Facts about humanity's beautiful future
RH
some may hear the ring of truth as they read. It's NOT fiction.
Bleveit or not! Don't take my word for it, check it out and make up
your own mind. I've inserted some comments of my own in [brackets]
that might be helpful. I've been studying the source for about 10 yrs
- so i can probably answer any questions that anyone has.
Cheers,
RH
----------------------
Facts about humanity's beautiful future
• A new sense of oneness will replace the present sense of separation.
This will demonstrate as brotherhood, justice, and sharing. [all over
the planet]
• We will enter an era of tranquility and peace—in exact proportion to
the present discord. The violence and hatred of today will be
transmuted into goodwill. [goodwill for all life]
• A new livingness will characterize our relationships and
institutions; a new freedom and sense of joy will replace the present
fear.
• Contributions by the highest type of artists will lead to a
regeneration of our lives. Everyone will become creative in his or her
living in an altogether new way.
• The family will gain, not lose, importance as the basic unit of
society.
• A new science, the psychology of the soul, will be the basis of all
future educational efforts and will transform life for both the child
and the teacher. [don't worry -it's NOT about religion - it's science]
• The media will have a very responsible role to play in education [of
the masses- now they're mostly lackies for their advertising
customers, and the screwed up status quo]
• Gradually, the worst areas of slums and decayed buildings in the
major cities will go. They will be replaced by recreational parkland
and by ordinary housing, on a human scale, interspersed with parks and
shopping areas.
• New buildings will be quite different in shape from buildings of the
past. Some of them, by their very shape, will focus and accumulate
particular energies.
• Transportation systems will be devised which will be so silent, so
apparently motionless, that travel fatigue will completely disappear.
• The growing concern for nature and environment will be embodied in
legislation, universally accepted, and will lead to a wise husbandry
of nature's gifts.
• There will be a new reverence for all manifestations of life, thus
bringing humanity into better alignment with the animal and other
sub-human kingdoms.
• Most farming will be organically based. This will enhance the
vitality and health of the people.
• A much simpler style of living will distinguish the coming
civilization. [there won't be so much stress]
• Humanity will be emancipated from the drudgery of needless work.
Machines will gradually take over the tasks of manufacture. [yea
robotics - they'll work for 'the people' rather than the corporations
- as is now the case]
• Increased leisure will evoke undreamed-of skills and talents, allow
men and women to reach their full potential, and permit close
involvement in community and national life [for those who want it.
Democracy can/will work when 'the people' take interest and
participate]
• Following a world stock market crash, a complete change in our
economic system will come about. A rational and sustainable economic
structure based on sufficiency will become the norm. Cooperation will
replace competition. [everyone can be winners]
• There will be a phased, gradual transfer of resources from military
to civilian production, which will provide useful work for many.
• The blind following of market forces, whose myopic rule causes such
misery today, will give way to an enlightened and just consideration
for the needs of all.
• A new political/economic structure—Democratic Socialism or Social
Democracy—will become the norm throughout the world. [man's basic
needs - for food, shelter, healthcare, and education will become the
guaranteed rights of everyone]
• All political groupings will tend to the center. Extremes will be a
thing of the past.
• In the Middle East, governments elected by the people will replace
the present sheiks and emirs as rulers.
• In Latin America, a process of democratic consensus will unfold in
almost every country. The voice of the people will be heard, and land
will be redistributed and given to them.
• National and cultural identities will be maintained, but barriers
will be taken away so that passports will no longer be necessary to
travel from country to country.
• The world's legal matters, which concern global issues such as the
exploration of the seabed, will be governed by international law.
• The United Nations will be the central debating, law-giving forum
for the nations of the world. [is there any other plausible way?
The paronoia about the UN is unfounded, unfortunate and based on
unrealistic - extremist fears]
• As a result of the changed conditions on earth—the reduction of
tension and fear, greater leisure, the eradication of disease, new
meaning and impetus to life—the health of mankind will improve
enormously and the physical body will take longer to ‘wear out.'
[People will be healthy and active for over 150 yrs per incarnation]
• The alternative medicines of today will take their place beside the
more orthodox methods.
• We will understand that there is no such thing as death, but simply
a shift of consciousness from this to another plane.
• The desire to know better the nature of God and to come into closer
relationship with that Divinity will become paramount in the lives of
millions. [we're all Gods - in potential - religion is optional - it's
NOT
required!]
• Humanity will be taught the great science of invocation, which will
take the place of worship and prayer as we know it today. [big science
- invoking energies - people will be discouraged from worshipping
anyone -
no matter how evolved they are]
• Methods and technology will be found to demonstrate the fact that
everything is energy.
• By understanding the technology of light, physicists will discover
how to control matter, distance and time—and how to neutralize toxic
waste and stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
• The fusion process of nuclear power—a cold, safe, wasteless process
using a simple isotope of water, universally available—will solve all
humanity's future power needs.
• By the end of this century, we will build structures with the
scientific use of sound.
• We will accept the fact that all the planets are inhabited and that
we are all brothers and friends. Gradually, we will take our place in
the cosmic brotherhood.
[Also - the world population will decrease - people will quit having
so many kids - to around 3.5 billion]
###
source: Share International: http://www.share-international.org
David Johnson
news:524db79f.03100...@posting.google.com:
> This is probably a bit too much for some, but others will enjoy it and
> some may hear the ring of truth as they read. It's NOT fiction.
> Bleveit or not! Don't take my word for it, check it out and make up
> your own mind. I've inserted some comments of my own in [brackets]
> that might be helpful. I've been studying the source for about 10 yrs
> - so i can probably answer any questions that anyone has.
> Cheers,
> RH
>
> ----------------------
>
> Facts about humanity's beautiful future
>
> • A new sense of oneness will replace the present sense of separation.
> This will demonstrate as brotherhood, justice, and sharing. [all over
> the planet]
Actually, the world won't be a better place until we all grasp the
concept of individuallity, rather than grouping (no matter how large).
> • We will enter an era of tranquility and peace—in exact proportion to
> the present discord. The violence and hatred of today will be
> transmuted into goodwill. [goodwill for all life]
How?
> • A new livingness will characterize our relationships and
> institutions; a new freedom and sense of joy will replace the present
> fear.
"livingness" isn't a word.
> • Contributions by the highest type of artists will lead to a
> regeneration of our lives. Everyone will become creative in his or her
> living in an altogether new way.
How do you scale artists from"highest" to "lowest" - and everyone
already _is_ "creative in his or her living."
> • The family will gain, not lose, importance as the basic unit of
> society.
Possibly - though that's at odds with your "oneness" prediction above.
> • A new science, the psychology of the soul, will be the basis of all
> future educational efforts and will transform life for both the child
> and the teacher. [don't worry -it's NOT about religion - it's science]
Since there is no such thing as a "soul" (except in the metaphorical
sense), it _is_ religion.
> • The media will have a very responsible role to play in education [of
> the masses- now they're mostly lackies for their advertising
> customers, and the screwed up status quo]
"The media will have a very responsible role to play in education" when
most people are willing to watch educational shows. Much as it pains me
to say, this probably isn't going to happen.
> • Gradually, the worst areas of slums and decayed buildings in the
> major cities will go. They will be replaced by recreational parkland
> and by ordinary housing, on a human scale, interspersed with parks and
> shopping areas.
Meanwhile, the current areas of "recreational parkland and by ordinary
housing, on a human scale, interspersed with parks and shopping areas"
will decay into slums. The cycle will then repeat.
BTW, "ordinary housing, on a human scale" as a major component of
housing is unlikely until the world's population starts dropping. By
current trends, that probably won't be until the 2100s.
> • New buildings will be quite different in shape from buildings of the
> past. Some of them, by their very shape, will focus and accumulate
> particular energies.
Buildings won't be "quite different in shape" because they still have to
do the exact same thing - enclose volume for humans to use. Apart from
some "artistic" attempts to make something new, this isn't going to
change.
The only "energies" they are likely to "focus and accumulate" are solar,
wind and (maybe) things in the RF spectrum. There aren't any others
"floating" through the Earth's biosphere.
> • Transportation systems will be devised which will be so silent, so
> apparently motionless, that travel fatigue will completely disappear.
Quieter, certainly. Silent is unlikely. And I doubt travel fatigue has
anything to do with inertial changes - unless you have to do the whole
trip standing.
> • The growing concern for nature and environment will be embodied in
> legislation, universally accepted, and will lead to a wise husbandry
> of nature's gifts.
Maybe - but _nothing_ is _ever_ "universally accepted."
> • There will be a new reverence for all manifestations of life, thus
> bringing humanity into better alignment with the animal and other
> sub-human kingdoms.
Basically a meaningless statement here - and if we're pulled into a
"better alignment with the animal and other sub-human kingdoms" then we
_won't_ care very much about them at all - because they don't.
> • Most farming will be organically based. This will enhance the
> vitality and health of the people.
a) Not until world populations drop to about half to one-third of now,
as that's all "organic farming" can support, and
b) The difference in "health and vitality" would be trivial - getting
everyone in (say) the U.S. to walk an extra couple of miles a week would
have a _much_ greater effect, and fewer people will have to starve for
it.
> • A much simpler style of living will distinguish the coming
> civilization. [there won't be so much stress]
No it won't (and what you've described above does _not_ suggest a
"simpler style of living") - it'll just change what you're stressing
about.
> • Humanity will be emancipated from the drudgery of needless work.
> Machines will gradually take over the tasks of manufacture. [yea
> robotics - they'll work for 'the people' rather than the corporations
> - as is now the case]
Probably, eventually. Then, of course, they take over...
> • Increased leisure will evoke undreamed-of skills and talents, allow
> men and women to reach their full potential, and permit close
> involvement in community and national life [for those who want it.
> Democracy can/will work when 'the people' take interest and
> participate]
Yeah, longer vacations'll do that...right.
> • Following a world stock market crash, a complete change in our
> economic system will come about. A rational and sustainable economic
> structure based on sufficiency will become the norm. Cooperation will
> replace competition. [everyone can be winners]
No, it won't. Competition will continue to exist as long as there is
reproduction.
