The recent "sit-in" and filibuster behavior of Congressional House Democrats led by Representative John Lewis (D-Ga.), in which several Democratic members used this methodology in an attempt to force Republican Congressional Members to take their side in establishing gun control measures; is a testament not only to the inadequacy of the political process to address social issues, but the immaturity of Congressional members whose antics are like that of a pouting 2-year old. If the public were to resort to a "sit-in" and filibuster type of action to get Congress to accept its views, the public would be subject to arrest, and possibly given a fine and/or jail sentence... because Congress could not carry on its own type of legislative nonsense.
Instead of resorting to the method of seeking a National Referendum on Gun Laws and multiple other issues that Congress is clearly incapable of addressing, the people are forced to let members of Congress engage in childishness. Whereas the present governing formula is able to deal with simple issues they regularly define as some incredibly involved problem in order to assuage the circumstances of their over-inflated egos seeking to exemplify involvement in the solution of an intricate and super-human task; the present functionality of government is not actually adept at resolving complex social issues. Even if Congressional members had the individual and collective ability to address the mounting social issues we are being confronted with, the design of the government is prohibitive. Its design is architectured to maintain a status quo relevant to an age in antiquity... though those in antiquity suffered from the deficiency of knowledge Congressional members of today have access to, but do not necessarily advantage themselves of.
Instead of resorting to the valuable asset of asking the Nation to conduct a Referendum; setting up a functionality of government to make the Referendum a recurring practice instead of being relegated to a "hail mary" infrequency; and providing for a Peoples Legislative Branch whereby the public is placed into participating in an active Checks -and- Balances capacity... we have the situation in which a former Civil Rights activist Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), seeks to create a circumstance to make an historical name for himself, to rival that of Martin Luther King Jr.. He is resorting to a tribal leadership model of opportunism that discredits the valuable leadership role the public has an inherent capacity for, but is rarely exercised, because the current formula of "self"-government is a pretend democracy.
Neither the present Congressional legislative formula, the Stock market impulsiveness used as an attempt to manipulate public opinion, nor any economic or religious model is sufficient enough to correct the mounting social issues humanity is becoming increasingly confronted with. Nor will using any single method of euthanization for a given population. Nor will the practice of engaging in a policy of having an occasional war or using security services to instigate conflicts. Neither will creating surpluses in the hands of a few or the many. Simply having a world full of millionaires or billionaires will not resolve social problems. Nor can one retreat to the philosophical disposition that social problems are the result of inherently unavoidable human characteristics. Humanity will be faced with more local and global social issues because there is nothing substantial to check the growth of population. Present types of social conflicts, accidents and natural disasters are not enough to curb population growth which orients towards creating increased density. Human social problems are a reflection of a decaying global, planetary and galactic environment that the human species is adapting to in its attempt to achieve equilibrium. The more humans contribute to an increase in any one of these incremental decays which overlap and thus contribute to a larger influence; the more social problems will arise due to different types and rates of adaptation amongst the various races, ages, and genders.
Another word for "density" is bulking. When companies buy in bulk to get a better price from a producer who wants to sell in bulk, such companies want the public to consume in bulk. Government legislatures and departments, whether unconsciously or intentionally, design policies and increase an expectation for the public to participate in "bulk" activities. For example, FDA (Food and Drug Administration) policies are geared towards increasing obesity and health problems, though many in the industry are quite sincerely otherwise intentioned. They can not help themselves. The "bulking" phenomena is an unrealized addiction. Another example of "bulking" is the view held by many in government and business, that the best way to decrease a usage of energy and resources is to create incentives for the public to use various "bulk" models of public transportation, such as trains, trolleys, buses, and car pooling. The "energy savings" and other advertised benefits have actually little to do with the underlying cause for "thinking in bulk" terms. Communism, Democracy and Socialism are all "bulk" ideas, just as are gangs, clubs, teams, groups, tribes, clans, communities and the like. And many of us might well readily provide some rationale for the value thereof. Nonetheless, the underlying causation is being overlooked.
