Do we really know who is ignoring the issues? I know that the only time I've heard more than two sentences from Kerry was his acceptance speech at the DNC, and only on CSPAN. On network news his speech was overlayed and overshadowed by Talking Heads. Beyond that time, I don't hear anything else about Kerry's proposals. The news covers polls, Swifties, fonts, and superscripts. They don't cover election issues, as far as I can tell.
I honestly can't comment on Bush's ability to get his words out. In a way, it just doesn't matter, because Bush has had nearly 4 years with a friendly Congress, so we don't need to hear what he says. We can see what he has done. We can expect more of the same, changing only the degree of aggression in pursuit, based on Congressional makeup.
I have 4 possiblities: 1: The news services are incompetent, and have forgotten how to cover hard news in favor of covering fluff. 2: The news services are interested primarily in revenue, and know that pushing emotional hot buttons is the best way to Sell More. 3: (mild tin-foil hat) The broadcasters that own the news services want to keep consolidating, and know Kerry is less likely to go along. Therefore they want Bush to win. Open coverage of issues like the National Debt hurt Bush, so they don't get covered. 4: (strong tin-foil hat) The news services are in it with the Space Aliens and the Republican Comittee, and all want Bush to win. The rest is like (3).
For any choice above, IMHO the new services are failing in their responsibility to cover the news and enlighten the population.
I'd sure like to hear a statistician weigh in on the Electoral College. Maybe after this post I'll hit google on it.
One aspect of the Electoral College is that it lumps things. That can be good, because in 2000 there were a few close states, but Florida was the Shining Star. The recounts could be confined to Florida. (no further comment)
Without the lumping effect (go ahead and come up with a better word than "lumping") of the Electoral College, it's possible to throw things into a nationwide recount. Given that we didn't even really recount Florida, we're that much less likely to do a national recount. In other words, direct election by popular majority could have the likely unintended result of encouraging fraud.
Splitting electoral votes could cut both ways, depending on how it's done. One way would be by proportion of population. Another way would be by Congressional district, using winner-take-all for the extra 2 votes. There would then need to be a formula for those 2 votes - popular majority, or majority of districts. Given the recent bouts of Gerrymandering by both parties, it would be possible (perhaps not likely) for all but one of the Congressional districts to go for one candidate, and the popular vote to go for the other.
Part of the Electoral College is that it attempts to avoid "Tyranny of the Majority," where a slim majority can get it's way on all issues while ignoring the needs/wants of a large minority. That's part of the reason a small state like Vermont, with fewer people in the whole state than in many cities, gets 3 electoral votes. But arguably, the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College magnifies the "Tyranny of the Majority" problem. Splitting electoral votes decreases it, at the expense of needing an apportionment formula. IMHO, whatever splitting scheme were used, the two extra votes should be kept to the popular vote, specifically to keep control of them out of the smoke-filled back rooms.
Maybe making electors proportional to popular votes while remove Colorado from being a battleground state.
Maybe that would be a Good Thing for Coloradoans.
From what I hear, when you're a battleground state, you get two things: 1: Bribes, otherwise known as federally funded stuff. 2: Visits from politicians, ad nauseam.
From a practical point of view (1) is good and (2) is bad. From a theoretical/ethical point of view, (1) is bad and (2) is good. You weigh your reasons and take your pick.
I've never read Ann Coulter's book. I don't think my blood pressure could take it.
Does she suggest that Liberalism is Treason in a ha-ha sort of way? Accusing someone, particularly a category that includes ones self, of being stupid is one thing. Accusing "them" of a crime normally punishable by prison or death seems to be to be another thing, entirely.
I will agree that both sides are over the top. By the way, I couldn't finish Al Franken's book, either.
I won't argue with your point, because I haven't really done much with guns since getting rifle and shotgun merit badge. Personally, I believe in gun ownership, but I don't believe in free and unfettered gun ownership. I believe there's a sensible middleground, somewhere in there. I just with others were looking for it, too.
I do find it disturbing that we're describing law enforcement in combat-like terms. In some cases I suspect it's appropriate, and that's the disturbing part.
I remember the riots of the 60's. Nothing changed. Change was effected by the likes of peaceful marches of MLK, and the sympathetic led by John and Robert Kennedy. You know, those two guys that some other poster was so proud to have killed by an ordinary gun, thereby demonstrating how important it is that everybody have one.
Tienanmen Square. Yeah, I remember that. Nifty footage at the time. Didn't make squat for a difference in China, though. AFAIK, the only difference is a change in public assembly rules - and access to Tienanmen Square. China has changed, but that has been in response to other pressures, not the protests.
A BIG part of the problem is that both sides treat this as a simple issue. The pro-gun-control side thinks we can control deadly crime by controlling guns. The pro-gun side refuses to accept ANY limitations on guns, but also turns a blind eye to their societal problems. Nobody is really looking for an answer that will work.