> • There will be a phased, gradual transfer of resources from military
> to civilian production, which will provide useful work for many.
Except for all the people who work in/for the militaries - effect,
probably null.
> • The blind following of market forces, whose myopic rule causes such
> misery today, will give way to an enlightened and just consideration
> for the needs of all.
[must...repress...giggle...]
> • A new political/economic structure—Democratic Socialism or Social
> Democracy—will become the norm throughout the world. [man's basic
> needs - for food, shelter, healthcare, and education will become the
> guaranteed rights of everyone]
Possibly - we'll just fight about other things then.
> • All political groupings will tend to the center. Extremes will be a
> thing of the past.
Bell curves are _not_ erasable...
> • In the Middle East, governments elected by the people will replace
> the present sheiks and emirs as rulers.
Maybe...eventually...possibly. Wouldn't bet any large sums on it,
though.
> • In Latin America, a process of democratic consensus will unfold in
> almost every country. The voice of the people will be heard, and land
> will be redistributed and given to them.
See above comment - though _slightly_ more likely.
> • National and cultural identities will be maintained, but barriers
> will be taken away so that passports will no longer be necessary to
> travel from country to country.
Sure - 'cause governments will have access to a "universal ID" system,
so you won't _need_ a seperate passport...
...'course, don't bet on being able to go anywhere you want any more
than you can now.
> • The world's legal matters, which concern global issues such as the
> exploration of the seabed, will be governed by international law.
And will be ignored by international lawbreakers, same as now.
> • The United Nations will be the central debating, law-giving forum
> for the nations of the world. [is there any other plausible way?
> The paronoia about the UN is unfounded, unfortunate and based on
> unrealistic - extremist fears]
The U.N., in my opinion, is past the high-point of its powers. Quite
frankly, trends I see suggest the world breaking up into _more_ seperate
polities rather than turning into one. But that's just my opinion -
YMMV.
> • As a result of the changed conditions on earth—the reduction of
> tension and fear, greater leisure, the eradication of disease, new
> meaning and impetus to life—the health of mankind will improve
> enormously and the physical body will take longer to ‘wear out.'
> [People will be healthy and active for over 150 yrs per incarnation]
Could well be longer - won't have anything to do with "result[s] of the
changed conditions on earth—the reduction of tension and fear, greater
leisure, the eradication of disease, new meaning and impetus to life"
though, more likely genetic engineering or nanotech.
> • The alternative medicines of today will take their place beside the
> more orthodox methods.
Mostly no, because 90% (plus) of those "alternative medicines of today"
are simply delusions, hoaxes, mistakes, and scams to make money
(especially the latter).
> • We will understand that there is no such thing as death, but simply
> a shift of consciousness from this to another plane.
There are no such things as "another plane." You die, you're dead,
you're gone. Period.
> • The desire to know better the nature of God and to come into closer
> relationship with that Divinity will become paramount in the lives of
> millions. [we're all Gods - in potential - religion is optional - it's
> NOT required!]
There are no gods - and that includes our potential us. Deal with it.
> • Humanity will be taught the great science of invocation, which will
> take the place of worship and prayer as we know it today. [big science
> - invoking energies - people will be discouraged from worshipping
> anyone - no matter how evolved they are]
See above. But it _won't_ keep people from worshipping a deity,
depressingly enough.
> • Methods and technology will be found to demonstrate the fact that
> everything is energy.
Ummm, that was demonstrated in 1945 - it was called Alamogordo...
> • By understanding the technology of light, physicists will discover
> how to control matter, distance and time—and how to neutralize toxic
> waste and stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
What the heck is "the technology of light?"
> • The fusion process of nuclear power—a cold, safe, wasteless process
> using a simple isotope of water, universally available—will solve all
> humanity's future power needs.
Cold fusion is pretty much guarenteed to have been bunk - now or in the
future. Fusion probably will come, eventually - but like _everything_
else in the universe, it will neither be perfectly safe nor wasteless
and it's unlikely to "solve all humanity's future power needs" forever.
> • By the end of this century, we will build structures with the
> scientific use of sound.
No.
> • We will accept the fact that all the planets are inhabited
No, they're not.
> and that we are all brothers and friends
No, we're not.
> Gradually, we will take our place in the cosmic brotherhood.
There isn't such a thing.
> [Also - the world population will decrease - people will quit having
> so many kids - to around 3.5 billion]
Like I said, assuming current trends continue, sometime in the 2100s.
If civilization collapses, of course, it'll happen much quicker...
David
RH
<snip>
>
> > ? Contributions by the highest type of artists will lead to a
> > regeneration of our lives. Everyone will become creative in his or her
> > living in an altogether new way.
>
> How do you scale artists from"highest" to "lowest" - and everyone
> already _is_ "creative in his or her living."
"Highest" would refer to the most evolved and powerful - those whose
contributions can't be forgotten - whose work is valued, protected,
and greatly admired by large numbers for generations. Rembrandt,
Mozart, etc. Nobody would say that the highest is better (in a
competitive sense)than those who haven't yet reached a similar high
point in their journey.
> Possibly - though that's at odds with your "oneness" prediction above.
We are using different definitions for the word 'oneness' - to me it
means recognizing that we're all interconnected- together we form one
entity that is called 'humanity'. When some of us suffer needlessly it
has an adverse affect on all of us. Einstein understood (eventually
most people will too):
"A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe', a part
limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and
feelings as something separate from the rest -- a kind of optical
delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for
us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few
persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this
prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living
creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." Albert Einstein
> Since there is no such thing as a "soul" (except in the metaphorical
> sense), it _is_ religion.
Many people have a different view.
> "The media will have a very responsible role to play in education" when
> most people are willing to watch educational shows. Much as it pains me
> to say, this probably isn't going to happen.
>
The national news programs should be educational - that's what many
would naturally expect - but in the USA - they're largely propaganda
mechanisms - which fail to let the people know (educate) what's going
on in the world. The reporting is grossly unbalanced and heavily spun.
They tend to turn people's attention to sex, crime, and new
cars/trucks. !It was recently used to manipulate a majority to support
an unjust & immoral war that and horribly corrupt president!
:-)
The educational shows of the past will not have much in common with
the educational shows of the future. Great masterpiece dramas and/or
thrillers can be both very educational and entertaining. The best is
yet to come!
<><><>
"Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for
granted, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider."
Francis Bacon
<><><>
"...mankind [will advance] into a civilization and a state of
consciousness in which right human relations and worldwide
cooperation for the good of all will be the universal keynote." Djwhal
Khul
Anton Sherwood
newsgroups? How is utopian prophecy appropriate to any of them?
> David Johnson <trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> How do you scale artists from"highest" to "lowest" -
RH wrote:
> "Highest" would refer to the most evolved and powerful - those whose
> contributions can't be forgotten - whose work is valued, protected,
> and greatly admired by large numbers for generations. Rembrandt,
> Mozart, etc. . . .
Each of whom (unless I am very much mistaken) *was* long forgotten, to
be revived and made fashionable by a later generation.
--
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Robert J. Kolker
RH wrote:
>
> "...mankind [will advance] into a civilization and a state of
> consciousness in which right human relations and worldwide
> cooperation for the good of all will be the universal keynote." Djwhal
> Khul
I think mankind will give up girly religions and humans will be
themselves. Girly men forgive their enemies and show compassion. Real
men kill their enemies; take their land and cattle, rape their women,
enslave their children and reflect on how good life can be.
Bob Kolker
Mike Schilling
"Anton Sherwood" <ne...@ogre.nu> wrote in message
news:vo0ertf...@corp.supernews.com...
Mozart, long forgotten? Bach and Schubert, certainly, but when was Mozart
in eclipse?
David Johnson
> David Johnson <trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>
>> > ? Contributions by the highest type of artists will lead to a
>> > regeneration of our lives. Everyone will become creative in his or
>> > her living in an altogether new way.
>>
>> How do you scale artists from"highest" to "lowest" - and everyone
>> already _is_ "creative in his or her living."
>
>
> "Highest" would refer to the most evolved and powerful - those whose
> contributions can't be forgotten - whose work is valued, protected,
> and greatly admired by large numbers for generations. Rembrandt,
> Mozart, etc. Nobody would say that the highest is better (in a
> competitive sense)than those who haven't yet reached a similar high
> point in their journey.
In large part, what's "protected and greatly admired" goes in and out of
fashion - and is usually _highly_ dependant on the individual looking at
it and what culture they're from. Fer instance, today the Great Pyramid
is "protected and greatly admired" - five-hundred years ago it was
thought of as a handy source of cut stone.
[snip]
>> Since there is no such thing as a "soul" (except in the metaphorical
>> sense), it _is_ religion.
>
>
> Many people have a different view.
*SHRUG* And every person on the face of the Earth believes, deep in
their heart of hearts, that if they push the elevator button repeatedly,
the elevator will come faster. That's not true either.
Where's your evidence?
>> "The media will have a very responsible role to play in education"
>> when most people are willing to watch educational shows. Much as it
>> pains me to say, this probably isn't going to happen.
>>
>
>
> The national news programs should be educational - that's what many
> would naturally expect - but in the USA - they're largely propaganda
> mechanisms - which fail to let the people know (educate) what's going
> on in the world. The reporting is grossly unbalanced and heavily spun.
>
> They tend to turn people's attention to sex, crime, and new
> cars/trucks. !It was recently used to manipulate a majority to support
> an unjust & immoral war that and horribly corrupt president!
>:-)
>
> The educational shows of the past will not have much in common with
> the educational shows of the future. Great masterpiece dramas and/or
> thrillers can be both very educational and entertaining. The best is
> yet to come!
And I'll probably watch lots of them - I do now. I don't expect the
audience share to get all that much larger than now, though - and you
haven't explained why it will.
> "Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for
> granted, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider."
> Francis Bacon
I did - and found it light of weight and consider it a fluffy-dreamworld
view of the future.
David
Matt Hughes
>
> ? The family will gain, not lose, importance as the basic unit of
> society.
