Jokah C

I have grown increasingly concerned over the past half decade or so about just how little Americans understand about the role of their government in Washington. Watching commentaries in the 80s, 90s, and the previous decade most of life seemed to revolve around discussions about the US being an ideal place to live in that needed tinkering. People got into lofty debates about whether taxation was "theft" or if the military should be used to intervene in crises or who should make what laws about what people do in private.

However now it is becoming increasingly clear that the world has changed with its interconnections. So many global financial institutions exist that tax rates are irrelevant. Technological production has vastly altered not only how people communicate but how it can be monitored. The actions governments take abroad have dire consequences that no one ever seems to be able to predict other than screeches that "they are bad" or "don't do anything" and it seems like Doomsday is looming around the corner...

My point is that I do not believe average people can come to a consensus on who should basically be the most important person in the world. The fact that the primary period lasts as ridiculously long as it does shows most people can't see the forests for the trees because half these people shouldn't run a post office, much less stand in line for a presidential position or a federal Congressional seat. Watch the Senatorial committee proceedings for appointments, they are FAR more scrutinous and demanding on nominees than the garbage people can say which demonstrates many times either pandering or hilarious ill informed views tailored for a general audience.

Is the "right" to vote so precious that ultimately leaving it to the lowest common denominator a viable option in the experiment of self determination? Or would it be better to apply standards that are used in every other job interview for an executive position in business, government, education, health, requiring a demonstration of knowledge and past performance?

There is a growing debate over global warming in the US. Many would claim that the IPCC has the definitive answer and there is no debate. Others provide sources not affiliated with the UN group that claim there is debate over whether A) global warming even exists, B) global warming exists but is not man-made, and C) global warming exists and has contributions from man's emissions, but that the proposals such as the Kyoto treaty and a carbon tax would not solve these problems.

Considering that Newsweek has claimed all who disagree with the IPCC are on the take from petroleum companies, is there a way to resolve the scientific veracity of either side's claims and constructively offer real solutions to the effects of industrialization on the habitability of planet Earth?