What would happen if the popular vote in Florida (or any state for that matter) were a perfect tie? I don't mean the electors here -- I mean the people, the first & main round of voting. Right now, my modified version of the shell script that was posted here yesterday shows that Bush is 830 votes ahead. [Please be gentle in following that link -- it's really slow & not meant for the Slashdot effect...].
If -- and this is a huge-to-the-point-of-being-ridiculous-IF -- the difference ended up being perfectly split -- 2,908,977 for Bush, 2,908,977 for Gore...what would happen?
I'm not asking about the statistical improbability of this -- I'm well aware of it. I'm also aware that they'd probably call a recount and the recount, due to natural & unbiased errors, would probably go a different way.
But say it didn't. Say the vote really was a perfectly divided split down the middle -- what then? Are the electors then free to choose as they see fit? Do all 25 votes have to go the same way, even in such a situation?
I know this would never happen, but it's as close as we'll ever get to being reality as we're gonna experience (I hope!), so I'm interested in hearing the speculation of others on this...
Is there really "no mandate" though? To be honest, I'm not even really sure what people mean when they use that term right now. Even before we got into this mess, people were speculating that whoever wins the election will have almost zero chance of holding it for more than one term. In light of the current events, I think this has only become more accurate. Thus we have the prospect of, in effect, a lame-duck president-elect -- someone that, unless he tries something drastic, has almost zero chance of winning re-election in four years.
This person has basically two choices: accept that fate and serve as a true lame-duck president (which is what a lot of these "no mandate" suggestions amount to), or, more interestingly, take some bold moves that might endear him to the electorate in four years' time. How can that second possibility play out?
Consider Ehud Barak in Israel this summer -- he was leading without majority support, and knew that his government would likely fall when parlaiment reconvened in a few months time. Having nothing to lose, he set out for all-or-nothing peace negotiations with the Palestinians in Washington. The fact that these negotiations were unsuccessful is beside the point for the moment -- by acting decisively and accepting an un-politicianly degree of risk, he has for the time being put off that collapse of his government, and put himself in a somewhat better position to retain power.
I think that this is the sort of initiative the current president has to take. Yes, I agree, getting any bills through a congress so evenly divided will be difficult if not impossible, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying. Further, there are lots of things the president can do without really involving the congress in the first place -- the way most foreign policy matters are handled, for example.
I think it's not so much that we have "no mandate", but that we have a man who now has basically nothing to lose, and is cornered. Placed in that situation, what will he do? Nothing? Maybe. But if he wants to double the lifespan of his job, he should try for a bit more than that. At least one of the potential lame-duck president-elects is surely smart enough to realize this. (As for the other, I'm sure someone will let Bush know sooner or later:). It's no sure bet by any means, but I would look for the next administration to be anything but deadlocked and anemic.
Well, Greens were being cited as the spoiler against Gore (whether or not this is true -- I'm skeptical), and the Reform party (with Natural Law & Hegelin as a sort of splinter of it) have the federal matching funds on their side.
You've got a good point, but it isn't necessarily a conspiracy...
Good point, and I agree. But, interestingly, they've also lost in the same way -- they opened up the world to client-server computing, but the computing world is now starting to be dominated by the old guard, Microsoft. And by making their industry standard browser available only on their chosen platforms, they are able to reassert control over those platforms. It's like inviting in the Trojan Horse & then neutralizing it without suffering any harm.
Fair enough, but you didn't read the article -- the author is complaining, fairly, that AOL/NS isn't incorporating bug fixes & standards compliance variances that the Mozilla engineers are offering to it. It's not that the fixes haven't been written -- many of them are already available, but adding them & adding a beta phase would cause the release date to slip, & they don't want this to happen.
Forcing buggy software out the door doesn't seem like it would reflect well on the open source; the fact that fixes were available won't matter -- people will just see that the magnum opus of the OS world has failed to deliver on its promises (counting Linux as a product of the Free software world, &/or predating OS in the current definition of the term). That won't help us.