Here follows a rant based upon a nit-pick, but an important one: we
are constantly told by conservative apologists (which this poster is
obviously not) that the family is the basic unit of our society. But
it ain't. The individual is.
Families do not have rights; persons do. Families do not vote;
citizens do. Families are not arrested, tried and punished for crimes
committed by their individual members. There is admittedly some
provision in the various western tax codes for aggregating family
income for tax purposes, i.e., deductions for dependent spouses and
children, but that's about as far as it goes.
In some traditional societies -- e.g., Iraq -- the family is indeed
the basic unit. Parents marry children to their first and second
cousins to encourage family cohesion. If someone harms a member of
your family it is permissible (indeed, expected) to take revenge
against a relative of the perpetrator. Nepotism is not a fault but
the virtue of a good family man.
Granted, a few generations back, families held more sway in our
culture. Women lost control of their property when they married.
Children had their spouses chosen for them, especially if there was
something worth inheriting. Most young men followed their fathers
into the same line of work, or found that their fathers chose their
life's work for them by apprenticing them as children to some local
tradesman.
But ever since the enlightenment and the reform/revolution movements
of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the individual
has been the true basic unit of western polities and cultures. So why
is the oft heard assertion that it's the family left unchallenged?
How many of us would really want to go back to the world we came from,
the world so many traditional societies still inhabit, where such
basic decisions as whom to marry and what to do for a living are made
for us by our parents?
Here endeth the rant.
Matt Hughes
http://mars.ark.com/~mhughes/
Robert J. Kolker
Matt Hughes wrote:
> Here follows a rant based upon a nit-pick, but an important one: we
> are constantly told by conservative apologists (which this poster is
> obviously not) that the family is the basic unit of our society. But
> it ain't. The individual is.
You (unfortunately) are right. And because the natural organic unit of
human existence has been atomized (so to speak) society will
disintegrate because of incompatible individual agendas. The result will
be either chaos or some ueber tyranny which will resolve the chaos to no
one's liking. This is the inevitable result of mindless individuals
singing "me me me me" with no thought for tomorrow.
You can see it happening in California. If the recall goes foreward, you
will have a recall every other year. State government will disintegrate
and violence and riots will ensue until a Strongman imposes his will.
This is a nasty spoof on the authority of family elders which in the
past have kept societies going for thousands of years.
Bob Kolker
Faeelin
"RH" <halco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:524db79f.03100...@posting.google.com...
> . A new sense of oneness will replace the present sense of separation.
> This will demonstrate as brotherhood, justice, and sharing. [all over
> the planet]
Hasn't individualism worked pretty well so far? Why change?
> . Contributions by the highest type of artists will lead to a
> regeneration of our lives. Everyone will become creative in his or her
> living in an altogether new way.
Isn't that the case now?
> . A new science, the psychology of the soul, will be the basis of all
> future educational efforts and will transform life for both the child
> and the teacher. [don't worry -it's NOT about religion - it's science]
Where's the evidence for a soul?
> . The media will have a very responsible role to play in education [of
> the masses- now they're mostly lackies for their advertising
> customers, and the screwed up status quo]
So we'll decide what it says?
> . Gradually, the worst areas of slums and decayed buildings in the
> major cities will go. They will be replaced by recreational parkland
> and by ordinary housing, on a human scale, interspersed with parks and
> shopping areas.
We have those areas now, outside of slums.
> . New buildings will be quite different in shape from buildings of the
> past. Some of them, by their very shape, will focus and accumulate
> particular energies.
Yes, we will harness the power of... chemical energy!
> . Transportation systems will be devised which will be so silent, so
> apparently motionless, that travel fatigue will completely disappear.
How will you abolish jet lag?
> . There will be a new reverence for all manifestations of life, thus
> bringing humanity into better alignment with the animal and other
> sub-human kingdoms.
What makes them equal in value to us?
> . Most farming will be organically based. This will enhance the
> vitality and health of the people.
But only through industrial farming can we feed our population.
Mechanization is the way to go.
> . A much simpler style of living will distinguish the coming
> civilization. [there won't be so much stress]
Were you ever a peasant? Have you ever had to worry about a failed harvest
causing you to starve, your village's lord raping your daughter, or the good
old invading army? How about the horrible disease known as smallpox?
Give me the modern day. Now.
> . Humanity will be emancipated from the drudgery of needless work.
> Machines will gradually take over the tasks of manufacture. [yea
> robotics - they'll work for 'the people' rather than the corporations
> - as is now the case]
A simpler life through technology. Oh, ok.
> . Increased leisure will evoke undreamed-of skills and talents, allow
> men and women to reach their full potential, and permit close
> involvement in community and national life [for those who want it.
> Democracy can/will work when 'the people' take interest and
> participate]
You know, there are those who do reach their full potential now.
> . The blind following of market forces, whose myopic rule causes such
> misery today, will give way to an enlightened and just consideration
> for the needs of all.
Yeah, I'm telling you, all the past 200 years have brought is misery.
> . A new political/economic structure-Democratic Socialism or Social
> Democracy-will become the norm throughout the world. [man's basic
> needs - for food, shelter, healthcare, and education will become the
> guaranteed rights of everyone]
Let's call it the National Socialist party.
> . In the Middle East, governments elected by the people will replace
> the present sheiks and emirs as rulers.
After a decade of reoccupation, perhaps.
> . The United Nations will be the central debating, law-giving forum
> for the nations of the world. [is there any other plausible way?
> The paronoia about the UN is unfounded, unfortunate and based on
> unrealistic - extremist fears]
Uhuh.
> . We will understand that there is no such thing as death, but simply
> a shift of consciousness from this to another plane.
Evidence?
> . Methods and technology will be found to demonstrate the fact that
> everything is energy.
And matter, surely.
David Johnston
wrote:
>halco...@yahoo.com (RH) wrote in message news:<524db79f.03100...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> ? The family will gain, not lose, importance as the basic unit of
>> society.
>
>Here follows a rant based upon a nit-pick, but an important one: we
>are constantly told by conservative apologists (which this poster is
>obviously not) that the family is the basic unit of our society. But
>it ain't. The individual is.
>
>Families do not have rights; persons do.
That isn't entirely true. Children's rights are seriously restricted
for example in areas such as voting, property purchase and
freedom of speech, and what rights they do have are normally
exercised by their parents on their behalf.
Robert J. Kolker
Faeelin wrote:
>
> How will you abolish jet lag?
Limit speeds to no more than 50 knots.
Bob Kolker
>
Turrosh Mak
> would naturally expect - but in the USA - they're largely propaganda
> mechanisms - which fail to let the people know (educate) what's going
> on in the world. The reporting is grossly unbalanced and heavily spun.
>
> They tend to turn people's attention to sex, crime, and new
> cars/trucks. !It was recently used to manipulate a majority to support
> an unjust & immoral war that and horribly corrupt president!
> :-)
>
I apologize to the group, but I just couldn't let this go
unquestioned.
RH, You say that you are all for the "oneness" of humanity. Isn't it
"just and good" for one group of people to save another group of
people from their tyranical, mass murdering oppressor?
Your opinion damns you in my eyes. Go back to whatever crack pipe
you're smoking and let us get back to "history"
Brandon J. Van Every
> This is probably a bit too much for some,
I was going to respond with the single word,
"Why?"
but instead, after reading on for about 1/10 of it, I respond with the
single word,
"Barf!"
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
Taking risk where others will not.
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> You can see it happening in California. If the recall goes foreward,
> you will have a recall every other year.
If California remains a -$98 billion shithole, perhaps that's appropriate.
I haven't been following the issues closely, not being in CA, but it
wouldn't shock me if they're getting the government they deserve. Maybe the
state is filled with fools and flakes. As Frank Zappa said,
California's got the most of them
Boy they've got a host of them!
Swear to god they've got the most
At every business on the coast
Swear to god they've got the most
They've got the FLAKES
FLAKES FLAKES
Periandrus Rex
>
[snip strange semi-coherent nonsense]
> source: Share International: http://www.share-international.org
When I read the above text, what immediately jumped to mind is
Scientology*. Besides the actual content, notice the unorthodox use of
the sufix "ness" (e.g. oneness). That's typical Ron Hubbard newspeak.
Notice also the poster's nick: RH.
www.share-international.org promotes "Maitreya -- The World Teacher
for the age of Aquarius". Needs no comment, I think.
Conclusion: the poster promotes the ideas of a group which is either a
Scientology* front or a similar New Age brainwashing enterprise.
* All trademarks properties of respective owners.
RH
> "RH" <halco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:524db79f.03100...@posting.google.com...
>
> > . A new sense of oneness will replace the present sense of separation.
> > This will demonstrate as brotherhood, justice, and sharing. [all over
> > the planet]
>
> Hasn't individualism worked pretty well so far? Why change?
>
Did anyone say anything about eliminating individualism? Not me. It
will always be.
> > . Contributions by the highest type of artists will lead to a
> > regeneration of our lives. Everyone will become creative in his or her
> > living in an altogether new way.
>
> Isn't that the case now?
You could say that about some of the poeple, but 1billion people live
in abject poverty - and many are busy worrying about where there next
meal will come from.
>
> > . A new science, the psychology of the soul, will be the basis of all
> > future educational efforts and will transform life for both the child
> > and the teacher. [don't worry -it's NOT about religion - it's science]
>
> Where's the evidence for a soul?
Right now, it can only be seen by some people - but it's right there.
Where's the evidence that that there is no such thing?
>
> > . The media will have a very responsible role to play in education [of
> > the masses- now they're mostly lackies for their advertising
> > customers, and the screwed up status quo]
>
> So we'll decide what it says?
Yes. We the people will have the power.
<snip>
> > . Most farming will be organically based. This will enhance the
> > vitality and health of the people.
>
> But only through industrial farming can we feed our population.
> Mechanization is the way to go.
It's my understanding that industrial farming will be replaced by
small family farms.
>
> > . A much simpler style of living will distinguish the coming
> > civilization. [there won't be so much stress]
>
> Were you ever a peasant? Have you ever had to worry about a failed harvest
> causing you to starve, your village's lord raping your daughter, or the good
> old invading army? How about the horrible disease known as smallpox?