** One of my pet proposals is to legalize drugs - put them on an equal footing with tobacco and alcohol. IMHO, crimes of funding drugs are now a bigger problem to society than the drugs, themselves. Legalizing and regulating drugs is bad, but not as bad as the crime associated with illegal drugs. Add drug treatment programs and work on demand reduction instead of supply intradiction. I suspect strife in South America would settle down, too.
The ban is being attacked for being focused on appearance rather than function. But I think there's a useful issue behind it, and that's making it so law enforcement officers can do their job.
My impression is that the nasty guns (automatics, etc) are under very heavy regulation, and I would suspect that legally-owned automatics are the property of responsible gun collectors. That means that if law enforcement officers see one, and its not on a gun range or in a collector's home, or at a gun show, they could have this sneaking suspicion that it's illegal.
Furthermore, if you see one of these weapons involved in commission of a crime, there's clearly a different set of 'rules of engagement' than if you see an ordinary rifle or pistol. The officer is up against a far more dangerous foe, and deadlier force is appropriate.
Enter 'assault weapons,' something that looks like an automatic weapon. Now if the officer sees what looks like an automatic weapon being used in commission of a crime, the rules of engagement are less clear. If it's really an automatic and force is used appropriate to an assault weapon, policemen may die. If it's really an assault weapon and force is used appropriate to an automatic, suddenly the police are Brutal Pigs.
Appearance CAN be important.
I'd like to see serious proposals by the NRA for how we solve the problems that cause others to call for firearm bans. I get the distinct impression that the NRA is strictly "pry it from my cold, dead hands" and just doesn't think about the consequences of those guns in the wrong hands. The REAL problem is bad people doing things with guns, and many think the solution is to take away the guns. Maybe there's another solution - at least work on the idea.
A later topic popped up on/. - "The Dangers of One Party Rule." Give the article a read, please. That's one of the ways I feel marginalized. At the moment, Democrats may as well not be in the House. They're excluded from the meetings where the real work is done, and when the vote comes to the floor, they're nearly always defeated. I care deeply about our environment, and it's lost every time it has been in a legislative bout.
As for our society being far to the left, talk to the Europeans on/. and you'll find that actually, the entire US is very much to the right. Our left is perhaps slightly to the right of the European center. IMHO, on a left-to-right scale, the politics of Clinton resembled those of Nixon or Ford - and I'm NOT talking about corruption. My brother maintains that he and I are the same Republicans we were raised as - it's just that the whole political spectrum has shifted to the right while we've remained in place.
Actually, I disagree with both Reaganomics and the Great Society. Again, it's the spectrum shift. If you think Clinton was a social spender, you should have seen LBJ. I believe that the government needs to balance its books, (Clinton PLUS a Republican Congress did this - it took BOTH.) and has to walk a tightrope between providing a social safety net and a social hammock.
re: "which would be easier to do if the Democrats didn't choose to show..." You find Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand offensive. OK, it's a matter of taste. I'm not terribly fond of Michael Moore, though I only find him a little offensive. Barbara Streisand can really sing. But I do find Ashcroft and Rumsfeld terribly offensive. (to bring a 2-for-2 comparison)
Personally, I am not terribly concerned about either gay marriage or abortion. First off, marriage is a religious institution that has taken on civil aspects. In this respect, I believe Vermont cut a fine line with Civil Unions. But at any rate, the gay issue doesn't stop me from living with happily with my wife in a heterosexual relationship, and from a Public Health point of view, gays would be better off in stable relationships, instead of promiscuous parties.
As for abortion, I don't like it. I dislike even more the Pro-Life movement labeling others as Pro-Abortion. My opinion - abortion is BAD. But there are worse things than abortion. I get this ugly feeling that there are Pro-Life people that just LOVE the foetus, but once it's a baby and the woman is no longer pregnant, OUT THE DOOR, and stay off of welfare! I actually liked Clinton's take on the matter. Abortion should be safe, and seldom. Nor do believe it's an acceptable method of birth control. (That's actually what happens (or happened) in the Soviet Union. (I have inside knowledge on this one.))
In my opinion, the urgent issues in this election are: * The role of the US in the world, and how it wishes to relate to other nations. * Getting the US closer to a balanced budget. * Finding the balance in the spectrum from wealthy to poor. * Finding the balance in the rights between business and people. * Finding a balance between the economy and the needs of the environment. * Tackling the issue of health care reform. (No, I'm not advocating single-payer, or anything else. I merely assert that the current system is BROKEN. In the early Clinton years we had the opportunity for a national debate, and as a nation we plugged our ears and refused. I don't know what the plan or reform should be, I just want the debate to start.) * Tackling Intellectual Property reform. (Health care is LONG past due. IP is only a little past due. But it's due.)