Further, IE is waaaaaay ahead on the main platforms (Win & MacOS) anyway, which while not really doing anything to help the Linux / BeOS etc users, means much more in terms of number of users, revenues, etc -- the thing business cares about
Save it as c:\windows\putty.exe or c:\winnt\putty.exe as the case may be
Rename the existing telnet.exe file in that directory as, say, win_telnet.exe
Rename (or copy) PuTTY.exe to telnet.exe
Wa-la, no more worries -- you now have a telnet that can handle ssh, that cuts & pastes simply by highlighting, has an unlimited scrollback buffer, and is supa-configurable.
Pull the same trick with, say, notepad.exe <-> gvim.exe, cmd.exe (or command.exe) <-> bash.exe, and install a few GNU programs (sed, grep, etc) in c:\winnt\system and you're well on your way to having a useful computer.
It's fair to say that yes, we don't need to know what the gazillionth digit of pi is (like a lot of the hecklers around here are doing), but it is actually a pretty interesting accomplishment.
I took part in the earlier phase of the project, that found the trillionth digit, and was impressed by the fact that the person behind it, Colin Percival, was only 16 or so at the time. That wasn't so long ago -- I doubt he's even 20 by now. This may not be earth-shattering knowledge, but I'm impressed by the fact that someone so young is doing something so impressive.
It reminds me of a large-scale version of the mathimatical riddles that Paul Erdos is said to have constantly posed -- check out The Man Who Only Loved Numbers some time, it's a really good book. This kid may be on track to be the same caliber of mathematician. Who knows, the next puzzle he solves might not be trivial -- maybe he'll prove or disprove the P vs NP conjecture & break or affirm modern cryptographic systems. Maybe he'll find the real proof to Fermat's last theorem. I look forward to finding out...
People still actually use the 'Home page' feature?
Yes, of course. I made a bookmark page on my site that I set as the home page on any browser I'm going to be using regularly (school, work, home, etc). It's very useful to not have to import that stuff over & over again (Google, Slashdot, Reuters, etc). The home page isn't just where you start (that's not even particularly useful on IE, it bugs me that the address bar isn't cleared), it's a central point you can keep coming back to. I'd hate to have some ISP override that on me.
I've spent years trying to get my family to stop using AOL, to no avail -- they're hooked. They even signed up for a Mediaone cable modem, & still they won't stop using the AOL accounts. It's not even that they're all that naive at this point -- it's that AOL works for them, they can do what they want to do, and they aren't impressed by the alternatives. The fact that I disagree doesn't change the fact that they (& millions of others) have a point & know what they're doing. They aren't necessarily naive AOLamers, and this move isn't fair to them...
Are these not examples where it is better to abandon than to try to fix? Of course -- don't argumentam ad absurdam me, boy:). Clearly there are cases where an idea must be scrapped -- I'd have thrown cold fusion onto your list there, for example. But I don't agree that the idea that every child needs access to a free, solid education is one we should be willing to throw away, and I fear that, as this poster noted, vouchers will lead to exactly that. Are some of the ideas applied in public education today ready to be abandoned? Sure, I'd be willing to hear arguments in favor of that. But is the larger idea, the idea that we need to be doing this one way or another, also ready to go? No way.
How are these different from a gutted music program or a gutted arts program? They aren't, of course -- I just didn't want to delineate every facet of a well rounded education as you seem to. But you're right, they're all important -- the arts equally as much as the sciences (kids need Michealangelo & da Vinci & Mozart every bit as much as they need Galileo & Newton & Einstein). And the fact that they need all of these things is exactly why I think that we need to publicly step in & provide them.
