06 January 2011

Testing More While We "Go to Jupiter"

You know, "to get more stupider"!

Okay, because I'm "elitist" and think I'm at least as smart as MOST of you out there (I know we all think this) I would like to propose this:

If we're going to making testing in our educational settings more and more necessary/required in order to find a provable standard level of learning then why not push this into all aspects of life that require real intelligence when making decisions?

At the outset I want to exempt biological choices (Keanu Reeves in Parenthood: "You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father." Yes, the 80s are my academy!) and say I don't agree with Tod in Parenthood--well I agree with him, but don't think we can actually achieve this level of regulation.

However, I do want to propose that if you don't know about particular issues of governance why does anyone think you should have a "democratically guaranteed" right to decide on those issues?

Not controversial, really...except as to how one might apply it...

Okay, I know, can't be done and it's the wrong "fix"--rather we should be encouraged to know more, understand more, participate more in all of our life--especially in the ways we are governed (that means "ruled"; that means controlled--get it?).

So, how? Not by TV commercials or Fox news or MSNBC or Pat Buchanan or Jon Stewart or lord forbid Tucker Carlson.

Of course I don't believe money is speech and I don't believe billionaires and millionaires should "buy" elected office via advertising. Cuz guess what their "ruling" motivations are going to be...

How about position papers posted and notarized and guaranteed? I am Doug and I'm running for this office and my positions on the following are X and this is why and this is where I might have to find an exception and this is why. And if I fail to live up to these positions I MUST pledge to resign the office.

Give it to me! What do you want to change about "the way things are done" to us?


  1. There should be less representative democracy and more direct democracy. Less decision-making power in the hands of elected officials and more power put back in the hands of individuals a la the Props in CA. Breaking promises is standard fare for politicians. A notarized statement is too gimmicky and will always be whitewashed by a charismatic political-personality.

  2. Direct Democracy always sounds right but it seems to me to be far more like an analog to market-based decision making. Something akin I suppose to those gambling sites that always predict the winners of elections? (That's not the same of course but maybe an interesting variant?)

    Also, if we, like the myriad of folks out there shouting, want to invoke the "founders" (have you seen the book "Founding Finaglers"?) we can be sure that they feared "mob rule" in the majority. And your proposal of the charismatic leader is one that would seem to have far more influence than we'd like.

    In reality there is no way to change how we elect anybody in this country unless there is absolutely NO money involved in it. Period. The same goes with the judiciary now and the mere fact of private interest. Our pecuniary drives are killing our "liberty".

    Re: the "props in CA"--these are a good example of the problem of money and outside interest groups (and Texas school books would be another)--it's easy to buy influence and direct the process to your favor.