>
> Give me the modern day. Now.
We still have lots of room for improvement.
>
> > . Humanity will be emancipated from the drudgery of needless work.
> > Machines will gradually take over the tasks of manufacture. [yea
> > robotics - they'll work for 'the people' rather than the corporations
> > - as is now the case]
>
> A simpler life through technology. Oh, ok.
>
> > . Increased leisure will evoke undreamed-of skills and talents, allow
> > men and women to reach their full potential, and permit close
> > involvement in community and national life [for those who want it.
> > Democracy can/will work when 'the people' take interest and
> > participate]
>
> You know, there are those who do reach their full potential now.
True - but what about the other 6.3 billion?
;-)
>
> > . We will understand that there is no such thing as death, but simply
> > a shift of consciousness from this to another plane.
>
> Evidence?
When you're ready to see, you will.
Joann Evans
Hmm...didn't a certain California gubenatorial candidate once say
something close to that? (In a movie role, of course.)
eyes only
You mention higher thinking and you attract a list of naysayer posters. A
step should be the eradication of all who do not agree with me. Death and
slaughter for all. I love a warm bloodbath in the morning.
Alle Juden Raus
Robert J. Kolker
eyes only wrote:
> Alle Juden Raus
Bite me, Adolph.
Bob Kolker
>
>
pervect
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YwXfb.222415$mp.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Unless they get confused, and rape the cattle and kill the women, of course.
pervect
> some may hear the ring of truth as they read. It's NOT fiction.
> Bleveit or not! Don't take my word for it, check it out and make up
> your own mind.
I don't believe a single future is predetermined, personally.
And I think this particular vision of the future is rather unlikely. It's
perhaps slightly higher in probability than the future in which the earth
tunnels into a quantum black hole. Maybe.
Duquense
> some may hear the ring of truth as they read. It's NOT fiction.
> Bleveit or not! Don't take my word for it, check it out and make up
> your own mind. I've inserted some comments of my own in [brackets]
> that might be helpful. I've been studying the source for about 10 yrs
> - so i can probably answer any questions that anyone has.
> Cheers,
> RH
>
> ----------------------
>
> Facts about humanity's beautiful future
>
> This will demonstrate as brotherhood, justice, and sharing. [all over
> the planet]
>
> the present discord. The violence and hatred of today will be
> transmuted into goodwill. [goodwill for all life]
>
> institutions; a new freedom and sense of joy will replace the present
> fear.
>
> regeneration of our lives. Everyone will become creative in his or her
> living in an altogether new way.
>
> society.
>
> ? A new science, the psychology of the soul, will be the basis of all
> future educational efforts and will transform life for both the child
> and the teacher. [don't worry -it's NOT about religion - it's science]
>
> the masses- now they're mostly lackies for their advertising
> customers, and the screwed up status quo]
>
> major cities will go. They will be replaced by recreational parkland
> and by ordinary housing, on a human scale, interspersed with parks and
> shopping areas.
>
> past. Some of them, by their very shape, will focus and accumulate
> particular energies.
>
> apparently motionless, that travel fatigue will completely disappear.
>
> legislation, universally accepted, and will lead to a wise husbandry
> of nature's gifts.
>
> bringing humanity into better alignment with the animal and other
> sub-human kingdoms.
>
> vitality and health of the people.
>
> civilization. [there won't be so much stress]
>
> Machines will gradually take over the tasks of manufacture. [yea
> robotics - they'll work for 'the people' rather than the corporations
> - as is now the case]
>
> men and women to reach their full potential, and permit close
> involvement in community and national life [for those who want it.
> Democracy can/will work when 'the people' take interest and
> participate]
>
> economic system will come about. A rational and sustainable economic
> structure based on sufficiency will become the norm. Cooperation will
> replace competition. [everyone can be winners]
>
> to civilian production, which will provide useful work for many.
>
> misery today, will give way to an enlightened and just consideration
> for the needs of all.
>
> Democracy?will become the norm throughout the world. [man's basic
> needs - for food, shelter, healthcare, and education will become the
> guaranteed rights of everyone]
>
> thing of the past.
>
> ? In the Middle East, governments elected by the people will replace
> the present sheiks and emirs as rulers.
>
> almost every country. The voice of the people will be heard, and land
> will be redistributed and given to them.
>
> will be taken away so that passports will no longer be necessary to
> travel from country to country.
>
> exploration of the seabed, will be governed by international law.
>
> for the nations of the world. [is there any other plausible way?
> The paronoia about the UN is unfounded, unfortunate and based on
> unrealistic - extremist fears]
>
> tension and fear, greater leisure, the eradication of disease, new
> enormously and the physical body will take longer to ?wear out.'
>
> more orthodox methods.
>
> ? We will understand that there is no such thing as death, but simply
> a shift of consciousness from this to another plane.
>
> relationship with that Divinity will become paramount in the lives of
> millions. [we're all Gods - in potential - religion is optional - it's
> NOT
> required!]
>
> take the place of worship and prayer as we know it today. [big science
> - invoking energies - people will be discouraged from worshipping
> anyone -
> no matter how evolved they are]
>
> everything is energy.
>
> ? By understanding the technology of light, physicists will discover
> how to control matter, distance and time?and how to neutralize toxic
> waste and stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
>
> using a simple isotope of water, universally available?will solve all
> humanity's future power needs.
>
> scientific use of sound.
>
> ? We will accept the fact that all the planets are inhabited and that
> we are all brothers and friends. Gradually, we will take our place in
> the cosmic brotherhood.
>
> [Also - the world population will decrease - people will quit having
> so many kids - to around 3.5 billion]
>
> ###
>
> source: Share International: http://www.share-international.org
None of this matters as we all KNOW [ha ha] the world will end in 2012
George William Herbert
>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> committed:
>> RH wrote:
>> > "...mankind [will advance] into a civilization and a state of
>> > consciousness in which right human relations and worldwide
>> > cooperation for the good of all will be the universal keynote." Djwhal
>> > Khul
>>
>> I think mankind will give up girly religions and humans will be
>> themselves. Girly men forgive their enemies and show compassion. Real
>> men kill their enemies; take their land and cattle, rape their women,
>> enslave their children and reflect on how good life can be.
>
>Unless they get confused, and rape the cattle and kill the women, of course.
Burn, Pillage, Rape.... no, nono.
Pillage, Burn, Rape... no, nono.
Rape, Burn... no, nonono.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Karl M Syring
> "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think mankind will give up girly religions and humans will be
>> themselves. Girly men forgive their enemies and show compassion. Real
>> men kill their enemies; take their land and cattle, rape their women,
>> enslave their children and reflect on how good life can be.
>
> Hmm...didn't a certain California gubenatorial candidate once say
> something close to that? (In a movie role, of course.)
The copyright for this formulation is held by a guy named
"Chengis Khan", and he really lived up to it. Thank you for
bringing the facts to our knowledge. We well sue the movie
producers and the actors now.
TCEA - Transtemporal Copyright Enforcement Agency
Robert J. Kolker
RH wrote:
> This is probably a bit too much for some, but others will enjoy it and
> some may hear the ring of truth as they read. It's NOT fiction.
> Bleveit or not! Don't take my word for it, check it out and make up
> your own mind. I've inserted some comments of my own in [brackets]
> that might be helpful. I've been studying the source for about 10 yrs
> - so i can probably answer any questions that anyone has.
> Cheers,
> RH
If optimism could kill, you would be dead.
What is proposed will not happen. The human race consists of genetically
advanced apes. We are the smartest, baddest apes in The Monkey House.
Bob Kolker
Dave Knudson
It's true. Soon we'll all be beautiful - and smart.
President Garrison Keillor (Ind-Minn) of Lake Woebegone has
successfully gotten his FY2004 budget through Congress. This budget
details out over 2 trillions us dollars on mandatory genetic
enhancement for all Americans. Now, all the men will be handsome, all
the women beautiful, and all of the children above-average.
Truly, a beautiful future.
Dave Knudson
Richard R. Hershberger
> > ? A new livingness will characterize our relationships and
> > institutions; a new freedom and sense of joy will replace the present
> > fear.
>
> "livingness" isn't a word.
Actually it is, albeit a rare one. See, for example,
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=livingness. The definition
given is "The state or quality of being alive; possession of energy or
vigor; animation; quickening." This even makes some sort of sense in
the given sentence. Not that this means I endorse the original post,
of course.
Richard R. Hershberger
Adamanteus
> some may hear the ring of truth as they read. It's NOT fiction.
I don't see where there's any explanation as to HOW all these things
will happen. Sounds more like the ramblings of wishful thinking.
I've only seen a couple of websites that feature reasonable
explanations of their future history. One of them is
http://www.orionsarm.com
I don't agree with all their premises, but at least it SOUNDS
plausible.
Konrad Gaertner
At least get the quote right: "Where all the women are strong, all
the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."
No mention of beauty whatsoever.
--KG
Erik Max Francis
> I've only seen a couple of websites that feature reasonable
> explanations of their future history. One of them is
> http://www.orionsarm.com
>
> I don't agree with all their premises, but at least it SOUNDS
> plausible.
Orion's Arm is neat (I notice they just updated their Web site),
although the first bullet point on their list of goals is "hard
science," which is a tad hard to live up to when its "present day" is
set 10 000 years in the future. Even Niven threw in his hat in 3000 AD.
Another constructed universe I've bookmarked, though I haven't looked at
quite so closely, is Cold War:
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ The tremor of awe is the best in man.
\__/ Goethe
nyra
>
> halco...@yahoo.com (RH) wrote in message news:<524db79f.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > SNIP Drivel...
>
> It's true. Soon we'll all be beautiful - and smart.
> for all Americans. Now, all the men will be handsome, all
> the women beautiful, and all of the children above-average.
<splutter>
Did someone _really_ say this??
--
zerbrechlich ist das hundelvieh
drum wirf es aus dem fenster nie
- Ernst Jandl, das hundelvieh
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Dave Knudson schrieb:
> >
> > halco...@yahoo.com (RH) wrote in message news:<524db79f.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > SNIP Drivel...
> >
> > It's true. Soon we'll all be beautiful - and smart.
> [...]
> > for all Americans. Now, all the men will be handsome, all
> > the women beautiful, and all of the children above-average.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> <splutter>
> Did someone _really_ say this??
Actually, no. See my other post for the proper wording. Or you
could simply Google on the name Dave gave.
Anyway, its a tagline; it's supposed to get your attention. It's
also a registered trademark:
http://www.prairiehome.org/content/trademarks.shtml
--KG
Terrafamilia
Adamanteus wrote:
> halco...@yahoo.com (RH) wrote in message news:<524db79f.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > This is probably a bit too much for some, but others will enjoy it and
> > some may hear the ring of truth as they read. It's NOT fiction.
>
> I don't see where there's any explanation as to HOW all these things
> will happen. Sounds more like the ramblings of wishful thinking.
You have to go to the linked site and learn about the Lord Maitreya and how this new age will dawn in
which we become enlightened and then just naturally institute this grand vision of humanity because it's
the right thing to do.
Ciao,
Terrafamilia
eyes only
I don't do circumcision, nor did Hitler who rightly blamed the Jew for the
moral decay of Germany.
Majin Kai
The cosmic brotherhood, yes! I've always wanted to visit Cybertron!
Ba Weep Gra Na Weep Ni Ni Bong!
Nancy Lebovitz
>Dave Knudson schrieb:
>>
>> halco...@yahoo.com (RH) wrote in message news:<524db79f.03100...@posting.google.com>...
>> > SNIP Drivel...
>>
>> It's true. Soon we'll all be beautiful - and smart.
>[...]
>> for all Americans. Now, all the men will be handsome, all
>> the women beautiful, and all of the children above-average.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
><splutter>
>Did someone _really_ say this??
Not exactly, but in any case, the last bit is intended as a joke.
OBSF: That Tanith Lee story about two ugly people in an arranged marriage.
There's divine intervention.
Spoiler:
They're still ugly, but they see each other as beautiful--and their
children are gorgeous.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Now, with bumper stickers
Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy"
Dreamer
"Nancy Lebovitz" <na...@unix1.netaxs.com> wrote in message
news:6Xxhb.120$8r6....@newshog.newsread.com...
> In article <3F8334BF...@gmx.net>, nyra <ny...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >Dave Knudson schrieb:
> >>
> >> halco...@yahoo.com (RH) wrote in message
news:<524db79f.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> >> > SNIP Drivel...
> >>
> >> It's true. Soon we'll all be beautiful - and smart.
> >[...]
> >> for all Americans. Now, all the men will be handsome, all
> >> the women beautiful, and all of the children above-average.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ><splutter>
> >Did someone _really_ say this??
>
> Not exactly, but in any case, the last bit is intended as a joke.
>
> OBSF: That Tanith Lee story about two ugly people in an arranged marriage.
> There's divine intervention.
>
> Spoiler:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> They're still ugly, but they see each other as beautiful--and their
> children are gorgeous.
Gorgeous to *them,* or gorgeous to everybody else? Is this a Munster family
sort of thing? That was Herman's best line ever - when presented with the
gorgeous Marilyn all dolled up for her date, he smiled and said, "She looks
almost presentable."
D
RH
<snip>
> What is proposed will not happen. The human race consists of genetically
> advanced apes. We are the smartest, baddest apes in The Monkey House.
>
> Bob Kolker
The human race (thanks mostly to corrupt so called leaders) acts like
a bunch of apes - especially GW Bush & company, but of course we don't
have to. On the evolutionary scale, you could say that we're just
about to make move from childhood to adulthood. We're in the human
kingdom - which is a step above the animal kingdom. We're now capable
of gradually transforming the world so that it will become a nice
place for everyone. War, poverty, violence and fear will be
eradicated. If it weren't for some really bad 'leaders' we'd be much
better off. The tables are about to be turned. You'll see!
RH
==================
"People in the United States work really hard, much harder than any
other advanced industrial society and this causes a lot of stress.
People are always concerned about their work and they live in fear.
Although there is a lot of crime in the United States, it is
approximately the same as comparable societies, but fear of crime is
far higher. In many ways, this is the most frightened nation in the
world!" Noam Chomsky
http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=36&ItemID=4107
------------------------
Want to maintain a lopsided view of current events? Then stay tuned
to the major american news networks. If you want a more rounded view
of national and world events, then visit:
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.oneworld.net
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.indymedia.org
http://www.thenation.com
http://www.futurenet.org/current.html
http://www.populist.com/current.html
<><><>
Only the truth will set us free.
Nancy Lebovitz
Gorgeous to everyone.
IIRC, the story is in _Tamastra_. The couple is given a miracle, not a
practical joke.
Mark Reichert
> Hmm...didn't a certain California gubenatorial candidate once say
> something close to that? (In a movie role, of course.)
Yes, and the exact exchange is:
Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them
driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
But given his years lashed to a grinding wheel and fighting in a pit,
what do you expect.
Robert J. Kolker
RH wrote:
> The human race (thanks mostly to corrupt so called leaders) acts like
> a bunch of apes - especially GW Bush & company, but of course we don't
> have to. On the evolutionary scale, you could say that we're just
> about to make move from childhood to adulthood. We're in the human
> kingdom - which is a step above the animal kingdom.
A small step. We are still animals for all that.
We're now capable
> of gradually transforming the world so that it will become a nice
> place for everyone.
Have you seen the south shore of Lake Erie lately? Tell me how we are
making the world a nice place.
> War, poverty, violence and fear will be
> eradicated.
Bullshit. The poor and the wretched have always been with us, and most
likely they will always be with us.
> If it weren't for some really bad 'leaders' we'd be much
> better off. The tables are about to be turned. You'll see!
The reason we have bad leaders is because of worse followers.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Mark Reichert wrote:
> Conan, what is best in life?
>
> Conan: To crush your enemies, see them
> driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
That Conan was no girly-man.
Bob Kolker
Alex Filonov
> Matt Hughes wrote:
>
> > Here follows a rant based upon a nit-pick, but an important one: we
> > are constantly told by conservative apologists (which this poster is
> > obviously not) that the family is the basic unit of our society. But
> > it ain't. The individual is.
>
> You (unfortunately) are right. And because the natural organic unit of
> human existence has been atomized (so to speak) society will
Natural organic unit of human existence is a group sex family. Probably
still observable in some primitive societies. Monogamous or poligamous
or, for that matter, poliandric family is not natural.
> disintegrate because of incompatible individual agendas. The result will
> be either chaos or some ueber tyranny which will resolve the chaos to no
> one's liking. This is the inevitable result of mindless individuals
> singing "me me me me" with no thought for tomorrow.
>
> You can see it happening in California. If the recall goes foreward, you
> will have a recall every other year. State government will disintegrate
> and violence and riots will ensue until a Strongman imposes his will.
> This is a nasty spoof on the authority of family elders which in the
> past have kept societies going for thousands of years.
>
And which was checked by younger generation by killing those elders
once in a while.
> Bob Kolker
Steve Hix
> news:<rY_fb.502609$cF.177320@rwcrnsc53>...
> > You can see it happening in California. If the recall goes foreward, you
> > will have a recall every other year. State government will disintegrate
> > and violence and riots will ensue until a Strongman imposes his will.
Sure it will.
The recall mechanism has been in place in California for nearly 80 years.
It's been invoked (unsuccessfully) a couple of times. It took a *really*
corrupt and incompetent pol years to build up sufficient animus among
the voting population to let it succeed this time.
Don't hold your breath, expecting it to happen again any time soon.
John Schilling
>Sure it will.
Nit: Corrupt and unlucky. Davis was quite competent in the field
of corrupt politics; he just happened to enter that field at the
gubernatorial level a couple years before two major catastropies
were scheduled hit the state.
We tolerate openly corrupt politicians so long as they consistently
deliver (or at least preside over) good times.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:<rY_fb.502609$cF.177320@rwcrnsc53>...
>
>> > You can see it happening in California. If the recall goes foreward, you
>> > will have a recall every other year. State government will disintegrate
>> > and violence and riots will ensue until a Strongman imposes his will.
>
>Sure it will.
>
>The recall mechanism has been in place in California for nearly 80 years.
Actually, more than eighty, if I remember the Post article aright.
Malcolm McMahon
>This is probably a bit too much for some, but others will enjoy it and
>some may hear the ring of truth as they read.
It involves major changes in human nature, therefore there's no hope for
it.
Karl M Syring
Genetic engineering, where is the probblem?
Karl M. Syring
RH
> RH wrote:
> > The human race (thanks mostly to corrupt so called leaders) acts like
> > a bunch of apes - especially GW Bush & company, but of course we don't
> > have to. On the evolutionary scale, you could say that we're just
> > about to make move from childhood to adulthood. We're in the human
> > kingdom - which is a step above the animal kingdom.
>
> A small step. We are still animals for all that.
Sorry that you can't see the difference. One day, perhaps later in
this lifetime or in your next incarnation, you will. I won't try to
change your mind - that's not my job.
=============================================
"Now in those days, brethren, there shall arise in the world an
Exalted One by name Maitreya (the Kindly One) an Arhat, a Fully
Enlightened One, endowed with wisdom and righteousness, a Happy One,
a World-knower, the Peerless Charioteer of men to be tamed, a teacher
of the devas [angels] and mankind, an Exalted One, a Buddha like
myself. He of His own abnormal powers shall realize and make known the
world, and the worlds of the devas, with their Maras, their Brahmas,
the host of recluses and brahmins, of devas and mankind alike, even as
I do now. He shall proclaim the norm, lovely in its beginning, lovely
in its middle, and lovely in the end thereof. He shall make known the
wholly perfect life of righteousness in all its purity, both in the
spirit and in the letter of it, even as I do now. He shall lead an
Order of Brethren numbering many thousands, even as I do now lead an
order of Brethren numbering many hundreds." Gautama Buddha speaking
about Maitreya http://www.share-international.org
floyd
destruction in the last 2K years of human history and then tell me
this will happen. the only time anything good seems to happen is when
society is rebuilding from the last war. men like bush, sharon, bin
laden and hussein will end all human life before we ever have a
chance to rebuild. no one can stop them, their power is based on hate
and greed from centuries of conflict about essentially the same thing.
the roots of their power are deep within our sociietites and they prey
on our fears to maintina it. these men are the hitlers, stalins,
trumans, and churchills of our generation and if we do nothing to stop
them they will lead to the destruction of the human species.
sorry, i didn't read through all 50 replies to this post so if i've
repeated others thoughts (doubtfull anyone is a pessimistic as me) i
apoligize.
