Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

haydenplanetarium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#71

Post by willholloway »

Our bicameral legislature is dysfunctional in the US. The Senate and it's 60 votes to pass a bill filibuster rule make change too difficult.

The Senate does not represent the country well. California has two senators, so does Wyoming.

The next two years will be gridlock. It's unlikely Democrats retake the House and get sixty seats in the Senate, so divided government is what we have to look forward to.

The Senate is a strong architectural advantage for Conservative politics in the US.

This situation is unlikely to change. It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate and that is nigh impossible in the US.

Because of this big change only happens once a generation or so.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#72

Post by walterkim »

liber8 wrote: post #28

I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's letter. The last half of that sentence is key: As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so…

You're somewhat mistaken, here. The system of checks and balances was very much designed to prevent the abuse of power. The Federalist No. 68, however, argues that the tiered electoral process is designed so that only the best, or the "right leaders", would attain the Presidency:

-----

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#73

Post by ciupicri »

liber8 wrote: post #28

I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's letter. The last half of that sentence is key: As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so…

The greatest group of political scientists?! So great that a lot of Americans don't understand how the president gets elected.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#74

Post by pbhjpbhj »

bloaf wrote: post #64
liber8 wrote: post #28

I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's letter. The last half of that sentence is key: As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so…

Certainly there are no perfect leaders, but if our government's structure is so perfect, then why does it matter which people are involved at all? The point is that who we elect matters, because if it didn't, there would be no point in electing anyone. The real point I believe is closer to George Bernard Shaw's words "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." Having a good sy…

Your logic is flawed in practical terms - does it matter who cleans the toilet? By your argument if any one of a given group is suitable then choosing no-one is most suitable.

I think the logic is unsound in either locus.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#75

Post by nsxwolf »

bennyg wrote: post #65
cynicalkane wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're reading a false dichotomy in NDT's comment that wasn't actually intended.

Exactly. He's saying a smarter public trends towards a better government system in place - by the majority of people using logic, reason and rationality to vote in someone worth their salt for each position.

There have been many intellectual tyrants. I disagree that we'll get better leaders simply by educating the people about science.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#76

Post by justthistimeic »

gyardley wrote: post #66
marshallp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like no other country has civil liberties. What does Canada or Western Europe have.

A 'notwithstanding' clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that lets the government override it, as long as it's 'reasonable and justified'? The somewhat amusingly named Canadian Human Rights Commission, which can regulate what can and cannot be said publicly? Canada's a pretty free place, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't have the well-thought-out constitution that America has, which means every once…

The American constitution is great but please don't believe the US is the paragon of freedom and rights; there's people held indefinitely held without trial, warrantless searches/eavesdropping, "free speech" zones during Irak war demonstrations, Guantanamo, death penalty etc etc so don't talk bad about Canada & Western Europe as they have a much better record of Human Rights.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#77

Post by nollidge »

derleth wrote: post #54
hooande wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of being labelled as negative, I'm going to disagree. The majority of people just don't care. They don't care about politics, about science, about reason or about anything outside of their day to day lives and relationships. That's how it's supposed to be. As it turns out, the average person isn't brilliant, anointed or blessed (this is due to the meaning of the word "average"). Saying that everyone is "b…

> no amount of education can change the basics of human nature When was the last time you saw someone nail a cat's tail to the ground and pelt it with rocks? Back... oh, not that long ago, evolutionarily speaking, that was just the height of entertainment. The absolute limit . Now, only a few generations of First Worlders not having seven kids and getting to keep two, a few generations of public education and most pe…

I definitely agree with your broader point, but when was pelting cats with rocks ever a form of entertainment, much less the height of it?

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#78

Post by lmm »

lefthansolo wrote: post #67
subsection1h wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

obsessed with progressive agenda (Obama) What elements of the progressive agenda is Obama obsessed about?

I consider something to be an obsession when X wants to do Y, then it is obvious that the primary issue is Z but he continues to do Y. X = Obama, Y = health reform, Z = economy Think I'm wrong? If you agree the economy and jobs are the biggest problem in the U.S. and in the world right now as far as the majority of the U.S. is concerned, then look at: http://www.barackobama.com/plans/ and http://www.mittromney.com/jo…

I think you're wrong; it is by no means "obvious that the primary issue is economy". Do you mean that improving the economy would solve healthcare problems? Capitalism depends on a certain level of unemployment, and no amount of economic growth will provide healthcare for the unemployed without healthcare reform (although conversely, the number of people waiting until they're eligible for medicare to start businesses suggests healthcare reform ought to improve the economy).

Or are you simply claiming that it's more important? Economies go up and down, and on the whole the president seems to have very little influence on them. Introducing a proper healthcare system will, we know from other countries, be a major long-term improvement.

So I'm not seeing obsession in Obama's focus on healthcare. I'm seeing sense.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#79

Post by bloaf »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #74
bloaf wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly there are no perfect leaders, but if our government's structure is so perfect, then why does it matter which people are involved at all? The point is that who we elect matters, because if it didn't, there would be no point in electing anyone. The real point I believe is closer to George Bernard Shaw's words "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." Having a good sy…

Your logic is flawed in practical terms - does it matter who cleans the toilet? By your argument if any one of a given group is suitable then choosing no-one is most suitable. I think the logic is unsound in either locus.

I see, I wasn't completely clear. I meant that if our system makes it so that everyone is suitable for government, why bother having elections? We could just draw names from a hat. There is no point in voting for a candidate if that candidate would perform exactly as well as every other candidate. Elections in that scenario are literally asking people to make judgements that are impossible to make.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#80

Post by nollidge »

lefthansolo wrote: post #67
subsection1h wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

obsessed with progressive agenda (Obama) What elements of the progressive agenda is Obama obsessed about?

I consider something to be an obsession when X wants to do Y, then it is obvious that the primary issue is Z but he continues to do Y. X = Obama, Y = health reform, Z = economy Think I'm wrong? If you agree the economy and jobs are the biggest problem in the U.S. and in the world right now as far as the majority of the U.S. is concerned, then look at: http://www.barackobama.com/plans/ and http://www.mittromney.com/jo…

Health reform and the economy are not orthogonal. The less you have to worry about the paying for potential catastrophic health care events, the more freedom you have to make other financial and employment decisions.

> so let's call it even

Uh, let's not. Your single anecdote does not refute the statistical correlation between education and liberalism.

Post reply on HN