Wednesday, November 03, 2010

The shocking prospect of the public forcing children to learn myth as a replacement for science, shows a fundamental lack of understanding, that there is a difference between them.
-

This leads to the realization that our best and brightest are not our loudest.  That we are not in a meritocracy but the roles we look at are low level positions available to the most morally malleable.  Point in case, newly elected individuals saying things to the effect of, we want to work together but we won't compromise.  How can they possibly be defining "working together" and "compromise".  Their distance from shore is the best indication that they are driven by winds we don't see, effect or benefit from.
-

I wish I could admire someone in power, but the system makes sure this is not possible.
-

This is not a meritocracy.
-

It's becoming clear that this may not be the best possible solution.
-

A meritocracy must also prove itself in peace time.  If a society can not be fair in peace time then we should all assume any balancing during war is temporary.
-

The system works whether or not the candidates are corrupt or not.  It simply does not matter.  Once you are a function of a class you serve the static purpose of that class.
-

And where do you think that political candiate got the millions they spent running for office?
-

And why do you, being rational and insightful as you are, think any political candiadte is given millions and millions of dollars to run for office?

1 comment:

analienmind said...

Ha! Well, the best candidates are the ones who can afford to run. Florida's new governor, Rick Scott, bought his office fair and square, using his own money. I think that appeals to voters. ;->

But true, it's not a meritocracy. I think democracy is inherently flawed, in that the people who seek office are doing it for self-serving reasons, not because they want to serve. At this country's founding, political office didn't pay anything, or paid very little. People sought to get elected because they CARED enough to want to make a difference. Not anymore. Political office is a sinecure, a welfare check, and incumbents vote themselves perks and raises and pensions-for-life. That's not right.

The only way to solve it is to eliminate "democracy" and choose political officers randomly, like for a jury. It's your turn to serve for a year. Here's an insufficient salary for your trouble, and no pension. Get to work. ;-) The Harry Reids and Barney Franks and Ted Kennedys, who think that a political office is their personal property, to be handed down through the generations, will quickly vanish.