Last Updated: Oct 19,2012
You love to plaster the entire populace with your own opinions.
this opinion happens to be correct.....
A) the feds are generally never held accountable
B) most people do have a deep mistrust of the feds
C) that mistrust is well founded
those 3 things really arent opinion as much as facts known by all
not to mention it also happens to concern things that are his own business....... hes not busy interjecting his opinion into the business of others where its unwanted and disliked....... I can however think of someone who does do that
It's not really my opinion. It's a fact. Ask people in the US who they trust more the government or a corporation? The corporation will win.
Recent poll shows 19% of Americans trust the feds - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/28/cnn-poll-trust-in-government-at-all-time-low/. The all time high is near 40%. On the other hand, Americans trust in corporations waning as well, but it's around 30-40% at present depending on what poll you look at it. It's higher than trust in the feds for sure.
I will add to my comments that it seems to me that Europe is the complete opposite of the US. Here in the US we read stories about people wanting their houses blurred on Google Maps and are amused. It doesn't make any sense at all that people would care if a corporation has that information. I can drive down the street and see your house. Why does it matter if Google has this information?
I recall the many dozens of stories about private companies having issues with keeping our data safe, so do not be so proud of the private sector. Not sure the government is all that bad at the task. They are simply huge and that breeds inefficiency.
If anything, the move to on-line banking, Internet shopping and the like is one of the reasons our data gets loose in the first place. You would be amazed at the hoops you must jump through to get certain kinds of private data from the government.
I lost my social security card and my driver's license. It took three days of concerted effort to replace my SS card and my DL. If it were done by a private company, chances are, I could have done it from my smart phone from Denny's while waiting for my eggs and waffles.
It took so much time because the government wants to make sure I am who I say I am. It is not a efficiency issue, it is a privacy and protection issue.
I trust the government to build roads, protect my home and property and country. But I trust Visa to clear up any billing issues immediately. I trust Apple to replace my iPad if I drop it and I trust Sears to deliver a quality product and install it. If the government were in charge, we might still be waiting for the iPad to arrive.
And only after an EPA Environmental Impact Statement was filed in quad-triplicate with 46 different agencies.
The government does many things well. I trust the government to deliver my mail all over the place for a reasonable charge. I know my mail will almost always arrive. As soon as UPS/FedEx starts to deliver the mail, I'll pay a buck per postage stamp and the mail might not arrive any sooner.
I trust HBO to deliver quality programming to my TV. If the government were to do it, it would take months and endless forms just to clear someone to load the film.
The government cannot do many things well and I think it would be best if private concerns did some things the government screws up. That said, there are many things I do not want any private company involved with.
Blame yourselves for the government we have because it is we the people that created the monster in the first place. And BTW, it is We The People that can decide enough is enough and make changes. Just as long as it can be done online and between episodes of Keeping Up With The Kardashians and The Justin Bieber Hour.
Not sure I can agree or disagree with you. I can see that 1947 Indian Chief in your back yard and it just so happens, I need parts. I do not see a problem with Google Maps; I see opportunity.
I guess it boils down to one more little bit on info about you is out there on the web and if Google is allowed to roam free, where does it stop? Suppose Google photographed your house in such a way that we could see inside the windows? I can see that from the street, too.
I bet someday, Google launches a satellite that gives us real time video of what is happening in the country. That would be uber cool, but scary. I could see when your house is clear of people and break in.
I can see where the bushes are around your house so that might make it easy to break in undetected. By the way, you really need to trim your plum tree, it is a tad messy.
I do think with every passing day, smart computers gather a little more personal info and make it available to anyone who needs it. For better or worse, our private lives are open, available and some of the tihngs one can do amazes and shocks even me.
Perhaps demanding that Google blurs our homes is a good thing because if millions of us made the request, Google might decide to slow things down a bit. They are not about to make changes until it costs them money not to make changes.
The reason we give companies our info is because we have no choice unless we want to live in a shack in the desert like the Unabomber, not because we trust them. At least the government is accountable to the voters, if you can get enough people to pay attention.
One change that could be made to lobbying is to forbid politicians and their staff from becoming lobbyists when they leave office. For too many of these scumbags public office is just a stepping stone to a gravy train lobbying job.
Think privacy is bad now? Wait till every police department and government entity has their very own drones flying around. It's going to happen sooner than many think.
I seem to recall a move to private drones for things like inspections, crop pest control, seeing Paris Hilton naked and the like. Some peole really want them. Not sure why, we had R/C planes when I was a kid.
Apparently, the FAA sees no problem with it. Not sure about any details because Bob is foggy this day.
I do not like the idea because there must me imposed limits and when you do that, people scream freedom of speech and Obama after he is elected will want to run for king, so every family will be given a drone credit.
Or I could be wrong.
I do not like the idea, no sir, I do not like it one darn diggedy bit, I'll tell you what.
Then again, perhaps it should be allowed. And after a drone brings down a commercial airliner killing all 1,200 on board, we will see the folly.
So pray tell . . . who are you thinking of? Does his name rhyme with Blush Scrimshaw? Yup, that's it, you hate Rush. Thought so. Dag nabbit, I thought I set everyone right. I'll try harder.
And so does Rush. Rock on, Geddy.