"Bulking" is a concentration... a density... or the result of an area with lower pressure. Like the eye of a storm, some people gravitate towards a leadership position because it provides a lessening of pressure by way of entitlements such as social, business, political, or religious deferments. Simply put, leadership positions, or positions which highlight an exhibited talent or ability, often provide a person with an increased level of less pressure, unless they step closer to the swirling mass of people around them. If they engage the public too often, they can become swept up in increased levels of stress due to an over-concentration, an over-surplus, and thus try to recover the previous deferment by way of alternative sources such as extended vacations, isolation, drugs, alcohol, suicide or even criminality... which, if they are incarcerated, provides them with a decrease from the stresses of so called normal living. Some people find that occasional moments of incarceration permits them the ability to relax, because they are freed from the pressures our present day society places on people. Customarily, the need for engaging in activities that will provide oneself with a desirable level of living creates different levels of stress on different people. But people do not typically think in terms of stress originating from their government.
The present dysfunctionality of the government is causing a great deal of needless stress on the public, because its practiced formula is inadequate to the task of either solving or resolving social issues for a long-term basis. Analogously, its present functionality is of an analog design, but the complexity of social issues are being developed in a digital format. The two are exclusively different. It is like trying to put a square peg into a round hole by either artificially stripping off the edges of the square peg and defining it as a necessary evil, collateral damage, or a means test of equality suitable for the majority; or artificially increasing the size of the round hole by way of providing given populations with a surplus of goods, services, or money without restrictions. Both models for addressing social issues may provide relief to given populations, but such relief is only temporary and can be counter-productive if those in charge of distribution take it upon themselves to increase their portions as well, thus advancing the situation of unequalized redistribution commensurate with an increased standard. Hence, for example, where poverty might have been determined by a family of four trying to live on $30,000+ for the year 2016 U.S. Poverty levels, upping the ante by those in business, government, or religion who try to take a larger proportion for themselves, thus increases the standard by which poverty is to be judged. (A person in poverty in the U.S. might well be perceived as some who is very wealthy when compared to those living under conditions of severe social deprivations, but in the context with the requirements of living in the U.S., the idea of poverty must be judged at a higher value).
If a government wants to insinuate that poverty is somehow linked to potential security issues, such a view can further be defined as an appropriate rationale if there are no other government departments thought to be better equipped to incorporate a tabulation of poverty-related details under its auspices. The thought of creating a department specifically oriented to non-security related social issues or getting rid of the Homeland Security office as a needless and costly redundancy whose assignments might well be better addressed by existing security departments, may not cross the minds of those whose brains have been set into an addict-like motion for intensifying the "bulkiness" of the government... which, unfortunately, is misinterpreted by many in the public who think the government is too big. Yet, its sloppiness created by overlapping redundancies which unnecessarily compete with one another for jurisdictional control, only gives the unwary observer the impression of obesity because of the external covering... like a suit of clothes many sizes too big for the wearer. The notion that the government is too big and needs to be streamlined is a simplistic perspective that develops an inappropriate algorithm to deal with the circumstance. It is a philosophy based on an incongruent premise.
The fact of the matter is that not only is our government too small, it is a pretend democracy as well. The notion that the U.S. government is designed on the best possible model of "Representative Republicanism" defines the practice of a minority which can provide the most equitable formula of governance for a majority; and yet the majority are deluded into thinking that the practice of government is based on the premise stipulated by the phrase "Of, By and For the People", where the word "All" is most often excluded, but doesn't change the fact that this phrase does not in any way describe the formula of government being practiced. When it is clear to many observers of politics that elected or their selected deputies do not Represent the people, since no regular recurring means nor methods are used by Representatives to cull the majority opinion from their constituents about one or another issue. Hence, many people are living under a delusion as to the ability, capacity or desire of the prevailing government to practice a democracy beyond the model of a pretense showing thereof.