And no, I don't believe ANY of my hot issues are being correctly addressed, at the moment. Have I been sufficiently civil?
Oh, one minor diatribe: The Christian Coalition really frosts me. Christ's words: "It is easier for a camel to get through the Eye of the Needle than for a rich man to get into
Losing our Republic, as in getting overrun by foreigners? No. Maybe. I can see extension of current policies landing us in a Depression within a decade, given other influences in the world.
Losing our Republic, as in half the population getting no effective say in national policies for the rest of my life? (I'll qualify that by saying for the next 30-40 years.) Actually, No to that, too. I think it will only be that way for the next 20-30 years. I'll be a feeble old man when the pendulum swings.
I beg to differ, and I suspect many others will, too. I'll ignore Assault Weapons, and not compare that to other rights we're losing now. I'll ignore the Intelligence and military, and not compare that to the environment, and other issues.
I'll settle on fairness and contention.
For 6 of 8 years, we had a balanced Supreme Court, a President from one party, and the House from the other. I don't remember, but I believe the Senate might have been Democratic, but not strongly so. All in all, it was a balanced government. NOBODY played "winner take all!" Incidentally, the Republicans kept a tight rein on Clinton's Judicial appointments.
For nearly 4 years, we've had a balanced Supreme Court, and a President and both Chambers of Congress (aside from a few months, after Jeffords) from the same party. Many of us feel that the Right Wing has been playing "winner take all" these past years, acting like they have a popular mandate when they have a slim majority. The Democrats have kept some rein on Bush's Judicial appointments, though either 188 of 198, or 198 of 208 have been confirmed. Now we hear of the "nuke" option coming so they can confirm on simple majority, increasing the "winner take all" feeling. Then we're on the verge of several Supreme Court retirements, and it would seem that the Court will go Right Wing in the next 4 years, conceivably for most of the rest of my life.
Oh, and at the State legislatures BOTH parties are Gerrymandering, consolidating their Congressional districts and cementing the composition of Congress. At this point the Republicans are more successful at it, though both are guilty.
Given the Congress we have right now, and are likely to have after elections, a Republican President is the greater evil. That's not a comment on Bush or Kerry, that's a comment on the present and future composition on the Hill.
Going into the 2000 elections, any number of studies cropped up about how the country was best off when the President and Congress were of opposite parties. I tend to agree.
I don't think a benchload of moderate judges would be as bad as you might, as long as they were from diverse backgrounds. I don't believe moderate means middle-of-the-road on each and every issue, down the line. Being a "moderate" is to be in a big room, and it can allow some extremes in both directions, even in the same person.
I currently like the 3 Swing Supremes, because they're the ones who deliver insight. The 3 Conservatives and 3 Liberals just cancel each other's opinions.
I didn't say now, I said in the next few years. I've survived several rounds of layoffs, already. When you see enough people go, good and competent people, you just start to think it's the Fickle Finger of Fate, and wonder when it's your turn.
No, the parties are not responsible for the divisions. You've hit it in the last sentence, dehumanizing opponents. The political parties are building too cohesive a "we" from which it's easier to dehumanize "them".
I wouldn't generalize too far accusing the left of doing most of the dehumanizing. There are other ways of dehumanizing than rants and tirades. I see this as a tit-for-tat that goes far enough back that I'm not even going to try to pin an origin. Localizing the origin just lets us blame the whole mess on one side, and say that they are ignorant, terrible, dehumanizing jerks who should be executed. That's not the end we're after.
I will say that if the left comes across as snarly and mean, some of it has to be from feeling cornered, beleagered, and marginalized in today's society. The left has been dehumanized by acts and attitude, not by words. Incidentally, Ann Coulter's book, Treason, seems to suggest (?) that Liberalism is Treason. Doesn't that mean we should round up and execute, or at least imprison nearly half of the country? (which is why I used 'executed' near the end of the paragraph, above)
I'd just like to see you folks talking with some of the other projects, and see if you can move toward interoperable file formats and protocols. The various projects have their home pages and contacts. It's best done by an insider. Please send one or more of the other projects an email, start the contact. If even two could rally publicly and build/support a standard, others would hopefully come around.
I need to install one of these things, myself. I've poked around for Indie music, but this is the first I've heard of a thing like this.
By the way, at home I'm running gaim for IM. Let's me talk to Yahoo, AIM, and a bunch of others with one client. Rather clunky, but forced to be that way because Yahoo, AIM, and the others are idiots who each wants to DOMINATE, and they won't work together.
Maybe even a "bridge server" that can make content cross-accessable between the different schemes, even if they aren't compatible. Kind of a real-time or cached translator.
One of the things done over the past 4 years was quite a bit of Gerrymandering to cement their Congressional districts and marginalize Democrats, where they held State majorities that would allow them to do so. Texas was the one we heard most about. Someone else commented about how the Senate is already Gerrymandered by state boundaries, and will proceed toward a 60/40 Republican majority over the next years.