On 4 Oct 2003 09:58:29 -0700, halco...@yahoo.com (RH) wrote:
>This is probably a bit too much for some, but others will enjoy it and
>some may hear the ring of truth as they read. It's NOT fiction.
>Bleveit or not! Don't take my word for it, check it out and make up
>your own mind. I've inserted some comments of my own in [brackets]
>that might be helpful. I've been studying the source for about 10 yrs
>- so i can probably answer any questions that anyone has.
>Cheers,
>RH
>
>----------------------
>
>Facts about humanity's beautiful future
>
>• A new sense of oneness will replace the present sense of separation.
>This will demonstrate as brotherhood, justice, and sharing. [all over
>the planet]
>
>• We will enter an era of tranquility and peace—in exact proportion to
>the present discord. The violence and hatred of today will be
>transmuted into goodwill. [goodwill for all life]
>
>• A new livingness will characterize our relationships and
>institutions; a new freedom and sense of joy will replace the present
>fear.
>
>• Contributions by the highest type of artists will lead to a
>regeneration of our lives. Everyone will become creative in his or her
>living in an altogether new way.
>
>• The family will gain, not lose, importance as the basic unit of
>society.
>
>• A new science, the psychology of the soul, will be the basis of all
>future educational efforts and will transform life for both the child
>and the teacher. [don't worry -it's NOT about religion - it's science]
>
>• The media will have a very responsible role to play in education [of
>the masses- now they're mostly lackies for their advertising
>customers, and the screwed up status quo]
>
>• Gradually, the worst areas of slums and decayed buildings in the
>major cities will go. They will be replaced by recreational parkland
>and by ordinary housing, on a human scale, interspersed with parks and
>shopping areas.
>
>• New buildings will be quite different in shape from buildings of the
>past. Some of them, by their very shape, will focus and accumulate
>particular energies.
>
>• Transportation systems will be devised which will be so silent, so
>apparently motionless, that travel fatigue will completely disappear.
>
>• The growing concern for nature and environment will be embodied in
>legislation, universally accepted, and will lead to a wise husbandry
>of nature's gifts.
>
>• There will be a new reverence for all manifestations of life, thus
>bringing humanity into better alignment with the animal and other
>sub-human kingdoms.
>
>• Most farming will be organically based. This will enhance the
>vitality and health of the people.
>
>• A much simpler style of living will distinguish the coming
>civilization. [there won't be so much stress]
>
>• Humanity will be emancipated from the drudgery of needless work.
>Machines will gradually take over the tasks of manufacture. [yea
>robotics - they'll work for 'the people' rather than the corporations
>- as is now the case]
>
>• Increased leisure will evoke undreamed-of skills and talents, allow
>men and women to reach their full potential, and permit close
>involvement in community and national life [for those who want it.
>Democracy can/will work when 'the people' take interest and
>participate]
>
>• Following a world stock market crash, a complete change in our
>economic system will come about. A rational and sustainable economic
>structure based on sufficiency will become the norm. Cooperation will
>replace competition. [everyone can be winners]
>
>• There will be a phased, gradual transfer of resources from military
>to civilian production, which will provide useful work for many.
>
>• The blind following of market forces, whose myopic rule causes such
>misery today, will give way to an enlightened and just consideration
>for the needs of all.
>
>• A new political/economic structure—Democratic Socialism or Social
>Democracy—will become the norm throughout the world. [man's basic
>needs - for food, shelter, healthcare, and education will become the
>guaranteed rights of everyone]
>
>• All political groupings will tend to the center. Extremes will be a
>thing of the past.
>
>• In the Middle East, governments elected by the people will replace
>the present sheiks and emirs as rulers.
>
>• In Latin America, a process of democratic consensus will unfold in
>almost every country. The voice of the people will be heard, and land
>will be redistributed and given to them.
>
>• National and cultural identities will be maintained, but barriers
>will be taken away so that passports will no longer be necessary to
>travel from country to country.
>
>• The world's legal matters, which concern global issues such as the
>exploration of the seabed, will be governed by international law.
>
>• The United Nations will be the central debating, law-giving forum
>for the nations of the world. [is there any other plausible way?
>The paronoia about the UN is unfounded, unfortunate and based on
>unrealistic - extremist fears]
>
>• As a result of the changed conditions on earth—the reduction of
>tension and fear, greater leisure, the eradication of disease, new
>meaning and impetus to life—the health of mankind will improve
>enormously and the physical body will take longer to ‘wear out.'
>[People will be healthy and active for over 150 yrs per incarnation]
>
>• The alternative medicines of today will take their place beside the
>more orthodox methods.
>
>• We will understand that there is no such thing as death, but simply
>a shift of consciousness from this to another plane.
>
>• The desire to know better the nature of God and to come into closer
>relationship with that Divinity will become paramount in the lives of
>millions. [we're all Gods - in potential - religion is optional - it's
>NOT
>required!]
>
>• Humanity will be taught the great science of invocation, which will
>take the place of worship and prayer as we know it today. [big science
>- invoking energies - people will be discouraged from worshipping
>anyone -
>no matter how evolved they are]
>
>• Methods and technology will be found to demonstrate the fact that
>everything is energy.
>
>• By understanding the technology of light, physicists will discover
>how to control matter, distance and time—and how to neutralize toxic
>waste and stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
>
>• The fusion process of nuclear power—a cold, safe, wasteless process
>using a simple isotope of water, universally available—will solve all
>humanity's future power needs.
>
>• By the end of this century, we will build structures with the
>scientific use of sound.
>
>• We will accept the fact that all the planets are inhabited and that
>we are all brothers and friends. Gradually, we will take our place in
>the cosmic brotherhood.
>
>[Also - the world population will decrease - people will quit having
>so many kids - to around 3.5 billion]
>
>###
>
>source: Share International: http://www.share-international.org
George William Herbert
RH <halco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I won't try to change your mind - that's not my job.
Then please stop including a grotesquely overly long
share-international propaganda paragraph in your
.signatures, sir.
The combination of the signature and your claim that
you aren't trying to change our minds strikes me as
more than a bit hypocritical, and an extremely annoying
and by now several times repeated netiquette violation.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
tommy
halco...@yahoo.com says...
> Facts about humanity's beautiful future
>
>
>
pervect
"Steve Hix" <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
news:sehix-F7E4FC....@news-central.giganews.com...
> > "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:<rY_fb.502609$cF.177320@rwcrnsc53>...
>
> > > You can see it happening in California. If the recall goes foreward,
you
> > > will have a recall every other year. State government will
disintegrate
> > > and violence and riots will ensue until a Strongman imposes his will.
>
> Sure it will.
>
> The recall mechanism has been in place in California for nearly 80 years.
Prediction: the recall mechanism will be modified now that the problems with
it have been made obvious.
George William Herbert
>"Steve Hix" <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>> The recall mechanism has been in place in California for nearly 80 years.
>
>Prediction: the recall mechanism will be modified now that the problems with
>it have been made obvious.
There was extensive discussion about how bad the mechanism was,
that it needed to be changed, etc. pre-ballot.
However, that has basically completely died down now that it's
all over. Partly because the Democratic party realized that a
large fraction of its own registered voters voted to recall
its sitting Governor and a noticable fraction of its registered
voters voted for Schwartzenneger.
The presumption for the changes was that this had been some
sort of procedural 'cheat' and that Grey Davis wasn't really
that unpopular. Only a very few die-hards still believe that,
and not nearly enough to get an initiative passed. A lot of
people still think the recall was unfair or unwise, but the magnitude
of the voting (and enthusiasm... huge turnouts) makes it clear
that he really was that unpopular.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
phil hunt
>pervect <perv...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>"Steve Hix" <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>>> The recall mechanism has been in place in California for nearly 80 years.
>>
>>Prediction: the recall mechanism will be modified now that the problems with
>>it have been made obvious.
>
>There was extensive discussion about how bad the mechanism was,
>that it needed to be changed, etc. pre-ballot.
>
>However, that has basically completely died down now that it's
>all over. Partly because the Democratic party realized that a
>large fraction of its own registered voters voted to recall
>its sitting Governor and a noticable fraction of its registered
>voters voted for Schwartzenneger.
>
>The presumption for the changes was that this had been some
>sort of procedural 'cheat' and that Grey Davis wasn't really
>that unpopular.
Well no, actually. The rules stand above any one individual, since
they are used over several elections. The rules, as the stand are
such that a challenger can beat an incumbent even if the incumbent
gets more votes than the challenger.
--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be <zen2...@zen.co.ku> if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).
George William Herbert
>George William Herbert <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote:
>>pervect <perv...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>Prediction: the recall mechanism will be modified now that the problems with
>>>it have been made obvious.
>>
>>There was extensive discussion about how bad the mechanism was,
>>that it needed to be changed, etc. pre-ballot.
>>
>>However, that has basically completely died down now that it's
>>all over. Partly because the Democratic party realized that a
>>large fraction of its own registered voters voted to recall
>>its sitting Governor and a noticable fraction of its registered
>>voters voted for Schwartzenneger.
>>
>>The presumption for the changes was that this had been some
>>sort of procedural 'cheat' and that Grey Davis wasn't really
>>that unpopular.
>
>Well no, actually. The rules stand above any one individual, since
>they are used over several elections. The rules, as the stand are
>such that a challenger can beat an incumbent even if the incumbent
>gets more votes than the challenger.
I think you misunderstand the mechanism.
There are two items on the ballot.
