Two hundred and thirty-two years ago today, Thomas Jefferson announced the Americans’ future right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But people often forget the next part of the Declaration of Independence, where he states “that to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.
The term “consent of the governed,” unfortunately, was never defined. Does it mean that everybody has to agree to the government? Or that more than half of the people have to agree? Or just that the people have the right to get rid of a government if we want? Jefferson, of course, was insinuating a majority-rule democracy… but is that the only way to make it work?
As many of you already know, we don’t live in a truly democratic society. In a true democracy, there would be no President or Congress… every decision would be made by majority rule. There’s no way for us to make that work in such a big country, so we go for the closest thing we can: a representative democracy where we spend half of our time worrying about elections and the other half complaining about how our favorite candidate didn’t get elected. So, I thought about it… is there any other way?
Well, I couldn’t think of anything good. But I did think of an option that might work:
What if we just had official monthly approval ratings for our leaders? Instead of doing the usual elections, we could require everybody to take an hour every six months to decide whether or not they approve of the current President or congressman or mayor or governor. When the approval ratings drop below a given number (say, 40%), then it’s time for an election. If the people are happy with their leader, then we don’t need to waste time replacing him. That way, he won’t have to waste all of this time campaigning as long as he’s doing a goo ...
Have you been looking for a free service to convert text to mp3 well look no further. Vozme is a free online applicatoin that takes text from a browser or it can use quoted text and converts it to an mp3 file. The converted file can be added to your website or a web browser.
This homemade burger is made using fresh ground beef, pork and turkey then topped with a variety of toppings to make this a "burger with attitude" worthy of any Canada Day or Fourth of July celebrations!
The Pew Research Center, which always seems to come up with great surveys and statistics, recently asked people if they think that Barack Obama is Muslim. 10% of people said “yes”, which is obviously wrong. Do people think that Islam is an ethnicity and not a religion? Or do they think that anybody who lived in Indonesia is a Muslim? Well, it’s probably not the latter… because most Americans don’t even know that Indonesia is a Muslim country. So they must be basing their conclusions on faulty assumptions or random rumors… and if you look at the actual data, it’s even more convincing:
—The opinions are divided across party lines. 16% of conservative Republicans were skeptical of Obama’s beliefs, while only 5% of liberal Democrats felt the same way.
—16% of evangelical Protestants thought that Obama was Muslim, while only 7% of mainline Protestants agreed. However, neither group was much more likely than the other (50% vs. 59%, respectively) to believe that he’s Christian.
—More educated people are less likely to have the misconception. Among college graduates, 73% think he’s Christian and 5% think he’s Muslim; among people who didn’t go to college, half as many people think he’s Christian (37%) and three times as many believe he’s Muslim (15%).
—People are very divided based on their region. 19% of rural residents believe that Obama is Muslim, probably because they’re not as well-exposed to different cultures. In cities and suburbs, the number is less than half as much. The same sort of trend is evident if you compare the Northeast (7%), the West (6%), the Midwest (13%), and the South (13%).
I’m almost ashamed to live in a non-urban Midwestern area. It’s obvious that among people who have more experience with world cultures and religions (college graduates, urban residents, people on the East Coast), Obama’s ...
Welcome to the 68th edition of Carnival of the Liberals! It was very difficult to choose a reasonable number of articles from the many submissions that I received, but I think I managed to cut it down to the point where it’s not overcrowded.
I also included some comments about each article. I’ll have to say that I was very happy with the quality of the posts, and I expect that you’ll find each of the next 15 articles to be a very interesting read.
I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the CotL people for letting me host this edition. Also, thanks to all of the bloggers who submitted articles; I hope to see more of your quality work in the future.
current events
Timothy Martin presents Habeas What? posted at Mouthful of Politics, saying, “This article examines the recent Supreme Court decision returning habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees.”
Shan’s comments It’s nice to see that the right-leaning Supreme Court still occasionally considers the spirit of the Constitution instead of always being politically charged.