<diversion>I know it's a confrontational idea, but people really do need to be taught about, for example, both science and religion, and I wouldn't favor excluding either. Science does an excellent job of explaining the "how" questions we face, including all the "how to" questions that enable a technological society. But science fails utterly on the "why" questions, and only religion and philosophy can fill that void. I'm a raging athiest, but I cannot escape that conclusion, and I can see where just about everyone, on either side of that divide, probably has to grapple with the same split. Only by providing a balanced education can we give a future generation to decide which it prefers -- science's useful but sometimes bitter truths, or (in my opinion) religions heart-warming, sweet lies. Either way, that will likely tick off the current generation of parents, but I think it's necessary, and I think a comprehensive public education system is a very necessary component of that.</diversion>
Better, but that still doesn't change the fact that I've lost interest:)
I may think you're a raving right wing loonie (in fact, I do:), but I wouldn't call you such unless provoked. Or using it as an example in this case.
In an exchange of ideas, it's best to discuss the ideas and not the people exchanging them. If you'd rather discuss the people, that's fine, but there needs to be a shift & a distinction.
Anyway, like I said, I've lost interest, I've been at work for too long, this CD has repeated for the last time today, and I'm going home to see my girlfriend now. Good night:)
Yeah, I decided that it might not be as funny when read as when typed, but it was already there & I thought someone might chuckle (or not), so left it in. *shrug*
Because the schools are controlled by interests that do not care about how students are educated, namely, the teacher unions. I'll be generous and allow that, just because the point that you base your argument on is flat out wrong, that you still might have a good point. The fact that you didn't make it I'll set aside:).
Parents may be qualified to care, but...so what? That does not, by extension, mean that they are qualified to educate. Educators, by profession and by societal expecation, are qualified to educate (thus the term!). Unions have done a whole lot of good for the average workers in this country, but if you think they're in the way here then that's fine. But that notwithstanding, the goal here should be to fix the existing public school system, not to scrap or scuttle it. That is exactly what would happen if those that can afford to do so would draw money away from it, leaving what remains for those that cannot afford to bail out. That's wrong, and leads directly into the old "rich get richer..." game, as the offspring of the gutted public school students attend even more gutted public schools, and the private school offspring go to Andover & Exeter.
I realize I'm being inflammatory here, & apologize in advance, but I can't help it -- I really feel like this is an assault on a public -- meaning For Everybody, meaning Base Level -- institution here, that benefits a very small number of people at the expense of the greater majority's well being. Sometimes, that's acceptable & necessary, but with public education, it's dangerous and should not be done without good reason. I've heard no good reasons for it, and however bad public schools may be, I will not stand for harming them further.
Sick of Microsoft software? Don't buy it! You've never tried to buy an off the shelf PC, have you? You stand corrected, until & unless people have finally have a choice about that one. No one is forcing you to buy a PC, of course, but if you do choose to get one, you have little choice but to buy a several hundred dollar copy of Windows as well -- this you have little or no control over.
Sick of State programs? Ummm.... Yeah, those damned interstates, I just can't stand 'em! Oh please...
Corporations are more efficient than public equivalents. That is a proven FACT by now. Your emphatic use of capitalization does not change the fact that you are wrong, and cannot back up your point even if you had (hypothetically) tried. Corporations waste plenty. How much money is going to burn up when the Iridium satellites come down? Enough zeroes on that number to rest my case, I think.
nobody thinks that corporations are "more equal" than the rest of us Under current US law, corporations are considered to be "artificial persons", and a lot of insane rulings have come out of this principle. People's notions of equality aren't really a factor here Well, I can think if nine black robed exceptions, maybe, but we'll see if they ever get to form an opinion on the matter. In the mean time, corps are de facto and to an extent de jure "more equal" than regular people, and refusing to deal with that fact is a big problem.
What's so great about the State? The State is a criminal enterprise! Hear hear, wise sir! In fact, I invite you to move to Mogadishu and try bravely living in a land with no state. Or what about Afganistan -- things were clearly better before the Taliban came along. Etc etc etc.
Could you at least try to make your arguments make sense? I mean, I am just as liable as anyone to make some cheap digs & throw out opinions as fact, but I'm also willing to question my assumptions in the interest of gaining a better understanding of the world. Parroting lines like this guy does is just propaganda-mongering, and I for one prefer more than this.
Why choose? How is a gutted science curriculum different from a gutted reading curriculum? How does diverting money away from these [public] schools -- gutting both -- any kind of sane solution here?