Item 1: Should (insert elected official here) be recalled?
Item 2: Who should replace (insert elected official here) if they are recalled?
It is not "Schwartzenneger is challenging Grey Davis for the Governorship".
Davis is either recalled or not, and the recall replacement candidates
are all running amongst themselves for who the most popular repacement
candidate should be.
If a simple majority vote to recall, that candidate is over and out.
The replacement is whoever got a majority in the second ballot item.
As it happens, Schwartzenneger did get more votes (48% or so)
than Grey Davis did (45% opposed recall).
The 'outrage' over someone theoretically being able to win with
lower votes than the incumbent had is a red herring. It's true,
sure, but 'the people of california' understand the two step
nature and want it this way, as far as I have seen.
Support for the recall mechanism has been steady, even among
people who thought this recall of Davis had been unfair.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Steve Hix
"pervect" <perv...@netscape.net> wrote:
"The problems with it" being that the Wrong Guys(tm) lost?
Schwarzenegger will have to screw up in a major way to see that happen;
if he's just moderately successful, it won't be touched.
Davis had to screw up in a major way, for an extended period, for the
recall to have had the slightest chance of succeeding; not enough people
would have gone for it otherwise.
phil hunt
>phil hunt <phil_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Well no, actually. The rules stand above any one individual, since
>>they are used over several elections. The rules, as the stand are
>>such that a challenger can beat an incumbent even if the incumbent
>>gets more votes than the challenger.
>
>I think you misunderstand the mechanism.
On the contrary, I do understand the mechanism.
>There are two items on the ballot.
>Item 1: Should (insert elected official here) be recalled?
>Item 2: Who should replace (insert elected official here) if they are recalled?
>
>It is not "Schwartzenneger is challenging Grey Davis for the Governorship".
>Davis is either recalled or not, and the recall replacement candidates
>are all running amongst themselves for who the most popular repacement
>candidate should be.
>
>If a simple majority vote to recall, that candidate is over and out.
>The replacement is whoever got a majority in the second ballot item.
>
>As it happens, Schwartzenneger did get more votes (48% or so)
>than Grey Davis did (45% opposed recall).
>
>The 'outrage' over someone theoretically being able to win with
>lower votes than the incumbent had is a red herring. It's true,
>sure,
That's my point. A better mechanism would be to allow the incumbent
to stand in the 2nd ballot. (Also, the system should be changed to
AV or Condorcet, but that's a separate issue).
>but 'the people of california' understand the two step
>nature and want it this way,
What evidence do you have for this?
pervect
"Steve Hix" <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> "The problems with it" being that the Wrong Guys(tm) lost?
>
> Schwarzenegger will have to screw up in a major way to see that happen;
> if he's just moderately successful, it won't be touched.
>
> Davis had to screw up in a major way, for an extended period, for the
> recall to have had the slightest chance of succeeding; not enough people
> would have gone for it otherwise.
There are several problems with the current system
1) It's too easy to become a candidate if there is a recall. I believe that
we had an adult entertainment star running for governor, for instance.
(Besides Larry Flint from hustler, that is.)
2) The recall process is supposed to be about major screwups by the
governors. I don't think it's worth the tens or hundreds of millions of
taxpayer dollars that came from the California treasury just to get
Schwarzenegger in early. Assuming for the time being that Davis is as bad
as you say and that he still would have won when the regular elections came
up.
Hopefully some of these obvious flaws are going to be fixed, if they're not
they can be (and will be) taken advantage of by the Democrats just as easily
as they are by the Republicans. (Well, almost as easily, the Republicans
are usually better funded). The points I have to make are that it's a waste
of taxpayers money to have special elections because some politcal party
thinks its a good time to have an election, and that it's embarassing to
have the thing turn into a zoo and media circus the way this election did.
Michael Ash
"pervect" <perv...@netscape.net> wrote:
> 2) The recall process is supposed to be about major screwups by the
> governors. I don't think it's worth the tens or hundreds of millions of
> taxpayer dollars that came from the California treasury just to get
> Schwarzenegger in early. Assuming for the time being that Davis is as bad
> as you say and that he still would have won when the regular elections came
> up.
As far as I recall, Davis made some pretty evil lies during the campaign
for the previous election, such as claiming the budget would be
balanced. Then as soon as he's actually elected, he says, oops, there's
actually this ten-figure deficit that I forgot to tell everyone about
back when they had a choice about who they wanted to be governor.... A
majority of Californian voters believed that Davis screwed up badly
enough to warrant removing him from office right away, so I think we
should believe them.
But, I've been watching the whole show from across the pond anyway, so I
can't say more than that.
Dreamer
"George William Herbert" <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote in message
news:bmi70c$d4n$1...@gw.retro.com...
> It is not "Schwartzenneger is challenging Grey Davis for the
Governorship".
> Davis is either recalled or not, and the recall replacement candidates
> are all running amongst themselves for who the most popular repacement
> candidate should be.
>
> If a simple majority vote to recall, that candidate is over and out.
> The replacement is whoever got a majority in the second ballot item.
>
> As it happens, Schwartzenneger did get more votes (48% or so)
> than Grey Davis did (45% opposed recall).
>
> The 'outrage' over someone theoretically being able to win with
> lower votes than the incumbent had is a red herring.
Actually, I thought he meant the other way round - it's possible for the
incumbent to survive the recall and yet still get fewer votes than the
leading challenger. If Davis had gotten 50%+1 votes against recall, but
every single person had voted for Mary Carey to become governor if he were
recalled, he would have gotten "fewer" votes than she did. As you point out,
it's not a direct contest between the incumbent and the replacement
candidates.
D
Dreamer
"pervect" <perv...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:o14jb.77996$gv5.5468@fed1read05...
>
> "Steve Hix" <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> news:sehix-87CCAF....@news-central.giganews.com...
>
> > "The problems with it" being that the Wrong Guys(tm) lost?
> >
> > Schwarzenegger will have to screw up in a major way to see that happen;
> > if he's just moderately successful, it won't be touched.
> >
> > Davis had to screw up in a major way, for an extended period, for the
> > recall to have had the slightest chance of succeeding; not enough people
> > would have gone for it otherwise.
>
> There are several problems with the current system
>
> 1) It's too easy to become a candidate if there is a recall. I believe
that
> we had an adult entertainment star running for governor, for instance.
> (Besides Larry Flint from hustler, that is.)
Although I will grant you it was hard on the elections people (that's a lot
of candidates to get right on the ballot) saying that it is "too easy" for
anyone to participate in any way in governing themselves is rather an evil
sentiment, IMNSHO. Do you think only the "right" people should be allowed to
run? Like people who will continue to do things the way they've always been
done?
> 2) The recall process is supposed to be about major screwups by the
> governors. I don't think it's worth the tens or hundreds of millions of
> taxpayer dollars that came from the California treasury just to get
> Schwarzenegger in early. Assuming for the time being that Davis is as bad
> as you say and that he still would have won when the regular elections
came
> up.
Who are *you* to say what constitutes a "major screwup?" The majority of
voters felt that he should not retain his office. The California legal
system says that if that happens, he shouldn't retain it. Where's the
problem?
> Hopefully some of these obvious flaws are going to be fixed, if they're
not
> they can be (and will be) taken advantage of by the Democrats just as
easily
> as they are by the Republicans. (Well, almost as easily, the Republicans
> are usually better funded). The points I have to make are that it's a
waste
> of taxpayers money to have special elections because some politcal party
> thinks its a good time to have an election, and that it's embarassing to
> have the thing turn into a zoo and media circus the way this election did.
"Some political party" didn't have anything to do with it. One fairly
wealthy person used his own money to try to get free citizens to sign
petitions of their own free will - which they did. Then they voted - and a
large number of members of *both* political parties voted against the
incumbent. As for the "zoo and circus" comment, I thought it was actually
quite interesting, and I didn't see anything for anybody to be embarassed
about, except Bustamante the turncoat weasel.
D
James F. Cornwall
>
> "Steve Hix" <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> news:sehix-87CCAF....@news-central.giganews.com...
>
> > "The problems with it" being that the Wrong Guys(tm) lost?
> >
> > Schwarzenegger will have to screw up in a major way to see that happen;
> > if he's just moderately successful, it won't be touched.
> >
> > Davis had to screw up in a major way, for an extended period, for the
> > recall to have had the slightest chance of succeeding; not enough people
> > would have gone for it otherwise.
>
> There are several problems with the current system
>
> 1) It's too easy to become a candidate if there is a recall. I believe that
> we had an adult entertainment star running for governor, for instance.
> (Besides Larry Flint from hustler, that is.)
(a) Flynt, not Flint.
(b) Just because the porn actress makes money with her body, doesn't
mean her brain doesn't work! Nina Hartley has made a lot of money and
runs a very successful business kingdom (no quite big enough to be an
empire) based on her porn career. While I don't know any particulars
about the candidate, just excluding her from being a "real" candidate on
the basis of her career is kinda premature.
> 2) The recall process is supposed to be about major screwups by the
> governors. I don't think it's worth the tens or hundreds of millions of
> taxpayer dollars that came from the California treasury just to get
> Schwarzenegger in early. Assuming for the time being that Davis is as bad
> as you say and that he still would have won when the regular elections came
> up.
>
> Hopefully some of these obvious flaws are going to be fixed, if they're not
> they can be (and will be) taken advantage of by the Democrats just as easily
> as they are by the Republicans. (Well, almost as easily, the Republicans
> are usually better funded). The points I have to make are that it's a waste
> of taxpayers money to have special elections because some politcal party
> thinks its a good time to have an election, and that it's embarassing to
> have the thing turn into a zoo and media circus the way this election did.
--
****************************************************
** Facilior veniam posterius quam prius capere! **
****************************************************
** James F. Cornwall, sole owner of all opinions **
** expressed in this message... **
****************************************************
John Schilling
>pervect <perv...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>"Steve Hix" <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>>> The recall mechanism has been in place in California for nearly 80 years.
>>Prediction: the recall mechanism will be modified now that the problems with
>>it have been made obvious.