The Ridger presents Hiding the hate posted at The Greenbelt, saying, “”We don’t anyone to know we’re bigots - it might hurt our business.” You think? I hope!”
Shan’s comments I can’t say that I’m surprised. Bigots know that they’re bigots… and they don’t want everybody else to know about it
liberalism
Madeleine Begun Kane presents Is Olbermann Turning Into O’Reilly? posted at Mad Kane’s Political Madness.
Shan’s comments: I liked this idea; although I agree with most of Olbermann’s ideas, I think he’s become just another angry ranter who always only presents one side of a debate. As long as you’re ignoring your opponents’ arguments, how do you expect to make any difference? It seems that Olbermann is just there to sell his show to fellow liberals… I wish he’s use his ...
Free WordPress Theme Phunk Attack is one of the finalists of the Lunarpages’ WordPress Series 2 Design Contest. Show your support by voting WordPress Theme Phunk Attack in the polls.
People often talk about how they prefer “natural” cures or “natural” foods or other things of a “natural” nature. I’m not one of those people. I don’t deny the value of preserving the environment… but as far as the difference between eating “organic beef” (I won’t even bring up the fact that all beef is technically “organic”) and regular beef, I don’t see the benefit. Personally, I’d rather eat a cow that received antibiotics to kill all of the bacteria.
Sure, I understand that you don’t want to be pumped full of drugs every time you eat a hamburger. But luckily, I also understand that antibiotics are cleared out of the cow’s system before it’s slaughtered… unless you have a mutant cow with no kidneys, in which case the antibiotics would kill the cow before it’s slaughtered. In the end, you’re effectively choosing between a piece of meat that may be infected and another piece of meat that’s exactly the same except for the fact that it’s not infected.
I realize that people are afraid of ionizing radiation in their food… but what about the fact that all of the radiation decays from the food well before it hits the shelves? You may not like the idea of genetic engineering… but how does it actually affect anything except for the price of the food? Yeah, growth hormones sound “unnatural”… but the hormone is denatured when you cook the meat, so why would I care?
If a beaver builds a dam, it’s natural… but if a human even builds a swimming pool, it’s not. If a bee extracts honey from flowers, it’s natural… but if a human extracts sugar from apples, it’s not. If a bird builds a nest, it’s natural… but if a human builds a house, it’s not.
But if the heat starts a forest fire, it’s somehow a problem; if we don’t put it o ...
Why is it that some things are considered "natural" and other things aren't? Do you really think it's more important to have "organic" food than it is to have infection-free food?
I saw an article today suggesting that, for the first time, the average TV viewer is now over 50 years old. I think it’s interesting to note that top TV characters, on the other hand, seem to be getting younger as time progresses. If you look at the progression from “I Love Lucy” to “The Brady Bunch” to “Cheers” to “Friends”, it seems obvious that the most popular comedy-type shows feature younger and younger characters.
Here are some of the top comedy shows of the 20th century, along with the ages of the main characters during the show’s first season. I chose all of the comedy shows that have at some point been the #1 show in America by ratings, not including shows about families or kids (if I didn’t have enough examples for any particular decade, I threw in some shows that may never have been #1 but are still really good):
1950’s: “I Love Lucy” (main actors were in their 40’s)
1960’s: “The Andy Griffith Show” (Andy was 35-45), “Gunsmoke” (main character was 35-40), “Bewitched” (the husband was 35-40)
1970’s: “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” (Mary was mid-30’s), “Laverne and Shirley” (They were both mid-30’s), “Three’s Company” (mid-30’s)
1980’s: “Cheers” (Sam was mid-30’s), “Who’s the Boss” (Tony was mid-30’s)
1990’s: “Seinfeld” (Jerry was mid-30’s), “Friends” (they were all mid/late-20’s)
2000’s: “Scrubs” (JD was mid-20’s), “Chuck” (mid-20’s)… sorry, these are the best two I could come up with for the 2000’s because the rest of the good shows all feature a wide range of ages (marketing people are starting to figure out how to target a broad demographic).
You’ll notice a similar trend if you look at medical shows (Marcus ...