It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
en.wikipedia.org...
originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
I have seen so many people in seats of power who I wouldn't trust to mow my lawn, yet they are supposed to decide on gun control and other legal issues? Really? Is there a joke here I'm not seeing?" Is all of this some kind of mass Truman show where the producers are waiting for us to rise up, rip these dumb asses out of office and demand competence?
First of all I think ALL teachers in any school that gets ANY form of government $$ should have to pass standardized tests, and these should be moderately difficult and comprehensive. Private teachers should have the option to take the test as well. I'm not talking about tests or degrees from universities b/c they lost credibility about 40+ years ago and have basically been diploma mills since then with a small number of students there to actually learn (though they may get lower grades than people who cheated the whole way through and learned basically nothing). These tests would be constructed to they can no be 'cheated" on and I think essay is best or writing answers in sentences. Sure it would take time to grade them, but if it keeps Numbskull-Know-Nothing-Neil out of a teaching job and gives it to Studious Steve, then it is worth a years salary just for that test alone! I think this also needs to be done for professors.
We also need to review how test are written, given and taken for professionals. Test should not EVER be re-used but the test can be similar but change up the way the question is asked, the numbers, sequences of how the data is presented, etc. If the test taker can't understand the question then that in itself is a test in comprehension and a major test right there!
If a person is going to hold an elected position, there needs to be some base line level of knowledge. If you are dealing with a town, being the mayor let's say, then the town should come up with questions that should be asked to all candidates that are relevant to the town and would be important to running the town - anything from knowing the demographics, religions, industries present in town, history, ethnic history (who makes up the town - was it founded by italians or irish or germans, or Caribbean blacks, etc), are there any financial concerns (is it in debt) and how did it get there and what is being done, etc. Then questions about general municipal management, civil administration questions, procedural questions, emergency preparedness, planning for the future, etc. these questions would be generated by either a large committee and also submitted by those within the community (individuals, businesses, churches, schools, etc). The questions would not be shown ahead of time to any contestant. The testing committee would get the answers and score the results based upon the answers (originally provided by the submitter of the question). The scores would be made public and they would get a rating (1-10) in various areas on how they did. The political hopefuls would be given a study guide or outline of possible testing topics so that they have an idea of what may be asked and it would be up to them to study a broad range of information and REALLY know it, thus knowing the town, and this would weed out people who were there for power, the paycheck and allow those that actually care to remain. It would be obvious those who tried to learn about the town by the answers and even if not 100% correct wouldn't mean they are unqualified as they could learn the proper answer and from there on it wouldn't be a "game" to keep out the con-men.
This need to be done on a larger level like house and senate members for each state government as well as congressmen ad senators on the federal level..... I'm sure there are other gov jobs which need better qualified members and testing should be implemented there as well.
If we CAN get people who are qualified and can do GOOD for the local, state or fed gov, then I think they should be paid much more than they are now - maybe tie pay to performance somehow - based upon voter approval rating maybe? The small amount of money paid in salary to gov officials is nothing compared to the money lost due to incompetency and plain stupidity (and greed most likely). If the officials were in the top 5% in their relative field, had integrity and were honest (but knew when they had to stretch truth, tell white lies, etc in negotiations with other countries or dealing with media in sensitive topics - NOT malevolent or self-serving lies or stretches of truth) it would be worth paying them much more than current salaries as it would pay off in the positive results in all areas in which they work. One man earning $200,000/year (senator) hands out a $500,000,000 no bid contract for a small military base where an honest representative (verified through new testing procedures and undercover sting solicitation tests) determines the same base can be built for just over $100,000,000 and puts it up for bid and it goes to 40 different contractors - mostly small biz's instead of a mega company where less than 1% of that half billion makes it to the workers. The saved $400,000,000 can be used for other projects which are also not over-priced and maybe there will be money for things like public health care, national infrastructure, investment in GOOD schools and universities, etc.
I'm just saying WE NEED THE IDIOTS/MORONS/CON-People (yes there are fraudster women) OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT and ESPECIALLY out of education and the media!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I also think there should be constant under-cover stings to find out if government officials (especially judges and police officers) are corrupt.
originally posted by: UKTruth
There is already a test. Elections.... and in America it's a tough test to pass.
I find the idea of testing along the lines you are suggesting to be dangerous. Those tests would have to be managed - corrupt that system and you have a built-in method for just a few people deciding who can be elected. Very bad idea.
I would guess that such a notion was debated when the constitution was written?
originally posted by: jacquesdarippa
originally posted by: UKTruth
There is already a test. Elections.... and in America it's a tough test to pass.
I find the idea of testing along the lines you are suggesting to be dangerous. Those tests would have to be managed - corrupt that system and you have a built-in method for just a few people deciding who can be elected. Very bad idea.
I would guess that such a notion was debated when the constitution was written?
The reason you and other conservatives despise this idea is because you know who would pass and would not.
The conservative politicians have shown they are against education and prove it time and time again with their constant attacks against science, verifiable facts and others.
Oh yeah and a lot of them elected Trump.