New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 11 Aug 2006 12:50 In article <44DCB000.D23E3288(a)earthlink.net>, mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net says... > John Larkin wrote: > > > > On 11 Aug 2006 04:46:30 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > >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. > > > > It's interesting how obsessed europeans seem to be with American > > politics. Since their function in the world is largely passive by > > choice, and since enormous messes remain of their direct making, I > > should think they'd be content to spend their days on holiday, > > wine-tasting or whatever they do for amusement. > > > > It's the fish-or-cut-bait thing. > > > > John > > > But, but, but, Bill is bait! Are you suggesting he cut himself? ....works for me, but make sure it's deep. Sleeping with the fishes works too. -- Keith
From: John Larkin on 11 Aug 2006 12:50 On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:18:56 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <848pd2t1uphqor8t6deno1ea02guh0rf6r(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 11 >Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> >writes > >>It's interesting how obsessed europeans seem to be with American >>politics. > >You keep telling us about it. Naturally, that encourages us to comment. > >>Since their function in the world is largely passive by choice, and >>since enormous messes remain of their direct making, I should think >>they'd be content to spend their days on holiday, wine-tasting or >>whatever they do for amusement. > >European supra-national politics is Byzantine and boring; it does indeed >struggle from one mess to another. And the politics of each individual >country is a closed (and boring) book to people in other countries. > >So US politics is all we can discuss.(;-) I am disappointed that so many people seem to be interested in blame, but uninterested in the history and dynamics that have made the world the way it is. Modern history didn't start in 1945. Certain parties enjoy claiming that europeans invented most of the marvels of the modern age but none of the horrors. I think the US has been, to a great extent, a victim of history, albeit a muscular and dangerous one. Some day all the world will be able to afford the luxuries that Europe now enjoys without guilt. John
From: John Woodgate on 11 Aug 2006 12:59 In message <Xns981C7D17F4B73jyanikkuanet(a)129.250.170.86>, dated Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> writes >AFAIK,the "Christian soil" business is NOT in the Bible, I agree. >as the Islamic soil bit is in the Koran. Do you know where? >Nor does the Bible -require- other faiths to convert,or suggest it be >done by force. Matthew 10, 34. -- 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: John Woodgate on 11 Aug 2006 13:09 In message <30dpd2p4u3ekp8lohu24j4mb21qf4am6e9(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 11 Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes >I am disappointed that so many people seem to be interested in blame, Not me; blame is futile. >but uninterested in the history and dynamics that have made the world >the way it is. Modern history didn't start in 1945. Indeed, there is no discernible dividing line between 'modern' and 'older'. >Certain parties enjoy claiming that europeans invented most of the >marvels of the modern age but none of the horrors. I don't know who you mean, if it's someone in this group. > >I think the US has been, to a great extent, a victim of history, albeit >a muscular and dangerous one. Some day all the world will be able to >afford the luxuries that Europe now enjoys without guilt. Americans enjoy even more luxuries; do you feel guilty? -- 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: bill.sloman on 11 Aug 2006 13:26
John Larkin wrote: > On 11 Aug 2006 04:46:30 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > > >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. > > It's interesting how obsessed europeans seem to be with American > politics. America is the elephant in our back yard - big enough that we have to pay attention. >Since their function in the world is largely passive by > choice, and since enormous messes remain of their direct making, I > should think they'd be content to spend their days on holiday, > wine-tasting or whatever they do for amusement. The Netherlands devotes 0.7% of its gross national product to overseas aid, while the US pays out 0.1% - the lowest proportion of any advanced industrial country. You spend your money on baroque weapons for a truly extravagant defence force, we spend ours on helping the poor. If that is being passive, there should be more of it. http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=28348 > It's the fish-or-cut-bait thing. Yes, and when it comes to overseas aid, you guys aren't even cutting bait. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |