If I were a Nader supporter, I'd be a bit concerned about him getting over 5%. If he manages that feat, the Green party is going to qualify for Federal funds next time around. I think that that would make an attractive honeypot for some roving band to come in and attempt a takeover of the party. How'd you like a bunch like the Buchananites suddenly registering as Green, the way they did with the Reform party? Fed funds could be more of a curse than a help to a third party, unless they're certain that their real base can outnumber potential conquerors.
Geez, that has to be about the worst product name in the history of the world.
Nope, that honor belongs to the Totalizator. That board at horse tracks that totes up the odds on the horses. Nobody outside of the racing industry spells it right. I used to know a guy who worked at International Totalizator and he seldom got a piece of mail addressed to the correct company name. At least with Shouptronic your brain would go 'wuh?' on hearing it and you'd stop to look it up. The brain refuses to hear Totalizator as anything but Totalizer.
Although health care is subsidized in Canada, you cannot simply drive from the US to get an operation. You will still be billed if you're not a resident, although you're not going to be denied care (you pay later).
Yeah. That's how the U.S. is supposed to work too. We get many foreigners showing up here in our emergency rooms. They get cancer treatment, transplants (one Mexican citizen from a wealthy family got a heart transplant a couple of years ago), whatever they need. Most of the time, they go back home and the bills are never collected. If the Canadian system is as efficient at collecting debts as the U.S. is, it's probably not getting much in the way of reimbursement.
I'm sorry, but if Bush is elected either people will be leaving the US in droves... or people will set up the quickest and nastiest revolution in the US's history
The way I know Bush is going to win is by how hysterical his opposition is getting. This is exactly the same stuff people were shrieking when Reagan was elected. They also called him dimwitted, a closet (or even overt) fascist, dangerous, yada yada yada. All the same crapola they try to tar Bush with. It's a measure of how desperate they've gotten that the sole topics of the Democrat campaign in its waning days is how bad Bush is. I haven't heard a peep out of the Gore camp about any of their platform lately. Life is good.
The restrictions on voting vary by state, so one could theoretically establish a 'residence' in a more lenient state in order to vote (via absentee ballot) for President at least. Then again, the voting registration process has become so incredibly lax that you can register as many times as you want under different names, vote by mail, and no one would be the wiser. (Probably not a good idea however, if vote fraud would be your 'third strike' if you live in a 3-strike law state)
Beta died because everything had to be verified before it could be put out on Betamax.
I hadn't known of this, so I'll take your word for it, but another factor was capacity. VHS quickly came out with increased record times, which Beta couldn't immediately match. I think that, plus the 'open-standard' nature of VHS, were the real decisive factors. No one I know made a purchasing decision on the availability of porn tapes; we were all just blown away with being able to record TV shows for later viewing. Those who have no memory of pre-VCR days can't imagine what a revolution that was.
The President's technology policy making power is limited to veto and executive order.
Not true. Just look at the FCC instituting a telephone tax for the purpose of funding the wiring of schools. That wasn't authorized by any congressional action, but there it is nonetheless. The executive has broad powers via its regulatory agencies. Even if the executive can't directly force an issue, it can threaten to withold federal funds to get states/municipalities to pass the laws it wants. Witness the threat to withold highway funds unless states make.08 the legal limit for drunk driving.
Doomed? Doomed? I don't know how long you've been on this earth, but the U.S. has survived much worse things than electing either of these people. The genius of the American political system is that it's remarkably resiliant and resistant to even deliberate efforts to derail it. Buck up there, Hex, we'll survive and even prosper, even if that complete sleezebag is elected. (And you can take your pick as to which one I mean.)
So just who the hell does he expect will decide how to implement the filters he just stated should be used?
Presumably the state or local school district. Which is as it should be. However, I don't really think that the federal gummint will be able to resist the temptation to micromanage. They'll ultimately use the threat of witholding federal funds to extort the schools into implementing filters pleasing to the Dept. of Education, IMO. It's how they got recalcitrant school districts to get on board the school lunch program.
if you really feel strongly about how bad the choices are, you should just go vote for something stupid, like a Ficus tree or Barry White.
Call and write letters to your representatives if you want to have an effect. They really do pay attention, particularly if you can get a group of people involved. Voting for Bugs Bunny doesn't tell them a thing about what's pissing you off, but a slew of mail, faxes, and phone calls on a topic will at a minimum let them know that there might be consequences for ignoring your wants.
As usual, the candidates' stand on most of these issues is pretty irrelevant. The president is a member of the executive branch; they don't make the laws, they enforce them.
The executive does effectively make many laws these days. Besides the staggering growth in the number of Executive Orders inaugurated by Clinton, congress has abdicated its role in law-making by passing laws establishing broad-brush 'regulatory' agencies. These agencies (FCC, EPA, HUD, etc.) are given general direction by their enabling legislation, and then are free to pass 'regulations' that are effectively laws. A good example is the FCC, which, with absolutely no power in its charter to do so, is interfering with major media mergers. They use their licensing power to extract concessions from the parties involved, or completely quash some mergers. The executive has enormous power in a climate like this, since those agencies are under its control.
When did you Canadians burn the White House the last time?
Washington was burned in 1814 (during the War of 1812), but it was the British who did it. I suppose that Canucks, being British subjects at the time, took part. It's also true that during and immediately after the Revolution, most of the Royalists ended up in Canada, so there's the grudge factor involved.
Something is lousing up the html, so here it is for a cut-and-paste:
http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/mil/election200 0/itsyourvote/stories/-20001105-134550.h tml
I'd like to point out that Austin is quite a bit smaller than Nashville
According to this, the Nashville population is 516,800 (est). According to this, the Austin population is 643,988 (est). Looks like Austin is actually larger than Nashville, which would skew things even more in support of my argument.
Bush will win the popular vote (by a minority), Gore will win the Electoral College and the presidency
There are plenty of available airline seats from DC to Nashville, as well as plenty of hotel rooms, whereas Austin-bound airline seats are virtually non-existent (the last ones in the middle of the night are going for $1600). Plus, Austin hotels are full. This tells me the press and assorted hangers-on know that Bush will win, and want to be there for his acceptance speech.
I was a federal employee for ten years, working on Navy communications projects. I'm still a self-employed engineer working on those same projects for, oh, about twice what I'd be making as a fed. I liked my time there, but I was eventually driven mad by the rampant incompetence and red tape. It's virtually impossible to fire anyone, so there I was doing my work and the work of all the clock-watching dweebs who were taking up space until their retirement. Buying the simplest thing required the filling out of an enormous form and a wait of months (it's gotten better - some employees can use credit cards for small purchases now). Most of the good people leave, so the concentration of idiots increases over time. The govenrnment ends up having to contract with people like me to get the work done, because their own people are incapable. Bottom line: probably half of your tax money is being wasted, at least in the organization that I was part of.
You will learn this in a hurry if someone in your family becomes seriously ill.
Hmmm. Guess mom and dad forgot to impart this valuable lesson as they lay dying of cancer, their suffering assuaged by pain-relief medication from the dread pharaceutical corporatist running-dogs.
Yeah-- other useless (but money-making) drugs... [snip]...They are making huge profits, and very little of that profit goes to research.
So, your argument is that the pharmaceutical industry is producing 'useless' drugs, using virtually no research, and those drugs are, by some odd twist, enormously profitable? May I suggest that you run out immediately and start up your own pharmaceutical company (little investment required, since there's no research involved), make some of these easy 'huge profits' for yourself and then devote them to producing the 'useful' drugs the eeevil pharmaceutical corporations are ignoring? Your fellow man will be very grateful.
Watch The Kids in the Hall movie, "Brain Candy." It is a fairly accurate (though absurd) look at the drug industry. It's painful for a non-KITH fan, though. So be warned.
I prefer to get my industry and economic facts from sources other than popular entertainment, thank you. Although that probably does explain where your notions of how the world works were formed...
It's hard to be a wealthy nation when all of your resources are being exported for dirt cheap and all your labor is being employed by foreigners.
Well, by that standard then, nations like Cuba and Iraq ought to be paradises. The embargos keep us vicious foreign devils from looting them. So, why are they miserable pits of desperation and poverty?
As for rule of law, that's very vague. If you mean the laws that allow only US-owned businesses to import and export food while depriving native farmers of implements and supplies, then I'd have to say you're wrong. If you mean establishing a minimum standard of living for the populace, I'd say you're right.
No, I mean that you pass laws that permit people to keep the fruits of their labors and assure certain basic rights such as speech, assembly, voting, etc. and you make sure that you have a legal system that enforces those laws. Without corruption or cronyism.
Your response betrays your mindset that for a nation to succeed, it must obtain the means to do so from outside. I maintain that that simply isn't true. The reason the West prospers is a result of its freedoms, laws, and capitalism. For a good example of what happens when you lose that, you need look no farther than South Africa. Once the economic jewel of the continent, it's gradually descending into a chaos of tribalism and corruption. Unchecked, it will ultimately be as impoverished as its neighbors.
While it's commendable that Gates is going to dedicate his fortune to helping the less fortunate, I disagree with his methodology. Giving away food and medicine helps, but what would benefit impoverished people more in the longer term would be to try to get them on their feet economically. For that, you need the rule of law and capitalism. Once established, the prosperity generated would allow them to produce their own food and medicine instead of relying on handouts. So by all means use some of the money to relieve the immediate misery, but also dedicate some of it to helping the nations themselves to prosper. I think something resembling a private IMF, except run by people who actually know what they're doing and who don't insist on policies that do more harm than good, would be a good use of his money.
Wait a minute guys! This revolutionary malaria 'cure' is exactly what Jello wants to see. No pesky and expensive "research" or "credentials" or "testing" that require profits in order to fund. Who needs these things that just raise the ultimate price of drugs for the poor, and erect nnecessary barriers against these innovative little drug peddlers? Come on, get with the program!
You go watch those people die of starvation and then you tell me about how Bill Gates has a right to that extra 5% of his money.
It's interesting how Bill Gates has become the equivalent of Satan or Adolph Hitler in some people's eyes. Were you aware that the vast portion of his fortune will end up in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? He's already transferred enough of his money to it to give it one of the largest endowments of any foundation in the world. Did you know that the foundation will be dedicated to providing vaccinations and health care to the people of the third world? Do you have one single idea about what you're bleating about? I thought not. You're more interested in bitching about how the damned 'rich' people don't really need all that money they earned, and so let's just take it from them. Here's a free clue: it's the 'rich' who employ people. You wanna see starvation and poverty, take the money away so that they can't hire you.
I have a feeling the Supreme Court will empathize with the voters, but strike it down; once elected, Constituents cannot force the hand of the Representative so strongly.
I'm not so sure. That process was employed during the battle for direct election of senators (the constitution originally had them appointed by the legislature of their state), so presumably the Supreme Court thought it was ok, at least at one time. There's an essay on the battle for direct election of senators here. Unfortunately, that particular essay doesn't talk about the "black mark on the ballot" that some states employed.
In either case, a well-informed constituency giving their congress careful attention is the best weapon against the grandstanding anti-progress that we see on Capitol Hill every day.
I agree. However, it isn't enough to just sit passively and watch. To be really effective, you have to write to your representatives and let them know the consequences of their actions. An effective control system requires feedback.
By the way, I'd add a category of "bills sponsored" to your list. Those bills which a representative endorses, not just votes for, can tell you a lot about where his/her priorities are.
Slashdot Mirror
If I were a Nader supporter, I'd be a bit concerned about him getting over 5%. If he manages that feat, the Green party is going to qualify for Federal funds next time around. I think that that would make an attractive honeypot for some roving band to come in and attempt a takeover of the party. How'd you like a bunch like the Buchananites suddenly registering as Green, the way they did with the Reform party? Fed funds could be more of a curse than a help to a third party, unless they're certain that their real base can outnumber potential conquerors.
Nope, that honor belongs to the Totalizator. That board at horse tracks that totes up the odds on the horses. Nobody outside of the racing industry spells it right. I used to know a guy who worked at International Totalizator and he seldom got a piece of mail addressed to the correct company name. At least with Shouptronic your brain would go 'wuh?' on hearing it and you'd stop to look it up. The brain refuses to hear Totalizator as anything but Totalizer.
Yeah. That's how the U.S. is supposed to work too. We get many foreigners showing up here in our emergency rooms. They get cancer treatment, transplants (one Mexican citizen from a wealthy family got a heart transplant a couple of years ago), whatever they need. Most of the time, they go back home and the bills are never collected. If the Canadian system is as efficient at collecting debts as the U.S. is, it's probably not getting much in the way of reimbursement.
Well, the Australians already had vegamite, so the Canucks had to settle for second place in the "who ever thought of eating that?" contest.
The way I know Bush is going to win is by how hysterical his opposition is getting. This is exactly the same stuff people were shrieking when Reagan was elected. They also called him dimwitted, a closet (or even overt) fascist, dangerous, yada yada yada. All the same crapola they try to tar Bush with. It's a measure of how desperate they've gotten that the sole topics of the Democrat campaign in its waning days is how bad Bush is. I haven't heard a peep out of the Gore camp about any of their platform lately. Life is good.
The restrictions on voting vary by state, so one could theoretically establish a 'residence' in a more lenient state in order to vote (via absentee ballot) for President at least. Then again, the voting registration process has become so incredibly lax that you can register as many times as you want under different names, vote by mail, and no one would be the wiser. (Probably not a good idea however, if vote fraud would be your 'third strike' if you live in a 3-strike law state)
I hadn't known of this, so I'll take your word for it, but another factor was capacity. VHS quickly came out with increased record times, which Beta couldn't immediately match. I think that, plus the 'open-standard' nature of VHS, were the real decisive factors. No one I know made a purchasing decision on the availability of porn tapes; we were all just blown away with being able to record TV shows for later viewing. Those who have no memory of pre-VCR days can't imagine what a revolution that was.
Not true. Just look at the FCC instituting a telephone tax for the purpose of funding the wiring of schools. That wasn't authorized by any congressional action, but there it is nonetheless. The executive has broad powers via its regulatory agencies. Even if the executive can't directly force an issue, it can threaten to withold federal funds to get states/municipalities to pass the laws it wants. Witness the threat to withold highway funds unless states make .08 the legal limit for drunk driving.
Doomed? Doomed? I don't know how long you've been on this earth, but the U.S. has survived much worse things than electing either of these people. The genius of the American political system is that it's remarkably resiliant and resistant to even deliberate efforts to derail it. Buck up there, Hex, we'll survive and even prosper, even if that complete sleezebag is elected. (And you can take your pick as to which one I mean.)
Presumably the state or local school district. Which is as it should be. However, I don't really think that the federal gummint will be able to resist the temptation to micromanage. They'll ultimately use the threat of witholding federal funds to extort the schools into implementing filters pleasing to the Dept. of Education, IMO. It's how they got recalcitrant school districts to get on board the school lunch program.
Call and write letters to your representatives if you want to have an effect. They really do pay attention, particularly if you can get a group of people involved. Voting for Bugs Bunny doesn't tell them a thing about what's pissing you off, but a slew of mail, faxes, and phone calls on a topic will at a minimum let them know that there might be consequences for ignoring your wants.
The executive does effectively make many laws these days. Besides the staggering growth in the number of Executive Orders inaugurated by Clinton, congress has abdicated its role in law-making by passing laws establishing broad-brush 'regulatory' agencies. These agencies (FCC, EPA, HUD, etc.) are given general direction by their enabling legislation, and then are free to pass 'regulations' that are effectively laws. A good example is the FCC, which, with absolutely no power in its charter to do so, is interfering with major media mergers. They use their licensing power to extract concessions from the parties involved, or completely quash some mergers. The executive has enormous power in a climate like this, since those agencies are under its control.
Washington was burned in 1814 (during the War of 1812), but it was the British who did it. I suppose that Canucks, being British subjects at the time, took part. It's also true that during and immediately after the Revolution, most of the Royalists ended up in Canada, so there's the grudge factor involved.
Something is lousing up the html, so here it is for a cut-and-paste:0 0/itsyourvote/stories/-20001105-134550.h tml
http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/mil/election20
According to this, the Nashville population is 516,800 (est). According to this, the Austin population is 643,988 (est). Looks like Austin is actually larger than Nashville, which would skew things even more in support of my argument.
There are plenty of available airline seats from DC to Nashville, as well as plenty of hotel rooms, whereas Austin-bound airline seats are virtually non-existent (the last ones in the middle of the night are going for $1600). Plus, Austin hotels are full. This tells me the press and assorted hangers-on know that Bush will win, and want to be there for his acceptance speech.
I was a federal employee for ten years, working on Navy communications projects. I'm still a self-employed engineer working on those same projects for, oh, about twice what I'd be making as a fed. I liked my time there, but I was eventually driven mad by the rampant incompetence and red tape. It's virtually impossible to fire anyone, so there I was doing my work and the work of all the clock-watching dweebs who were taking up space until their retirement. Buying the simplest thing required the filling out of an enormous form and a wait of months (it's gotten better - some employees can use credit cards for small purchases now). Most of the good people leave, so the concentration of idiots increases over time. The govenrnment ends up having to contract with people like me to get the work done, because their own people are incapable. Bottom line: probably half of your tax money is being wasted, at least in the organization that I was part of.
Hmmm. Guess mom and dad forgot to impart this valuable lesson as they lay dying of cancer, their suffering assuaged by pain-relief medication from the dread pharaceutical corporatist running-dogs.
So, your argument is that the pharmaceutical industry is producing 'useless' drugs, using virtually no research, and those drugs are, by some odd twist, enormously profitable? May I suggest that you run out immediately and start up your own pharmaceutical company (little investment required, since there's no research involved), make some of these easy 'huge profits' for yourself and then devote them to producing the 'useful' drugs the eeevil pharmaceutical corporations are ignoring? Your fellow man will be very grateful.
Watch The Kids in the Hall movie, "Brain Candy." It is a fairly accurate (though absurd) look at the drug industry. It's painful for a non-KITH fan, though. So be warned.
I prefer to get my industry and economic facts from sources other than popular entertainment, thank you. Although that probably does explain where your notions of how the world works were formed ...
Well, by that standard then, nations like Cuba and Iraq ought to be paradises. The embargos keep us vicious foreign devils from looting them. So, why are they miserable pits of desperation and poverty?
As for rule of law, that's very vague. If you mean the laws that allow only US-owned businesses to import and export food while depriving native farmers of implements and supplies, then I'd have to say you're wrong. If you mean establishing a minimum standard of living for the populace, I'd say you're right.
No, I mean that you pass laws that permit people to keep the fruits of their labors and assure certain basic rights such as speech, assembly, voting, etc. and you make sure that you have a legal system that enforces those laws. Without corruption or cronyism.
Your response betrays your mindset that for a nation to succeed, it must obtain the means to do so from outside. I maintain that that simply isn't true. The reason the West prospers is a result of its freedoms, laws, and capitalism. For a good example of what happens when you lose that, you need look no farther than South Africa. Once the economic jewel of the continent, it's gradually descending into a chaos of tribalism and corruption. Unchecked, it will ultimately be as impoverished as its neighbors.
While it's commendable that Gates is going to dedicate his fortune to helping the less fortunate, I disagree with his methodology. Giving away food and medicine helps, but what would benefit impoverished people more in the longer term would be to try to get them on their feet economically. For that, you need the rule of law and capitalism. Once established, the prosperity generated would allow them to produce their own food and medicine instead of relying on handouts. So by all means use some of the money to relieve the immediate misery, but also dedicate some of it to helping the nations themselves to prosper. I think something resembling a private IMF, except run by people who actually know what they're doing and who don't insist on policies that do more harm than good, would be a good use of his money.
Wait a minute guys! This revolutionary malaria 'cure' is exactly what Jello wants to see. No pesky and expensive "research" or "credentials" or "testing" that require profits in order to fund. Who needs these things that just raise the ultimate price of drugs for the poor, and erect nnecessary barriers against these innovative little drug peddlers? Come on, get with the program!
It's interesting how Bill Gates has become the equivalent of Satan or Adolph Hitler in some people's eyes. Were you aware that the vast portion of his fortune will end up in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? He's already transferred enough of his money to it to give it one of the largest endowments of any foundation in the world. Did you know that the foundation will be dedicated to providing vaccinations and health care to the people of the third world? Do you have one single idea about what you're bleating about? I thought not. You're more interested in bitching about how the damned 'rich' people don't really need all that money they earned, and so let's just take it from them. Here's a free clue: it's the 'rich' who employ people. You wanna see starvation and poverty, take the money away so that they can't hire you.
I'm not so sure. That process was employed during the battle for direct election of senators (the constitution originally had them appointed by the legislature of their state), so presumably the Supreme Court thought it was ok, at least at one time. There's an essay on the battle for direct election of senators here. Unfortunately, that particular essay doesn't talk about the "black mark on the ballot" that some states employed.
I agree. However, it isn't enough to just sit passively and watch. To be really effective, you have to write to your representatives and let them know the consequences of their actions. An effective control system requires feedback.
By the way, I'd add a category of "bills sponsored" to your list. Those bills which a representative endorses, not just votes for, can tell you a lot about where his/her priorities are.