New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: bill.sloman on 11 Aug 2006 07:46 John Larkin wrote: > On 10 Aug 2006 16:17:24 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On 10 Aug 2006 09:30:01 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >John Larkin wrote: > >> >> On 10 Aug 2006 02:52:08 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Your current situation is one where people with the money to finance > >> >> >extended advertising campaigns - not to mention judicial campaigns > >> >> >extending to the Supreme Court - exercise a disproportionate amount of > >> >> >power over the election process and the people who get elected. This is > >> >> >inequitable and undemocratic. > >> >> > >> >> That aspect of money isn't a serious problem. A candidate for public > >> >> office will be financed if he's truly viable. In that sense, the > >> >> advertising budget knocks out the un-electable loonies and spoilers. > >> > > >> >And if the candidate has been financed and knows that they are going to > >> >have to be financed again at the next election, they are beholden to > >> >the financier(s)? > >> > >> Right. And the more diverse the financiers, the more democracy you > >> get. It works out. > > > >Not exactly. By definition, financiers have money. Most people don't > >have a lot of disposable income, so your system ends up > >over-representing the wealthy - which makes it a plutocracy rather than > >a democracy. > > Most of the money collected by politial parties and candidates is in > small amounts, from individuals, with Republicans collecting in > smaller increments than Democrats. > > > > >> >It has given you two terms of Dubbya, which suggests the system needs > >> >to work better, > >> > >> To you maybe. But you don't matter. > > > >No, I don't. But educated Americans mostly regard Dubbya as an > >abberation, and they do matter. > > We elected him twice, the most times allowed by law. And your > generalism about "educated americans" is clearly false, unless your > definition is circular. It depends what you mean by educated. When I checked my sources in detail, it turns out that basic college education doesn't make much difference to peoples attitudes to Bush. I was influenced by the dozen or so highly educated Americans I know personall - all academics with post-graduate degrees - who all regard the man as an ignorant crook. In fact 47% of college graduates supported Bush in 2004, and 35% support him now,while 48% of people who didn't get to college supported him in 2004 while only 30% of them support him now. http://pewresearch.org/reports/?ReportID=26 Apparently only 44% of people with higher degrees supported Bush in 2004, so further education does make some difference. My acquaintances are unlikely to be a representative sample of that group - as academics they are probably aware of the issues discussed in Chris Mooney's "The Republican War on Science" ISBN 0-465-04675-4 which documents the current Republican administration's tendency to shoot the messanger when it gets information it doesn't like, and to shuffle through advisors until it finds one who will produce the (frequently self-interested) advice it wants. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 11 Aug 2006 07:51 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <1155251844.135103.314870(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > dated Thu, 10 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes > > >which makes it a plutocracy rather than a democracy. > > If it's a Plutocracy, which Disney characters hold which government > offices? (;-) Scrooge McDuck - the plutocrat - holds all of them. Usually via some kind of glove-puppet, like Ronald Regan. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Woodgate on 11 Aug 2006 07:47 In message <0GZCg.5802$9T3.4864(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, dated Fri, 11 Aug 2006, joseph2k <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> writes >John Woodgate wrote: > >> In message <44d3a2ff$0$11330$e4fe514c(a)dreader28.news.xs4all.nl>, dated >> Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Frank Bemelman <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> writes >>>I mean, his first election can be called an honest mistake, but how can >>>a nation continue to follow such an insane leader with such dangerous >>>ideas? >> >> By comparison with some previous Presidents, Bush is a genius and the >> epitome of sanity. Look up accounts of some of the pre-WWII presidents, >> back to the 19th century. > >Give me some backup please. After Nixon that is a really strong >assertion to make. Nixon wasn't pre-WWII. If by 'backup', you mean you want names of gaga Presidents, well, begin with Warren Harding. I don't have time now to check the others, but one other served most of his term inebriated. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: Eeyore on 11 Aug 2006 07:50 Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:10:05 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net > (Ken Smith) Gave us: > > >BTW: You got the year and number of parts wrong. Lets see if you can > >remember who it was. > > It was Fairchild, asswipe. After the development, Texas Instruments > MANUFACTURED it in mass quantity, but it was Fairchild that developed > it. > > It was a ten transistor element device. > > I got NOTHING wrong. The very idea of the IC was actually conceived by the British btw. " The integrated circuit was first conceived by a radar scientist, Geoffrey W.A. Dummer (born 1909), working for the Royal Radar Establishment of the British Ministry of Defence, and published in Washington, D.C. on May 7, 1952 " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Aug 2006 07:56
joseph2k wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > Phat Bytestard wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 07:32:06 +0100, John Woodgate > >> <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> Gave us: > >> > >> >In message <l3i7d2t6hnppubng26c12m121klnu976pd(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 4 > >> >Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes > >> > > >> >>I see no reason why presidential (in fact, _all_) elections couldn't be > >> >>carried out on-line where the result would truly be popular. > >> > > >> >The reason is that 'big money' would lose a great deal of its present > >> >control over the result. > >> > >> Lobbyism SHOULD be dead. > > > > Lobbying is inevitable in any democratic system. Indeed, its part of the > > process. > > It is inevitable in _any_ government. > > >> Our "statesmen" should be doing what the people want, not what some > >> palm greasing, stitch some velvet in your pocket thugs want them to > >> do. > > > > So remove the big money then. What goes on in the USA during campaigning > > wouldn't be legal in the Europe you apparently despise so much precisely > > because we've addressed these issues. > > > > Graham > > The only way to eliminate big money is to eliminate money. Not an > achievable goal (AFAIK), as it will be immediately replaced by influence, > quickly leading to a re-creation of money under another name. We've had perfectly good results with limiting election expenses. There a feeling it should be cut back more still though since the recent elections have become something of a circus. Graham |