A Problem:

If justice is de jure mutable in accordance with democracy then by what subject of science shall we measure the righteousness of a democracy? And if there be no subject of science whereby we can measure whether democracy is righteous or not, then any assertion that posits democracy is just is blatantly unscientific?

A Solution: Justice must be de facto immutable.

Now consequently another problem arises. If justice is immutable then justice cannot be subject to democracy, and yet we assert that democracy is a just form of government.

Let's imagine what the world would look like if certain events in history had ended differently than they did. 

I'd like this debate to work like this: Someone posts a comment about an event, suggesting a different outcome and their ideas of how things might be different, then whoever wants to can post their ideas about it. Someone else posts a comment about a different event, and people comment, etc...

This idea was inspired by a Russian history class and The Watchmen(I haven't actually seen the movie; I have a comic book nerd friend who told me the basic storyline. x]). 

Keep in mind cost, practicality, etc.

I hope this doesn't come across as a "girly" debate...but it's a real issue in our society and I think it's worth discussing.

Besides divorces, think of how many marriages exist in which both parnters would actually be happier divorced, but they stay together due to religion, kids, or financial or emotional dependency.

My question is old an naive, I know. But is this a problem inherent in marriage or are most people just not great at relationships? Or both? Or neither?

In his book The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman argues that various global events have accumulated to create a much more level playing field then we've ever seen before.  He goes on to discuss the causes and implications of this shift.

If you watch this talk and/or read the Wikipedia article, you should have a pretty good idea of the things he's talking about.

Do you agree with his claims?

Although democracy historically entails the representation of the public at large, fairly recent developments in science, technology and human knowledge in general has produced societies with great power and complexity. As democracies in the modern age continue to grow in power and numbers, should more be demanded from the political representatives of the people?

One way of getting more qualified politicians into government is to mandate some set of tests that cover various disciplines/skills from which anyone who wishes to run for office must choose at least one and pass. Currently, politicians are not required to pass any type of skill test in order to run for a position in the government.

Nevertheless, controversies may arise in many forms. Following the lead of the previous example, one such example of a controversy is a severe over-representation of very specific group of people (in this case intelligent people) in government, which does not align with the conventional definition of democracy. Perhaps simple-minded people must be elected in order to accurately represent the demographics of people within a given political boundary.