"No, wait, on second though don't even try to get it right, we'll just withdraw funding and open our own school." Huh? What kind of nonsense is that? As near as I can tell, the kind that could only come from an education that failed to teach that it is often (usually, perhaps always) better to fix something than to abandon it.
If you're going to do anything that benefits one group at the expense of another (which pretty much describes any significant legislation), then you should expect to have to fight for it. Saying that "politics needs to have less fighting" or "politics needs to be more civil" is, besides being plain wrong, also pretty boring.
My biggest disappointment with the debates, aside from the near-criminal exclusion of my candidate, was the complete lack of friction between the two candidates most of the time. This isn't a choice among different ideals or great visions for the future, this is more like deciding if you'd rather have espresso or cappucino from Starbuck's. I was screaming for some contrast. I was dying for a point that would bitterly divide the two puppet^H^H^H^H^H^Hmen. It doesn't even matter to me whether I agree or not, I just want to see one of them take on some idea -- hell, let's have something controversial for a change -- and run with it.
But I've set myself up for a fall, of course. In this day or focus group, middle of the road, bland to the core campaigning, hoping for a little blood -- in the vein and out in the open -- is clearly too much to ask for.
This man clearly didn't read the essay, he just zoomed in on a Bush catch-phrase and fired off the obligatory canned response. It's not just that you're offbase, you're baseless. This talk about farmers & businessmen makes no sense because the estate tax proposals have nothing to do with these warm, fuzzy characters. This is about landed wealth & big business, not Jed with 500 acres in Iowa or Sue with her corner store in Boise. It's about Bill Gates. It's about giving people like his kids even more money than they already have, removing the incentive for people like Gates to do the one thing I like about him & his wealth (namely, the Gates Foundation). Quit this nonsense about small farmers & think about who you're trying to give this money to, and who you're trying to take it away from. It's not Jed or Sue's kids that you're taking it from, and its not Gates' kids that you're giving it to. It's the money that never makes it into public hands that you're eliminating -- you're taking it from all of us.
Anyone who believes that Gore is some sort of brilliant thinker while Bush is an idiot has been spending too much time listening to media spin and not enough actually looking at the candidates and their histories.
Au contraire, mon frere! I've actually listened to the men, and have definitively concluded that they're both idiots! Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dumber, I say, and it'll be a cold day in Helsinki that I cast my vote for either of them. I'll take Nader, thanks...:)
freedom of choice in puclicly supported education: codephrase for "there there, you don't have to learn about that nasty Darwin fellow if you don't want to"...
Yeah, but if the money isn't going to the public in the form of taxes, and there's no incentive for it to go to the public in the form of donations, then...how exactly does it benefit anyone besides the already extremely wealthy? Why exactly do these people need any more help?
My understanding of economics must be really shaky, because I can't see how encouraging class warfare would do anything to help the economy...
Yes. The term is "progressive tax code." The idea is to have those that can help support those that can't, and like it or not, this is a Good Thing. Paying $1000 a year or 10% is a hell of a lot more painful for someone making $10k a year than paying $250k or 1/3 of $750k. Big numbers, yes, but at the bottom levels a little goes a long way, and at the top they should be investing what they can to minimize the damage from the tax hit. Progressive policy has done a lot to create the diamond structure Brin describes, and flat or regressive taxes (same thing, really) would gut that progress. Do you really want a class war?
Actually, Jefferson didn't say that. Ben Franklin said something similar though: "They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
You also make the mistake of assuming prima facie that Socialism Is Bad, but some of us aren't so brainwashed by William F Buckley that we would actually believe such nonsense. The reality of the matter is that running a modern state is a complex affair, with plenty of room for both public & private control. The Socialist states of the world may be becoming more like us, but we're also becoming more like them, and with good reason -- very simply, both systems have merits, and a blend of the two is a Good Thing.
