Pretty much the only way to persuade someone, is to give them a brand new concept they’ve never seen before. They may then change from their old position to the new one(though it’s still unlikely). But anything they’ve already decided upon, is basically set in stone.
It’s not about the research money, not mostly, it’s about the political control and economic control that alarmists will take using climate change as an excuse. The fact that it’s widely disputed shows that it is disputable and insufficient for this test.
If you look at the citizenship test, linked above, you’ll find excellent examples of what CWolf and I are talking about. We have 50 states. Paul Ryan is the speaker of the house. Congress makes the law, etc. Not disputable.
Not generally, no. Some folks do. I have been. But it takes time, and ideas have to roll around the head before folks will move. They have to actually give the subject time a and thought, and I don’t think most follks care to.
Which is why CWolf’s comment above is mostly true. Honestly, the benefit of being informed compared to cost is pretty low for a lot of folks. It’s not laziness. It’s a matter of incentives. Even voting has a low benefit. They’re too busy doing other things they value more (so the benefits of information and voting are opportunity costs), like taking the kids to practice, working and paying the bills, skiing, visiting friends, etc.
We should increase the number of people who are qualified to vote, which means being minimally informed and, ideally, being involved in some way with activities that help to defend the state whose direction they’re trying to influence by their vote. So in an ideal world, it would be more difficult to vote, not less. In fact, although it’s politically totally impossible, I’d make military service the qualification for voting.
Sounds like someone’s been reading Robert A. Heinlein lately! I admired his political philosophy, regardless of the fact that he seemed to be an atheist. He believed that a period of military (or military-like) service should be a prerequisite for full citizenship–and therefore the right to vote. Frankly, I don’t altogether disagree. The military doesn’t just teach one how to kill other people and blow up things. It teaches you to analyze situations and decide on courses of action accordingly. It teaches you teamwork, discipline and lots of skills that are useful in civilian life. Just for example, the ability to fly a helicopter translates easily into civilian life. So does maintaining vehicles (including aircraft), intelligence analysis, report writing, tactics and even how to shoot a rifle and hit what you aim at. Ask any hunter if that’s not a valuable skill.
It is a pain in the neck to get an A & P license, just on the basis of military experience. It is two different worlds.
The military, like much of government, holds onto practices & technology that much of regular industry has long since abandoned. That’s part to why transitioning for veterans is so hard, unless it’s into an industry the Government already dominates.
I don’t know what an “A & P license” even is. What’s your point here? Veterans can translate quite well into civilian jobs–absent severe injury or PTSD issues. I did as did MANY of my fellow veterans. I was injured, but not to the extent that I wasn’t able to perform my civilian duties. My best friend did, too and he’s STILL productive and working as this is written. I retired some 5 years ago now.
Absolutely not. We have enough ignorant people voting who don’t even know who is on the ballot. We need informed votes who have some knowledge about the issues, regardless of their politely philosophy. Democracy depends upon informed voters, not people who vote the party line.
The old Soviet Union went out of its way get the voting percentages as high as possible. Of course there was only one person on the ballot so it meant nothing.