The Democrats are going to HAVE to forget this treatment, if we are to be One Nation. Tit for tat will just make things worse.
Nor will the Democrats be able to do squat about the "Christian Coalition." The Republicans are going to have to clean their own house. I've heard stories about non-far-right Republicans getting pretty riled up about the present state of affairs. My own tinfoil-hat theory is that the Christian Coalition has taken over the Republican Campaign Funding Committee, and that's how they have such a strong hold on the party members. "Toe the line, or we fund someone else against you in the next Primary."
My personal favorite would be a (rather bizarre, I admit) McCain/Jeffords ticket. I fear it's too late to get on the ballots, though. Such a ticket could appeal to both conservative and liberal voters, and might actually be a third-party run that could take the office.
re: Spoiled Republican brats. IMHO the biggest failing of the Republican Party, and the Business Community that backs them, is to fail to see the difference between what you NEED and what you WANT. For almost four years now, they have been getting what they WANT, almost without exception. (this topic being one) IMHO what we NEED right now is One Nation, working together. But that's not what's happening, and it doesn't look in the cards, either.
I seriously wonder if the Nation can survive another 4 years of this Administration without some sort of *internal* catastrophe. (like a Depression) I'm not singling out Bush here, rather the Whole Mess.
BTW, if we get a Constitutional Ban on abortion, watch birth control pills. I keep hearing that low-dosage birth control pills work by preventing implantation - and that's effectively chemically-induced abortion. (of a handful of undifferentiated and unstructured cells) Besides, there's only been on Constitutional Ammendment banning a specific action - Prohibition. It's also the only Ammendment to ever be repealed. It's also not the right way to do it. If you really want that end, talk about a Foetal Rights Ammendment. that would be in keeping with the Constitution.
Nonono. Of course we don't want see-saws or swings. We want Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary to move to the Far Right, and STAY THERE FOREVER.
Or at least until the Nation implodes because: 2% of the US population hold 98% of the wealth, and what's left isn't enough to maintain food, shelter, health, and clothing for the other 98% of the people. Our economy is GONE because the creative and manufacturing base is gone, so no one can inject money in to the service sector, and the whole things goes Flush down the toilet. Lifetimes fall and infant mortality rise because environmental regulation is 'bad science' that gets in the way of profits.
My brother (aka MacBrother, Apple MacIntosh fan) said a good 10 years ago that there were powerful forces trying to turn the United States into a third world nation. He was right, and well ahead of his time.
Now we have gnomoradio, irate, and somewhere else they mention magnatune.
Forget the programs, we need the standards. Isn't that what we've been saying about the Web and file exchange.
These buggers all need to interoperate. I haven't looked in detail at all of them, but let's say that gnomoradio has hit the key points: 1: publish the music 2: publish the license - keep it legal 3: ratings feedback I'd say we also need 4: option to send money/payment/exchange to the artist
We need standards, and let gnomoradio, irate, and magnatune all run on those standards. Then pick the one you like, that runs on your platform.
3 disparate systems splits the catalog, and it's going to be tough enough to reach critical mass, as it is.
Some sort of license check is necessary as a fundamental part of the infrastructure, to keep the ??AA of their backs.
Provisions to pay the artist are a good idea. I wonder if percentage-wise voluntary payment works better or worse than spam.
What really torques me is when you make an estimate early in the program, and you know it's only an estimate, and since you have only limited information it's not even a very good estimate, and you give management all of those caveats up front, it just doesn't matter.
For the rest of the life of the program, better estimates using more information, and even the reality of program execution will all be force-fit back into that original SWAG.
But sometimes even that original SWAG didn't matter, because it might well have been force-fit into some manager's wish-list.
The AWOL thing has been circulating for years, and has never been satisfactorily answered. Even the proof offered of good service by the White House ducked the assertions at the heart of the AWOL issue.
Meanwhile Kerry's medals have the same status as Bush's TXANG status. No proof other than inuendo, etc, that they are anything other than valid medals.
I'm willing to throw *both* into the water together, and think the nation would be better off if we did so, and not discuss either, again. I'd rather see focus on current events and policies.
If only that's what Labor Unions really did. That's their origin, and that's what they were/are meant to do, and that's what's badly needed, today.
But IMHO, there's a class of people that can smell money, and insinuate themselves into money flows. Some time ago, they smelled Union Dues, and the res is, sadly, history. Also unfortunately, some time back they began to smell Health Care, too.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's on the back of four elephants. The elephants are standing on the turtle.
Do we really know who is ignoring the issues? I know that the only time I've heard more than two sentences from Kerry was his acceptance speech at the DNC, and only on CSPAN. On network news his speech was overlayed and overshadowed by Talking Heads. Beyond that time, I don't hear anything else about Kerry's proposals. The news covers polls, Swifties, fonts, and superscripts. They don't cover election issues, as far as I can tell.
I honestly can't comment on Bush's ability to get his words out. In a way, it just doesn't matter, because Bush has had nearly 4 years with a friendly Congress, so we don't need to hear what he says. We can see what he has done. We can expect more of the same, changing only the degree of aggression in pursuit, based on Congressional makeup.
I have 4 possiblities:
1: The news services are incompetent, and have forgotten how to cover hard news in favor of covering fluff.
2: The news services are interested primarily in revenue, and know that pushing emotional hot buttons is the best way to Sell More.
3: (mild tin-foil hat) The broadcasters that own the news services want to keep consolidating, and know Kerry is less likely to go along. Therefore they want Bush to win. Open coverage of issues like the National Debt hurt Bush, so they don't get covered.
4: (strong tin-foil hat) The news services are in it with the Space Aliens and the Republican Comittee, and all want Bush to win. The rest is like (3).
For any choice above, IMHO the new services are failing in their responsibility to cover the news and enlighten the population.
I'd sure like to hear a statistician weigh in on the Electoral College. Maybe after this post I'll hit google on it.
One aspect of the Electoral College is that it lumps things. That can be good, because in 2000 there were a few close states, but Florida was the Shining Star. The recounts could be confined to Florida. (no further comment)
Without the lumping effect (go ahead and come up with a better word than "lumping") of the Electoral College, it's possible to throw things into a nationwide recount. Given that we didn't even really recount Florida, we're that much less likely to do a national recount. In other words, direct election by popular majority could have the likely unintended result of encouraging fraud.
Splitting electoral votes could cut both ways, depending on how it's done. One way would be by proportion of population. Another way would be by Congressional district, using winner-take-all for the extra 2 votes. There would then need to be a formula for those 2 votes - popular majority, or majority of districts. Given the recent bouts of Gerrymandering by both parties, it would be possible (perhaps not likely) for all but one of the Congressional districts to go for one candidate, and the popular vote to go for the other.
Part of the Electoral College is that it attempts to avoid "Tyranny of the Majority," where a slim majority can get it's way on all issues while ignoring the needs/wants of a large minority. That's part of the reason a small state like Vermont, with fewer people in the whole state than in many cities, gets 3 electoral votes. But arguably, the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College magnifies the "Tyranny of the Majority" problem. Splitting electoral votes decreases it, at the expense of needing an apportionment formula. IMHO, whatever splitting scheme were used, the two extra votes should be kept to the popular vote, specifically to keep control of them out of the smoke-filled back rooms.
Maybe making electors proportional to popular votes while remove Colorado from being a battleground state.
Maybe that would be a Good Thing for Coloradoans.
From what I hear, when you're a battleground state, you get two things:
1: Bribes, otherwise known as federally funded stuff.
2: Visits from politicians, ad nauseam.
From a practical point of view (1) is good and (2) is bad. From a theoretical/ethical point of view, (1) is bad and (2) is good. You weigh your reasons and take your pick.
I've never read Ann Coulter's book. I don't think my blood pressure could take it.
Does she suggest that Liberalism is Treason in a ha-ha sort of way? Accusing someone, particularly a category that includes ones self, of being stupid is one thing. Accusing "them" of a crime normally punishable by prison or death seems to be to be another thing, entirely.
I will agree that both sides are over the top. By the way, I couldn't finish Al Franken's book, either.
I won't argue with your point, because I haven't really done much with guns since getting rifle and shotgun merit badge. Personally, I believe in gun ownership, but I don't believe in free and unfettered gun ownership. I believe there's a sensible middleground, somewhere in there. I just with others were looking for it, too.
I do find it disturbing that we're describing law enforcement in combat-like terms. In some cases I suspect it's appropriate, and that's the disturbing part.
Poor examples.
I remember the riots of the 60's. Nothing changed. Change was effected by the likes of peaceful marches of MLK, and the sympathetic led by John and Robert Kennedy. You know, those two guys that some other poster was so proud to have killed by an ordinary gun, thereby demonstrating how important it is that everybody have one.
Tienanmen Square. Yeah, I remember that. Nifty footage at the time. Didn't make squat for a difference in China, though. AFAIK, the only difference is a change in public assembly rules - and access to Tienanmen Square. China has changed, but that has been in response to other pressures, not the protests.
A BIG part of the problem is that both sides treat this as a simple issue.
The pro-gun-control side thinks we can control deadly crime by controlling guns.
The pro-gun side refuses to accept ANY limitations on guns, but also turns a blind eye to their societal problems.
Nobody is really looking for an answer that will work.
** One of my pet proposals is to legalize drugs - put them on an equal footing with tobacco and alcohol. IMHO, crimes of funding drugs are now a bigger problem to society than the drugs, themselves. Legalizing and regulating drugs is bad, but not as bad as the crime associated with illegal drugs. Add drug treatment programs and work on demand reduction instead of supply intradiction. I suspect strife in South America would settle down, too.
I'm far from an expert here, but...
The ban is being attacked for being focused on appearance rather than function. But I think there's a useful issue behind it, and that's making it so law enforcement officers can do their job.
My impression is that the nasty guns (automatics, etc) are under very heavy regulation, and I would suspect that legally-owned automatics are the property of responsible gun collectors. That means that if law enforcement officers see one, and its not on a gun range or in a collector's home, or at a gun show, they could have this sneaking suspicion that it's illegal.
Furthermore, if you see one of these weapons involved in commission of a crime, there's clearly a different set of 'rules of engagement' than if you see an ordinary rifle or pistol. The officer is up against a far more dangerous foe, and deadlier force is appropriate.
Enter 'assault weapons,' something that looks like an automatic weapon. Now if the officer sees what looks like an automatic weapon being used in commission of a crime, the rules of engagement are less clear. If it's really an automatic and force is used appropriate to an assault weapon, policemen may die. If it's really an assault weapon and force is used appropriate to an automatic, suddenly the police are Brutal Pigs.
Appearance CAN be important.
I'd like to see serious proposals by the NRA for how we solve the problems that cause others to call for firearm bans. I get the distinct impression that the NRA is strictly "pry it from my cold, dead hands" and just doesn't think about the consequences of those guns in the wrong hands. The REAL problem is bad people doing things with guns, and many think the solution is to take away the guns. Maybe there's another solution - at least work on the idea.
Any shot at a carpool from Vermont?
A real conversation. Wow. Thanks. (really)
/. - "The Dangers of One Party Rule." Give the article a read, please. That's one of the ways I feel marginalized. At the moment, Democrats may as well not be in the House. They're excluded from the meetings where the real work is done, and when the vote comes to the floor, they're nearly always defeated. I care deeply about our environment, and it's lost every time it has been in a legislative bout.
/. and you'll find that actually, the entire US is very much to the right. Our left is perhaps slightly to the right of the European center. IMHO, on a left-to-right scale, the politics of Clinton resembled those of Nixon or Ford - and I'm NOT talking about corruption. My brother maintains that he and I are the same Republicans we were raised as - it's just that the whole political spectrum has shifted to the right while we've remained in place.
A later topic popped up on
As for our society being far to the left, talk to the Europeans on
Actually, I disagree with both Reaganomics and the Great Society. Again, it's the spectrum shift. If you think Clinton was a social spender, you should have seen LBJ. I believe that the government needs to balance its books, (Clinton PLUS a Republican Congress did this - it took BOTH.) and has to walk a tightrope between providing a social safety net and a social hammock.
re: "which would be easier to do if the Democrats didn't choose to show..."
You find Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand offensive. OK, it's a matter of taste. I'm not terribly fond of Michael Moore, though I only find him a little offensive. Barbara Streisand can really sing.
But I do find Ashcroft and Rumsfeld terribly offensive. (to bring a 2-for-2 comparison)
Personally, I am not terribly concerned about either gay marriage or abortion. First off, marriage is a religious institution that has taken on civil aspects. In this respect, I believe Vermont cut a fine line with Civil Unions. But at any rate, the gay issue doesn't stop me from living with happily with my wife in a heterosexual relationship, and from a Public Health point of view, gays would be better off in stable relationships, instead of promiscuous parties.
As for abortion, I don't like it. I dislike even more the Pro-Life movement labeling others as Pro-Abortion. My opinion - abortion is BAD. But there are worse things than abortion. I get this ugly feeling that there are Pro-Life people that just LOVE the foetus, but once it's a baby and the woman is no longer pregnant, OUT THE DOOR, and stay off of welfare! I actually liked Clinton's take on the matter. Abortion should be safe, and seldom. Nor do believe it's an acceptable method of birth control. (That's actually what happens (or happened) in the Soviet Union. (I have inside knowledge on this one.))
In my opinion, the urgent issues in this election are:
* The role of the US in the world, and how it wishes to relate to other nations.
* Getting the US closer to a balanced budget.
* Finding the balance in the spectrum from wealthy to poor.
* Finding the balance in the rights between business and people.
* Finding a balance between the economy and the needs of the environment.
* Tackling the issue of health care reform. (No, I'm not advocating single-payer, or anything else. I merely assert that the current system is BROKEN. In the early Clinton years we had the opportunity for a national debate, and as a nation we plugged our ears and refused. I don't know what the plan or reform should be, I just want the debate to start.)
* Tackling Intellectual Property reform. (Health care is LONG past due. IP is only a little past due. But it's due.)
And no, I don't believe ANY of my hot issues are being correctly addressed, at the moment. Have I been sufficiently civil?
Oh, one minor diatribe: The Christian Coalition really frosts me. Christ's words: "It is easier for a camel to get through the Eye of the Needle than for a rich man to get into
Did you READ the article?
Losing our Republic, as in getting overrun by foreigners?
No. Maybe. I can see extension of current policies landing us in a Depression within a decade, given other influences in the world.
Losing our Republic, as in half the population getting no effective say in national policies for the rest of my life? (I'll qualify that by saying for the next 30-40 years.)
Actually, No to that, too. I think it will only be that way for the next 20-30 years. I'll be a feeble old man when the pendulum swings.
I beg to differ, and I suspect many others will, too. I'll ignore Assault Weapons, and not compare that to other rights we're losing now. I'll ignore the Intelligence and military, and not compare that to the environment, and other issues.
I'll settle on fairness and contention.
For 6 of 8 years, we had a balanced Supreme Court, a President from one party, and the House from the other. I don't remember, but I believe the Senate might have been Democratic, but not strongly so. All in all, it was a balanced government. NOBODY played "winner take all!" Incidentally, the Republicans kept a tight rein on Clinton's Judicial appointments.
For nearly 4 years, we've had a balanced Supreme Court, and a President and both Chambers of Congress (aside from a few months, after Jeffords) from the same party. Many of us feel that the Right Wing has been playing "winner take all" these past years, acting like they have a popular mandate when they have a slim majority. The Democrats have kept some rein on Bush's Judicial appointments, though either 188 of 198, or 198 of 208 have been confirmed. Now we hear of the "nuke" option coming so they can confirm on simple majority, increasing the "winner take all" feeling. Then we're on the verge of several Supreme Court retirements, and it would seem that the Court will go Right Wing in the next 4 years, conceivably for most of the rest of my life.
Oh, and at the State legislatures BOTH parties are Gerrymandering, consolidating their Congressional districts and cementing the composition of Congress. At this point the Republicans are more successful at it, though both are guilty.
Given the Congress we have right now, and are likely to have after elections, a Republican President is the greater evil. That's not a comment on Bush or Kerry, that's a comment on the present and future composition on the Hill.
Going into the 2000 elections, any number of studies cropped up about how the country was best off when the President and Congress were of opposite parties. I tend to agree.
Mac-Brother's comment on trickle-down economics:
Yes, the money trickles down. But it gushes up.
I don't think a benchload of moderate judges would be as bad as you might, as long as they were from diverse backgrounds. I don't believe moderate means middle-of-the-road on each and every issue, down the line. Being a "moderate" is to be in a big room, and it can allow some extremes in both directions, even in the same person.
I currently like the 3 Swing Supremes, because they're the ones who deliver insight. The 3 Conservatives and 3 Liberals just cancel each other's opinions.
I didn't say now, I said in the next few years. I've survived several rounds of layoffs, already. When you see enough people go, good and competent people, you just start to think it's the Fickle Finger of Fate, and wonder when it's your turn.
No, the parties are not responsible for the divisions. You've hit it in the last sentence, dehumanizing opponents. The political parties are building too cohesive a "we" from which it's easier to dehumanize "them".
I wouldn't generalize too far accusing the left of doing most of the dehumanizing. There are other ways of dehumanizing than rants and tirades. I see this as a tit-for-tat that goes far enough back that I'm not even going to try to pin an origin. Localizing the origin just lets us blame the whole mess on one side, and say that they are ignorant, terrible, dehumanizing jerks who should be executed. That's not the end we're after.
I will say that if the left comes across as snarly and mean, some of it has to be from feeling cornered, beleagered, and marginalized in today's society. The left has been dehumanized by acts and attitude, not by words. Incidentally, Ann Coulter's book, Treason, seems to suggest (?) that Liberalism is Treason. Doesn't that mean we should round up and execute, or at least imprison nearly half of the country? (which is why I used 'executed' near the end of the paragraph, above)
I'd just like to see you folks talking with some of the other projects, and see if you can move toward interoperable file formats and protocols. The various projects have their home pages and contacts. It's best done by an insider. Please send one or more of the other projects an email, start the contact. If even two could rally publicly and build/support a standard, others would hopefully come around.
I need to install one of these things, myself. I've poked around for Indie music, but this is the first I've heard of a thing like this.
By the way, at home I'm running gaim for IM. Let's me talk to Yahoo, AIM, and a bunch of others with one client. Rather clunky, but forced to be that way because Yahoo, AIM, and the others are idiots who each wants to DOMINATE, and they won't work together.
Maybe even a "bridge server" that can make content cross-accessable between the different schemes, even if they aren't compatible. Kind of a real-time or cached translator.
Actually, they might.