Letting the State run everything is, I agree, a Bad Idea. But so is letting corporations run everything. The notion that companies are more efficient or benevolent than public equivalents is hogwash. Shared control is the way, with wise regulation & public representation. Or did you perhaps forget that our founding fathers were concerned with public represenation too? You seem so forgetful...
The current issue of Discover Magazine has a very interesting article on the mathematics of voting. The current system, in which the front runner among two or more candidates wins all electors, is referred to as plurality based, and is seen as being the least fair because (among other reasons) it tends to exclude third party candidates.
The article goes on to note alternative systems, including "approval" based elections and the "Benbo" system. Approval elections allow voters one vote per candidate, giving the freedom to endorse (for example) the main party front runner of choice while also noting a vote for third party candidates. Benbo, on the other hand, asks voters to rank all candidates by preference. Neither system is perfect, but they both are better than the current system in that they guage which alternatives the voters would be comfortable with, and by so doing they gather a more accurate assessment of the general consensus.
The author of the article suggests that instating such a system would do more to bring equality to the electoral process than campaign finance reform could, though reform there is of course welcome as well. It is widely felt that the current elections -- especially the debates -- have unfairly and undemocratically excluded the voices of such candidates as Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanana, along with the millions of people who are saying that they would vote for these men. It seems clear to these millions that something needs to be done in order to bring more variety into the political process, and yet the two main parties do not seem interested in allowing it.
Where do you stand on such voting reform and campaign finance reform proposals, and the sentiment behind them that favors broadening the political dialogue in this country? What if any reform proposals would you endorse, and how far would you be willing to go to support it? Millions of people feel disenfranchised by the current system, and feel that something needs to be done. Are you the candidate to do it?
Slashdot Mirror
If -- and this is a huge-to-the-point-of-being-ridiculous-IF -- the difference ended up being perfectly split -- 2,908,977 for Bush, 2,908,977 for Gore ...what would happen?
I'm not asking about the statistical improbability of this -- I'm well aware of it. I'm also aware that they'd probably call a recount and the recount, due to natural & unbiased errors, would probably go a different way.
But say it didn't. Say the vote really was a perfectly divided split down the middle -- what then? Are the electors then free to choose as they see fit? Do all 25 votes have to go the same way, even in such a situation?
I know this would never happen, but it's as close as we'll ever get to being reality as we're gonna experience (I hope!), so I'm interested in hearing the speculation of others on this...
This person has basically two choices: accept that fate and serve as a true lame-duck president (which is what a lot of these "no mandate" suggestions amount to), or, more interestingly, take some bold moves that might endear him to the electorate in four years' time. How can that second possibility play out?
Consider Ehud Barak in Israel this summer -- he was leading without majority support, and knew that his government would likely fall when parlaiment reconvened in a few months time. Having nothing to lose, he set out for all-or-nothing peace negotiations with the Palestinians in Washington. The fact that these negotiations were unsuccessful is beside the point for the moment -- by acting decisively and accepting an un-politicianly degree of risk, he has for the time being put off that collapse of his government, and put himself in a somewhat better position to retain power.
I think that this is the sort of initiative the current president has to take. Yes, I agree, getting any bills through a congress so evenly divided will be difficult if not impossible, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying. Further, there are lots of things the president can do without really involving the congress in the first place -- the way most foreign policy matters are handled, for example.
I think it's not so much that we have "no mandate", but that we have a man who now has basically nothing to lose, and is cornered. Placed in that situation, what will he do? Nothing? Maybe. But if he wants to double the lifespan of his job, he should try for a bit more than that. At least one of the potential lame-duck president-elects is surely smart enough to realize this. (As for the other, I'm sure someone will let Bush know sooner or later :). It's no sure bet by any means, but I would look for the next administration to be anything but deadlocked and anemic.
Well maybe, but it's worth noting that it has never been this much of a problem before now... :)
You've got a good point, but it isn't necessarily a conspiracy...
It would be impressive if it wasn't so scary...
Forcing buggy software out the door doesn't seem like it would reflect well on the open source; the fact that fixes were available won't matter -- people will just see that the magnum opus of the OS world has failed to deliver on its promises (counting Linux as a product of the Free software world, &/or predating OS in the current definition of the term). That won't help us.