The ancient Greek word of demokrati was coined in the 5th century from demos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) to which we of today alternatively describe as a "peoples government", is likewise alternatively defined in different ways. Hence, with no set definitively singular definition, one can easily describe virtually any practice of government as a "peoples government"; and can likewise be described as a pretend democracy, when it is realized that a given practice of so-called democracy like that of the U.S., is found to be particularly wanting in it ability resolve or solve social problems... many of which appear to be deliberately contrived by legislative obstructions. Thus, there is a wide-spread acknowledgment that social problems can not be solved by those in a government whose actions have unintentionally or intentionally created the problems in the first place. However, there is reason to consider their actions are the result of trying to work within a governing structure which does not enable more fruitful results from occurring. It is impossible for any legislature to develop answers if the people reject the developed answers because of mistrust. The only way to alleviate problems created by distrust is to involve the people themselves in the legislative process. Surrogate formulas which keep the majority is a state of disenfranchisement is wholly self-defeating.
While a charismatic leader may well get the majority to go along with their ideas; if the leader should perish or the ideas found to be insufficient, there is nothing left to sustain the ideas by way of public Will, unless that Will is forced into compliance by later leaderships whose own ideas may well cause future deteriorations in the accepted social perspective. Thus, the government must be designed with a larger appreciation of taking into account influential environmental decay(s) and the dynamics of a population seeking some semblance of equilibrium in accord therewith. The present formulas of government throughout the world are inadequate to the task. We must design a New Government, a Cenocracy.
In the recent wake of the Supreme Court's inability to reach a clear verdict about immigration reform for the millions of people who are permitted to work in the U.S. but are not able to get full citizenship status; and instead chose to ignore the pressing need by reaching a tie; this is another indication that the present structure of government is dysfunctional. It is pathetically ridiculous for the U.S. to permit so many lives be held in limbo... a no man's/woman's land which clearly describes America has the home of the irrational... when any and all decisions that can not be decided on by the Congress or the Supreme Court, should automatically trigger a National Referendum. Even with nine instead of eight justices, there would be no guarantee of a non-split vote... since all the justices could vote one way or another, even if the public held a different view. It is a distinct reminder that the Government does not represent the people since it fears what the people would collectively vote on. A government that does not trust the collective Will of the people is a government that can not itself be trusted. Arguing against the usage of a set-in-place Referendum that does not require the hoop-jumping nonsense customarily practiced because it is not the "type" of democracy we have, further denotes the need to have a different system of government. America is only pretending to practice a Democracy.
Likewise, the Supreme Court's decision to uphold an affirmative action ruling against a student (Abigail Fisher) who's equal protections under the 14th amendment were claimed to have been violated because a Texas (Austin) University's admission policies selectively single out minorities to deliberately create what some call a greater diversity amongst the student population; is in deed an act of reverse discrimination which shows the government can practice an arbitrary form of decision making. While those who advocate affirmative action may feel this particular ruling is justified, they clearly are not looking at the much larger picture involving over-all governance that truly represents an Of, By and for All the People applicability. If a student is denied admission, or a business denies hiring a person due to some "affirmative action" criteria, it should be a reasonable expectation to accommodate the person's search for another comparable university or job, and pay their tuition and moving fees, if any. Laws do not have to be deliberately insensitive or out-right calloused to citizens based on policies of Affirmative Action meant to create a better society; that interfere with their sincere efforts to obtain an education or job... but can not do so because such policies exhibit a formula of reverse discrimination. The Supreme Court ruling, while helping some, also hurt others. No one should be hurt... and every effort should be made to assist them in their desire to find equitable alternatives. Directing the University to alter its "vaguely defined objective" in choosing more minority students.
Here is an exerpt from an article about the Supreme Court decision related to the Affirmative Action case:
...Edward Blum, president of the Project on Fair Representation, which supports Fisher, said: “Racial classifications and preferences are one of the most polarizing policies in America today. As long as universities like the Univ. of Texas continue to treat applicants differently by race and ethnicity, the social fabric that holds us together as a nation will be weakened. Today’s decision is a sad step backward for the original, colorblind principles to our civil rights laws.”
The University of Texas has a unique admissions system. The top students in each Texas high school are guaranteed admission to the flagship campus in Austin. Because many high schools are made up overwhelmingly of Hispanic or African American students, that assures a certain amount of diversity in the freshman class.
But university administrators said it was important to be able to at least consider race in admitting the rest of the freshman class to ensure the kind of diversity that they said was crucial to creating a learning environment that would benefit all students...