One of the things done over the past 4 years was quite a bit of Gerrymandering to cement their Congressional districts and marginalize Democrats, where they held State majorities that would allow them to do so. Texas was the one we heard most about. Someone else commented about how the Senate is already Gerrymandered by state boundaries, and will proceed toward a 60/40 Republican majority over the next years.
The Democrats are going to HAVE to forget this treatment, if we are to be One Nation. Tit for tat will just make things worse.
Nor will the Democrats be able to do squat about the "Christian Coalition." The Republicans are going to have to clean their own house. I've heard stories about non-far-right Republicans getting pretty riled up about the present state of affairs. My own tinfoil-hat theory is that the Christian Coalition has taken over the Republican Campaign Funding Committee, and that's how they have such a strong hold on the party members. "Toe the line, or we fund someone else against you in the next Primary."
My personal favorite would be a (rather bizarre, I admit) McCain/Jeffords ticket. I fear it's too late to get on the ballots, though. Such a ticket could appeal to both conservative and liberal voters, and might actually be a third-party run that could take the office.
re: Spoiled Republican brats.
IMHO the biggest failing of the Republican Party, and the Business Community that backs them, is to fail to see the difference between what you NEED and what you WANT. For almost four years now, they have been getting what they WANT, almost without exception. (this topic being one) IMHO what we NEED right now is One Nation, working together. But that's not what's happening, and it doesn't look in the cards, either.
I seriously wonder if the Nation can survive another 4 years of this Administration without some sort of *internal* catastrophe. (like a Depression) I'm not singling out Bush here, rather the Whole Mess.
BTW, if we get a Constitutional Ban on abortion, watch birth control pills. I keep hearing that low-dosage birth control pills work by preventing implantation - and that's effectively chemically-induced abortion. (of a handful of undifferentiated and unstructured cells) Besides, there's only been on Constitutional Ammendment banning a specific action - Prohibition. It's also the only Ammendment to ever be repealed. It's also not the right way to do it. If you really want that end, talk about a Foetal Rights Ammendment. that would be in keeping with the Constitution.
Nonono. Of course we don't want see-saws or swings. We want Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary to move to the Far Right, and STAY THERE FOREVER.
Or at least until the Nation implodes because:
2% of the US population hold 98% of the wealth, and what's left isn't enough to maintain food, shelter, health, and clothing for the other 98% of the people.
Our economy is GONE because the creative and manufacturing base is gone, so no one can inject money in to the service sector, and the whole things goes Flush down the toilet.
Lifetimes fall and infant mortality rise because environmental regulation is 'bad science' that gets in the way of profits.
My brother (aka MacBrother, Apple MacIntosh fan) said a good 10 years ago that there were powerful forces trying to turn the United States into a third world nation. He was right, and well ahead of his time.
Now we have gnomoradio, irate, and somewhere else they mention magnatune.
Forget the programs, we need the standards. Isn't that what we've been saying about the Web and file exchange.
These buggers all need to interoperate. I haven't looked in detail at all of them, but let's say that gnomoradio has hit the key points:
1: publish the music
2: publish the license - keep it legal
3: ratings feedback
I'd say we also need
4: option to send money/payment/exchange to the artist
We need standards, and let gnomoradio, irate, and magnatune all run on those standards. Then pick the one you like, that runs on your platform.
3 disparate systems splits the catalog, and it's going to be tough enough to reach critical mass, as it is.
Some sort of license check is necessary as a fundamental part of the infrastructure, to keep the ??AA of their backs.
Provisions to pay the artist are a good idea. I wonder if percentage-wise voluntary payment works better or worse than spam.
You said that 2 weeks ago.
I've never actually read MMM, but...
What really torques me is when you make an estimate early in the program,
and you know it's only an estimate,
and since you have only limited information it's not even a very good estimate,
and you give management all of those caveats up front,
it just doesn't matter.
For the rest of the life of the program, better estimates using more information, and even the reality of program execution will all be force-fit back into that original SWAG.
But sometimes even that original SWAG didn't matter, because it might well have been force-fit into some manager's wish-list.
Then the DoHS would have to kill them all.9 /08/19 52241
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/0
The AWOL thing has been circulating for years, and has never been satisfactorily answered. Even the proof offered of good service by the White House ducked the assertions at the heart of the AWOL issue.
Meanwhile Kerry's medals have the same status as Bush's TXANG status. No proof other than inuendo, etc, that they are anything other than valid medals.
I'm willing to throw *both* into the water together, and think the nation would be better off if we did so, and not discuss either, again. I'd rather see focus on current events and policies.
If only that's what Labor Unions really did. That's their origin, and that's what they were/are meant to do, and that's what's badly needed, today.
But IMHO, there's a class of people that can smell money, and insinuate themselves into money flows. Some time ago, they smelled Union Dues, and the res is, sadly, history. Also unfortunately, some time back they began to smell Health Care, too.