Further, IE is waaaaaay ahead on the main platforms (Win & MacOS) anyway, which while not really doing anything to help the Linux / BeOS etc users, means much more in terms of number of users, revenues, etc -- the thing business cares about
Wa-la, no more worries -- you now have a telnet that can handle ssh, that cuts & pastes simply by highlighting, has an unlimited scrollback buffer, and is supa-configurable.
Pull the same trick with, say, notepad.exe <-> gvim.exe, cmd.exe (or command.exe) <-> bash.exe, and install a few GNU programs (sed, grep, etc) in c:\winnt\system and you're well on your way to having a useful computer.
Have fun!
I took part in the earlier phase of the project, that found the trillionth digit, and was impressed by the fact that the person behind it, Colin Percival, was only 16 or so at the time. That wasn't so long ago -- I doubt he's even 20 by now. This may not be earth-shattering knowledge, but I'm impressed by the fact that someone so young is doing something so impressive.
It reminds me of a large-scale version of the mathimatical riddles that Paul Erdos is said to have constantly posed -- check out The Man Who Only Loved Numbers some time, it's a really good book. This kid may be on track to be the same caliber of mathematician. Who knows, the next puzzle he solves might not be trivial -- maybe he'll prove or disprove the P vs NP conjecture & break or affirm modern cryptographic systems. Maybe he'll find the real proof to Fermat's last theorem. I look forward to finding out...
Yes, of course. I made a bookmark page on my site that I set as the home page on any browser I'm going to be using regularly (school, work, home, etc). It's very useful to not have to import that stuff over & over again (Google, Slashdot, Reuters, etc). The home page isn't just where you start (that's not even particularly useful on IE, it bugs me that the address bar isn't cleared), it's a central point you can keep coming back to. I'd hate to have some ISP override that on me.
I've spent years trying to get my family to stop using AOL, to no avail -- they're hooked. They even signed up for a Mediaone cable modem, & still they won't stop using the AOL accounts. It's not even that they're all that naive at this point -- it's that AOL works for them, they can do what they want to do, and they aren't impressed by the alternatives. The fact that I disagree doesn't change the fact that they (& millions of others) have a point & know what they're doing. They aren't necessarily naive AOLamers, and this move isn't fair to them...
Of course -- don't argumentam ad absurdam me, boy
How are these different from a gutted music program or a gutted arts program?
They aren't, of course -- I just didn't want to delineate every facet of a well rounded education as you seem to. But you're right, they're all important -- the arts equally as much as the sciences (kids need Michealangelo & da Vinci & Mozart every bit as much as they need Galileo & Newton & Einstein). And the fact that they need all of these things is exactly why I think that we need to publicly step in & provide them.
<diversion>I know it's a confrontational idea, but people really do need to be taught about, for example, both science and religion, and I wouldn't favor excluding either. Science does an excellent job of explaining the "how" questions we face, including all the "how to" questions that enable a technological society. But science fails utterly on the "why" questions, and only religion and philosophy can fill that void. I'm a raging athiest, but I cannot escape that conclusion, and I can see where just about everyone, on either side of that divide, probably has to grapple with the same split. Only by providing a balanced education can we give a future generation to decide which it prefers -- science's useful but sometimes bitter truths, or (in my opinion) religions heart-warming, sweet lies. Either way, that will likely tick off the current generation of parents, but I think it's necessary, and I think a comprehensive public education system is a very necessary component of that.</diversion>
I may think you're a raving right wing loonie (in fact, I do :), but I wouldn't call you such unless provoked. Or using it as an example in this case.
In an exchange of ideas, it's best to discuss the ideas and not the people exchanging them. If you'd rather discuss the people, that's fine, but there needs to be a shift & a distinction.
Anyway, like I said, I've lost interest, I've been at work for too long, this CD has repeated for the last time today, and I'm going home to see my girlfriend now. Good night :)
Right, ad hominems are where I get off the debate train. Try to do without attacking the person with the opposing view next time...