All of that stuff is public information though. You just drive by my house and you can see where my bushes are. If I've got my blinds open you can see what's inside. You're not violating any laws by doing so. I can't have you arrested for driving by my house unless you're violating some sort of restraining order or something.
Might depend on how you ask, who you ask, and how you ask who it was you asked. Lots of ways to get the poll results you need if you are careful and clever and you pick the right people to ask.
My theory is all polls are questionable and have always been so because the truth is not always the goal. Furthering an agenda is what the pollster is after. But I am jaded, so there you go.
I could have asked the same group a different set of questions with a different result. I can garner support for Romney from Obama supporters who hate Republicans if I frame my queries with great care.
I can "prove" that crime rates by blacks have increased in white neighborhoods where the black population has actually declined, if my facts are carefully worded and my goal is to create an all-white neighborhood and racial hatred. And I do not need to lie, just carefully structure my questions.
Not saying you are incorrect, A.Nonymous. I just find it harder to trust people, especially on the web. Again, not you, Anon.
I do think I can still trust the dog. The cat, well, I never know what it is up to so I just attend to his satanic needs, wishes, desires and demands and hope he does not suck out my soul when I fall asleep.
Cats have that power, you know? He also drinks my single malt. Not like Kalimazoo, the cat from Della and the Dealer, who drinks Rye.
Unless you want to press the issue, then what I might consider public is actually private. I am not sure what goes on inside your house is considered public information just because I can see it from the street.
Just seeing your house is one thng and lingering outside is probably different.
I do know your local authorities will likely make you stop making love to your wife if the kids can watch the vulgar acrobatics from your window. Unless you live in a hip and cool hood.
Not sure porn on your 80 inch TV will be considered private and therefore, only your business if one can watch from the street. But I do not really know the laws in your area. There might be public nuisance laws on the books.
I know in my area, they will not let me hunt low flying ducks from my roof with my Remington because they are narrow minded duck huggers.
For the record, please enjoy your movies and your wife's company, for it is not my business and I am not a prude.
I know what you're saying and I agree with you to a certain extent. But there's a slight difference here that's extremely important. If you decide to open your curtains and walk around naked, that would, in some places, be called indecent exposure. Your neighbors couldn't really be accused of being peeping toms though. If you've got the curtains open, you can't really complain that I can see you can you? I can complain about what I see, but can your really complain that I can see you.
The front of your house is public information. It's publicly displayed for all the world to see.
Perhaps a first step is to prohibit the politicians in office from being paid lobbyist.:hmpf:
What a radical idea lol.
I know, I suspect I'll be declared a threat to the established order and an enemy combatant.:afraid:
Anyway we can keep the politicians hands off redistricting ? Arizona voters are making an attempt, but the politicians are determined to select their voters, rather than the voters selecting their politicians.
Lawmakers Pledge to Reform, But Gerrymandering Keeps Getting Worse - The Daily Beast
"In Arizona, an independent redistricting commission was mandated by a citizen-backed ballot initiative. That didn’t stop Governor Jan Brewer from trying to keep the independent commission for coming back with redistricting maps that “elevated competitiveness over other goals” – namely the goal of giving Republicans disproportionate power in the state.
Her power grab was backed by partisan cronies in the state legislature but overturned by the decidedly less self-interested state Supreme Court.
Undaunted by decency, the state senate is still trying to reverse the voters’ will by eliminating the independent commission."
I've mentioned this somewhere around here before, but we have the same problem in Ohio. This is a big reason why the country is so divided. With the districts pretty much sewn up for each party, the only thing contested is the primaries. Only the most hard core vote in primaries, so both parties have to pander to the fringes. This doesn't get a lot of attention, but it is a major problem.
Unfortunately in Ohio our Supreme Court is elected and just as partisan and self serving as anyone.
Proportional Representation. That's what you need.
I'm not entirely clear how that system works. Currently states are divided up into various districts. People go to the polls and vote for representatives from that district to go off to Congress. The problem is that politicians like to re-draw those districts so that they favor their particular party. I'm unsure how Proportional Representation fixes this. People would still go to the polls and vote for particular representatives would they not?
Proportional representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proportional Representation is more a set of systems rather than a system.
The idea is that the amount of votes correlate to the amount of representation.
In your first-past-the-post system (Which is common in many elections), one party can get 40% of the vote in every district, the other 60%, and the party which got 40% will get zero seats.
In proportional representation, the 40% party will get around 40%, the 60% party around 60%. How?
In Europe, all voting for the European Parliament has to be proportional. In the Netherlands, there is a national list where voters pick preferred candidates.
In Ireland, we have constituencies of 3/4 seats for Europarl, and 3-5 for the state parliament (D
I wonder how you could implement a system like that easily. Currently every state has 2 senators. How do you actually vote for those guys and how do you allocate those senators based on that vote? I get the idea, it's the implementation I don't get.
More applicable to HR, as only a few states have only 1 HR seat.
Even if applied to just the HR I'm not sure that it would really change things and I'm still not sure how it would be implemented. Let's say there are 5 seats. How exactly does the voting for that work? If you put the candidates 1-5, then those who favor party A are going to list all their candidates first and party B theirs. I'm not sure that the outcome will really be all that different. Most states will likely end up with a 60/40 split or close to it. Would the makeup of Congress at the end of the day be all that different?
Separate names with a comma.