite two guests (one for each "side" of an issue, as if everything can be boiled down to a binary choice of who's right)and then let them both talk. This sounds well and good, except the guests are never held to any standard of debate. They aren;t required to tell the truth, and the host won't fact-check anything. They jsut bicker back and forth, and in the end the public is no more informed than they were at the start - and in fact their opinion is driven more by which guest they "liked" better, as opposed to making a judgment based on facts.It's not just about the media being the mouthpiece of big business. The media itself is big business. Their incentive is not only to keep their advertisers happy, but also to get ratings. This means that "news" is now simply one more form of entertainment.I rely far more on various internet fact-checking sites and the BBC for my news. The American media is little better than the Enquirer.

Only because the sizes of governed communities has griown fromcity-states into continent-spaning nations, but yes.Unfortunately the technology is only close. Just because we can get votes from all over the country for American Idol doesn;t mean we can support the secure voting necessary for national elections. Have you not heard of all of the issues we've been having with electronic voting machines here in the states? They've been notoriously easy to hack, have registered votes other than what the voter intended, ec - and they aren't even remotely as effective as what your system requires. You;re suggesting we should leverage the power of cell phones, the itnernet, TV, etc to make voting universally available for virtually every subject.When discussing only the technology (and not direct democracy itself), we're a long way off. Cell phones and itnernet access feel omnipresent to us...but they are not. Voting needs to be freely available to everyon, including those without phone or web access. The only way to do this is with centralized voting locations, just like we use right now...except those locations are not dedicated polling buildings. They're temporarily repurposed libraries, churches, schools, etc. If we're to vote on every issue, we'll need the polling locations to be permanent.Further, we'll need them to be larger and/or more numerous. Voting is currently a chore due to lines. If we're going to be discussing and voting on issues on a daily basis (which we'll need to do without representatives dedicated to the purpose), it needs to be available enough that it doesn;t interfere with our lives too much, lest the country crumble because nobody does anything other than vote.Security is a major issue. Yes, transmission of the vote can be pretty secure with SSL encryption and the like. But the actual vote is still subject to fraud. How do you make that work? A passcode for every citizen? That can be stolen, and requires significant overhead in equipment and manpower to maintain. Biometrics? What happens if you're injured and a retina scan/fingerprint/voice analysis will no longer be accurate?Even right now we have significant concerns over vote fraud and even just simply voting mistakes. These aren't small issues. You can;t just say "we have the technology" and consider it easy, or even possible. We have the technology to make a power plant that runs on nuclear fusion...that doesn't mean we've been able to get it to work for practical purposes.Deirect democracy requires,speaking only of technological concerns:1) Universal availability. Perhaps a blend of phone, internet, and voting machines in designated polling locations, sufficient to support voting on a variety of issues on a very frequent basis.2) Universal information distribution. It will be necessary to include even those who are destitute in teh political and debate process. This means providing media access (forums, televised debates, webmeetings, however it's done) in centralized locations in addition to web/phone/TV based access.3) Security. Again, transmission encryption is pretty decent, but that doesn't mean vote fraud is suddenly impossible. Especially when you're talking about massively distributed voting methods for very frequent votes (ensuring that recount availability will be rare, and paper trails will be impossible). You'll need some way of ensuring t oat least a reasonable degree that everyone gets one vote only, and everyone gets a vote. You can't just allow one voter per phone number - I have two phones myself, and special interest bodies could literally manufacture votes simply by purchasing additional phone lines. Some families will share a single number with different numbers of eligible voters. The same is true of IP addresses and computers. You can bypass this by using a personal identification number, like the social security number or another passcode, but this requires significant overhead to run, and is still very subject to fraud (you could automate random-SSN dialing processes that vote a certain way on a given issue, for example). We currently check IDs, verify addresses, etc. to combat voting fraud, and it;'s still a concern. Imagine trying to expand that to universal voting on every issue.The technical hurdles are not small, and despite "having the technology," it still may not be feasible to impliment in practical reality. Nobody discounts the self-evidence value of being able to directly represent one's own interest in government. The point of all democratic governments (including representative republics) is to try to give every citizen representation.The problem is that it also carries significant drawbacks, which you are ignoring.Let's make a few simple examples here:The question of how to legally regulate internet traffic is brought up. This requires a minimum baseline knowledge in how the internet actually works, knowledge the average citizen does not have (and in some cases cannot easily understand). This can lead to laws regarding the internet that are technically impossible to implement, simply because the majority vote includes too many people who have insufficient knowledge about the topic they're voting on. This is a subject that cannot be taught in a matter of hours to every person in the country. More time is unavailable, because there are more issues to vote on, and because after basic instruction the topic of regulation still needs to be debated in the first place.The topic of building standards comes up. The average person is neither a structural engineer nor an architect. This is not a field that can be easily taught in a short amount of time. Any majority vote will be made primarily by people with no knowledge of how to reinforce a building against earthquakes or hurricanes, minimum fire safety or load bearing ability.You can combat these sorts of problems (which admittedly exist in our own system as well - except that, since our legislators establish committees dedicated to various subjects and are dedicated to full-time legislative duties instead of being part-time voters with normal lives and jobs, and so can spend more time becoming familiar with the subjects they must write legislation for) by forming committees of field experts, and voting on the legislation those committees draft. But then you're still setting up representatives instead of direct democracy, and the final vote will still be made by people who do not and cannot understand what they're voting on.Are you qualified to vote on banking regulation? Do you understand financial systems to a sufficient degree that your opinion is worth more than the random guess of a high school student? A third grader? The flip of a coin?What about classified issues? You cannot vote on funding a new super-secret spy plane, for example, without making its existence fully public knowledge, and thus available to other nations including our potential enemies in any conflict.Representation in government is a constant struggle to find a balance between sufficient competency on the subjects being decided, and full representation. Representative republics (and parliamentary systems, etc) seek to elect representatives who will vote how their constituents would vote if their constituents had all the facts available. It's a shoddy compromise, but the alternatives (direct democracy, straight-up plutocracy, etc) are worse.