Yeah, I decided that it might not be as funny when read as when typed, but it was already there & I thought someone might chuckle (or not), so left it in. *shrug*
I'll be generous and allow that, just because the point that you base your argument on is flat out wrong, that you still might have a good point. The fact that you didn't make it I'll set aside
Parents may be qualified to care, but ...so what? That does not, by extension, mean that they are qualified to educate. Educators, by profession and by societal expecation, are qualified to educate (thus the term!). Unions have done a whole lot of good for the average workers in this country, but if you think they're in the way here then that's fine. But that notwithstanding, the goal here should be to fix the existing public school system, not to scrap or scuttle it. That is exactly what would happen if those that can afford to do so would draw money away from it, leaving what remains for those that cannot afford to bail out. That's wrong, and leads directly into the old "rich get richer..." game, as the offspring of the gutted public school students attend even more gutted public schools, and the private school offspring go to Andover & Exeter.
I realize I'm being inflammatory here, & apologize in advance, but I can't help it -- I really feel like this is an assault on a public -- meaning For Everybody, meaning Base Level -- institution here, that benefits a very small number of people at the expense of the greater majority's well being. Sometimes, that's acceptable & necessary, but with public education, it's dangerous and should not be done without good reason. I've heard no good reasons for it, and however bad public schools may be, I will not stand for harming them further.
Sick of Microsoft software? Don't buy it!
You've never tried to buy an off the shelf PC, have you? You stand corrected, until & unless people have finally have a choice about that one. No one is forcing you to buy a PC, of course, but if you do choose to get one, you have little choice but to buy a several hundred dollar copy of Windows as well -- this you have little or no control over.
Sick of State programs? Ummm....
Yeah, those damned interstates, I just can't stand 'em! Oh please...
Corporations are more efficient than public equivalents. That is a proven FACT by now.
Your emphatic use of capitalization does not change the fact that you are wrong, and cannot back up your point even if you had (hypothetically) tried. Corporations waste plenty. How much money is going to burn up when the Iridium satellites come down? Enough zeroes on that number to rest my case, I think.
nobody thinks that corporations are "more equal" than the rest of us
Under current US law, corporations are considered to be "artificial persons", and a lot of insane rulings have come out of this principle. People's notions of equality aren't really a factor here Well, I can think if nine black robed exceptions, maybe, but we'll see if they ever get to form an opinion on the matter. In the mean time, corps are de facto and to an extent de jure "more equal" than regular people, and refusing to deal with that fact is a big problem.
What's so great about the State? The State is a criminal enterprise!
Hear hear, wise sir! In fact, I invite you to move to Mogadishu and try bravely living in a land with no state. Or what about Afganistan -- things were clearly better before the Taliban came along. Etc etc etc.
Could you at least try to make your arguments make sense? I mean, I am just as liable as anyone to make some cheap digs & throw out opinions as fact, but I'm also willing to question my assumptions in the interest of gaining a better understanding of the world. Parroting lines like this guy does is just propaganda-mongering, and I for one prefer more than this.
"No, wait, on second though don't even try to get it right, we'll just withdraw funding and open our own school." Huh? What kind of nonsense is that? As near as I can tell, the kind that could only come from an education that failed to teach that it is often (usually, perhaps always) better to fix something than to abandon it.
If you're going to do anything that benefits one group at the expense of another (which pretty much describes any significant legislation), then you should expect to have to fight for it. Saying that "politics needs to have less fighting" or "politics needs to be more civil" is, besides being plain wrong, also pretty boring.
My biggest disappointment with the debates, aside from the near-criminal exclusion of my candidate, was the complete lack of friction between the two candidates most of the time. This isn't a choice among different ideals or great visions for the future, this is more like deciding if you'd rather have espresso or cappucino from Starbuck's. I was screaming for some contrast. I was dying for a point that would bitterly divide the two puppet^H^H^H^H^H^Hmen. It doesn't even matter to me whether I agree or not, I just want to see one of them take on some idea -- hell, let's have something controversial for a change -- and run with it.
But I've set myself up for a fall, of course. In this day or focus group, middle of the road, bland to the core campaigning, hoping for a little blood -- in the vein and out in the open -- is clearly too much to ask for.
This man clearly didn't read the essay, he just zoomed in on a Bush catch-phrase and fired off the obligatory canned response. It's not just that you're offbase, you're baseless. This talk about farmers & businessmen makes no sense because the estate tax proposals have nothing to do with these warm, fuzzy characters. This is about landed wealth & big business, not Jed with 500 acres in Iowa or Sue with her corner store in Boise. It's about Bill Gates. It's about giving people like his kids even more money than they already have, removing the incentive for people like Gates to do the one thing I like about him & his wealth (namely, the Gates Foundation). Quit this nonsense about small farmers & think about who you're trying to give this money to, and who you're trying to take it away from. It's not Jed or Sue's kids that you're taking it from, and its not Gates' kids that you're giving it to. It's the money that never makes it into public hands that you're eliminating -- you're taking it from all of us.
Au contraire, mon frere! I've actually listened to the men, and have definitively concluded that they're both idiots! Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dumber, I say, and it'll be a cold day in Helsinki that I cast my vote for either of them. I'll take Nader, thanks... :)
freedom of choice in puclicly supported education: codephrase for "there there, you don't have to learn about that nasty Darwin fellow if you don't want to"...
My understanding of economics must be really shaky, because I can't see how encouraging class warfare would do anything to help the economy...
Yes. The term is "progressive tax code." The idea is to have those that can help support those that can't, and like it or not, this is a Good Thing. Paying $1000 a year or 10% is a hell of a lot more painful for someone making $10k a year than paying $250k or 1/3 of $750k. Big numbers, yes, but at the bottom levels a little goes a long way, and at the top they should be investing what they can to minimize the damage from the tax hit. Progressive policy has done a lot to create the diamond structure Brin describes, and flat or regressive taxes (same thing, really) would gut that progress. Do you really want a class war?
You also make the mistake of assuming prima facie that Socialism Is Bad, but some of us aren't so brainwashed by William F Buckley that we would actually believe such nonsense. The reality of the matter is that running a modern state is a complex affair, with plenty of room for both public & private control. The Socialist states of the world may be becoming more like us, but we're also becoming more like them, and with good reason -- very simply, both systems have merits, and a blend of the two is a Good Thing.
Letting the State run everything is, I agree, a Bad Idea. But so is letting corporations run everything. The notion that companies are more efficient or benevolent than public equivalents is hogwash. Shared control is the way, with wise regulation & public representation. Or did you perhaps forget that our founding fathers were concerned with public represenation too? You seem so forgetful...
The article goes on to note alternative systems, including "approval" based elections and the "Benbo" system. Approval elections allow voters one vote per candidate, giving the freedom to endorse (for example) the main party front runner of choice while also noting a vote for third party candidates. Benbo, on the other hand, asks voters to rank all candidates by preference. Neither system is perfect, but they both are better than the current system in that they guage which alternatives the voters would be comfortable with, and by so doing they gather a more accurate assessment of the general consensus.
The author of the article suggests that instating such a system would do more to bring equality to the electoral process than campaign finance reform could, though reform there is of course welcome as well. It is widely felt that the current elections -- especially the debates -- have unfairly and undemocratically excluded the voices of such candidates as Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanana, along with the millions of people who are saying that they would vote for these men. It seems clear to these millions that something needs to be done in order to bring more variety into the political process, and yet the two main parties do not seem interested in allowing it.
Where do you stand on such voting reform and campaign finance reform proposals, and the sentiment behind them that favors broadening the political dialogue in this country? What if any reform proposals would you endorse, and how far would you be willing to go to support it? Millions of people feel disenfranchised by the current system, and feel that something needs to be done. Are you the candidate to do it?
Not quite as much fun, but then not trickery from Photoshop either -- I took them at a Man or Astroman show last year... :)