>There was extensive discussion about how bad the mechanism was,
>that it needed to be changed, etc. pre-ballot.
>However, that has basically completely died down now that it's
>all over. Partly because the Democratic party realized that a
>large fraction of its own registered voters voted to recall
>its sitting Governor and a noticable fraction of its registered
>voters voted for Schwartzenneger.
That the end result was popular doesn't mean there isn't room for
real improvement in how it was achieved. I wanted Davis out, I'm
reasonably happy with Schwarzenegger in, and I also would like to
see the system modified. In particular, either cut down the field
of replacement candidates and/or implement a runoff if no would-be
replacemend wins a clear majority on the initial ballot.
Not that it would have mattered this time; both Davis's unpopularity
and Arnold's popularity were such that any half-decent system would
have had the same end result. But where the numbers aren't so clear,
one can get perverse results from allowing a plurality win in a crowded
field.
I do, of course, agree with you that the crowd for whom "modify the
recall mechanism" was a euphemism for "make it practically impossible
to force a recall" is dead in the water.
George William Herbert
>>I think you misunderstand the mechanism.
>
>On the contrary, I do understand the mechanism.
And you're confusing "disagree with the underlying assumptions"
with "it's broken".
>>There are two items on the ballot.
>>Item 1: Should (insert elected official here) be recalled?
>>Item 2: Who should replace (insert elected official here) if they are recalled?
>>
>>It is not "Schwartzenneger is challenging Grey Davis for the Governorship".
>>Davis is either recalled or not, and the recall replacement candidates
>>are all running amongst themselves for who the most popular repacement
>>candidate should be.
>>
>>If a simple majority vote to recall, that candidate is over and out.
>>The replacement is whoever got a majority in the second ballot item.
>>
>>As it happens, Schwartzenneger did get more votes (48% or so)
>>than Grey Davis did (45% opposed recall).
>>
>>The 'outrage' over someone theoretically being able to win with
>>lower votes than the incumbent had is a red herring. It's true,
>>sure,
>
>That's my point. A better mechanism would be to allow the incumbent
>to stand in the 2nd ballot.
Better by what definition? The point of the recall is for the
voters to be able to say, "he's out of there". It's not to hold
a new, primary-less Governors election at the whim of 10% of our
populace.
>(Also, the system should be changed to
>AV or Condorcet, but that's a separate issue).
Again: you're confusing "I don't like it" with "It's broken".
>>but 'the people of california' understand the two step
>>nature and want it this way,
>
>What evidence do you have for this?
Well, 1) I have lived here all my life, 2) while not myself
politically active, I know a fair number of people who are
in the parties, 3) I know a fair number of regular folks as
well, and 4) almost *nobody* has been complaining that the two
step idea is a bad idea, people on the street, people in the
political parties, etc.
When there is even a tiny shred of true popular dissatisfaction
with some political process in California or the nation,
we get active protests and leaflet campaigns in Berkeley and
San Francisco and Santa Cruz. I live in Oakland, bordering
Berkeley and across the bay from SF, and a number of friends
and my boat are in Santa Cruz. So far nothing.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Lee DeRaud
Herbert) wrote:
>phil hunt <phil_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>[whining deleted]
>When there is even a tiny shred of true popular dissatisfaction
>with some political process in California or the nation,
>we get active protests and leaflet campaigns in Berkeley and
>San Francisco and Santa Cruz. I live in Oakland, bordering
>Berkeley and across the bay from SF, and a number of friends
>and my boat are in Santa Cruz. So far nothing.
Indeed. In fact in this instance, the degree of outrage, indignation,
and general dissatisfaction expressed seems to be *directly*
proportional to the speaker's distance from here.
Lee
phil hunt
>phil hunt <phil_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>to stand in the 2nd ballot.
>
>Better by what definition?
The definition that says "if A gets more votes than B in an
election, A should get at least as good an outcome".
Note this principle can hold whether A and B are candidates,
parties, policies, etc.
>>(Also, the system should be changed to
>>AV or Condorcet, but that's a separate issue).
>
>Again: you're confusing "I don't like it" with "It's broken".
Arguably, yes, I am. I'm defining "broken" as "undemocratic", and
"democratic" to mean "in line with what the people want". Of course,
the people are individuals, and don't all agree. So you'll get cases
where some people want one thing but other people want another
thing; in these cases the democratic outcome is whichever of the two
the people prefer.
>>>but 'the people of california' understand the two step
>>>nature and want it this way,
>>
>>What evidence do you have for this?
>
>Well, 1) I have lived here all my life, 2) while not myself
>politically active, I know a fair number of people who are
>in the parties, 3) I know a fair number of regular folks as
>well, and 4) almost *nobody* has been complaining that the two
>step idea is a bad idea,
The fact that no-one is complaining can be used to conclude that
people want it that way. But you can't conclude from it that people
understand the system.
Lee DeRaud
hunt) wrote:
>The fact that no-one is complaining can be used to conclude that
>people want it that way. But you can't conclude from it that people
>understand the system.
Gee, could you be just a little more condescending?
Lee
Robert J. Kolker
Lee DeRaud wrote:
Sure he could be. He could have called the electorate a herd of asses
and sheep. One can never overestimate the intelligence of our
electorate. They have not picked a decent person to lead since Thomas
Jefferson and even he was no bargain.
Bob Kolker
Lee DeRaud
Damn, that was pretty good: I didn't even see Phil's lips move.
Lee
Mike Schilling
news:cusrov8cg72kuqfgk...@4ax.com...
If Arnold is recalled (quite possible, since so few votes are required), I
think many who now approve of the process will suddenly discover its flaws.
phil hunt
I'm not outraged. If Californians want a (IMO) stupid and
not-very-democratic system, they're welcome to it.
Lee DeRaud
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If Arnold is recalled (quite possible, since so few votes are required), I
>think many who now approve of the process will suddenly discover its flaws.
I hope you meant "since so few signatures on a petition are required
to initiate a recall vote", because that is emphatically *not* what
you said, much less what actually occurred.
And yes, there is much not to like about the current process and I
have no issue with you, as a California resident, pointing that out.
But there is even more not to like about the incessant whining from
schmucks who are *completely* uninvolved in any way with that process.
Lee
Michael Ash
ph...@invalid.email.address (phil hunt) wrote:
> The definition that says "if A gets more votes than B in an
> election, A should get at least as good an outcome".
And in a previous post you advocate AV or Condorcet, where "A gets more
votes than B" is not a very clear concept.
> Arguably, yes, I am. I'm defining "broken" as "undemocratic", and
> "democratic" to mean "in line with what the people want". Of course,
> the people are individuals, and don't all agree. So you'll get cases
> where some people want one thing but other people want another
> thing; in these cases the democratic outcome is whichever of the two
> the people prefer.
This sounds suspiciously like you want an ideal voting system. Such a
system (one that always delivers 'what the people want') is provably
impossible. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will tell us what the
name of the theorem is, since I can't find it.
You don't like plurality? Fine. You prefer another system? Fine. But
don't go pretending like plurality is somehow horribly broken where
these other systems are perfect. All voting systems have situations
where they produce results that are not ideal. Deal with it.
phil hunt
>think many who now approve of the process will suddenly discover its flaws.
It would be amusing, if nothing else.
phil hunt
I was being logical, not condescending.
If person X doesn't complain about Y, you cannot conclude that X
understands Y. It's my experience that many people take little
interest in politics, and therefore will not necessaily understand
how a particular system works.
phil hunt
>In article <slrnboru22...@cabalamat.cabalamat.org>,
> ph...@invalid.email.address (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> The definition that says "if A gets more votes than B in an
>> election, A should get at least as good an outcome".
>
>And in a previous post you advocate AV or Condorcet, where "A gets more
>votes than B" is not a very clear concept.
In Condorcet it is perfectly clear; Condorcet is all about pairwise
comparisons.
>> Arguably, yes, I am. I'm defining "broken" as "undemocratic", and
>> "democratic" to mean "in line with what the people want". Of course,
>> the people are individuals, and don't all agree. So you'll get cases
>> where some people want one thing but other people want another
>> thing; in these cases the democratic outcome is whichever of the two
>> the people prefer.
>
>This sounds suspiciously like you want an ideal voting system. Such a
>system (one that always delivers 'what the people want') is provably
>impossible. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will tell us what the
>name of the theorem is, since I can't find it.
Arrow's theorem, IIRC.
John Schilling
>"Lee DeRaud" <lee.d...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:cusrov8cg72kuqfgk...@4ax.com...
[California Recall]
>> Indeed. In fact in this instance, the degree of outrage, indignation,
>> and general dissatisfaction expressed seems to be *directly*
>> proportional to the speaker's distance from here.
>If Arnold is recalled (quite possible, since so few votes are required),
???
Recalling Arnold, or any other California governor, requires the votes
of more than 50% of the people who cast votes. In Arnold's case, that
is pretty clearly not going to happen.
It is a minor weakness of the California recall system that one can
postulate not entirely implausible scenarios where a candidate who
takes office as a result of recall is immediately vulnerable to recall,
even where the office flip-flops as fast as recalls can be organized.
But that requires a contrived balance between three parties that is
very rare in American politics and not present here and now.
Mike Schilling
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 04:06:09 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If Arnold is recalled (quite possible, since so few votes are required),
I
> >think many who now approve of the process will suddenly discover its
flaws.
>
> I hope you meant "since so few signatures on a petition are required
> to initiate a recall vote", because that is emphatically *not* what
> you said, much less what actually occurred.
Blecch. I think you understood what I meant, but let me say it in English:
If an election to recall Arnold is held (quite possible, since
so few signatures are required), I think many who now approve
of the process will suddenly discover its flaws.
>
> And yes, there is much not to like about the current process and I
> have no issue with you, as a California resident, pointing that out.
> But there is even more not to like about the incessant whining from
> schmucks who are *completely* uninvolved in any way with that process.
I think that what I said (hopefully intelligibly, this time) is pretty
clear, and it wouldn't bother me if a foreigner made the same observation.
Mike Schilling
"John Schilling" <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:bmmh9j$a8p$1...@spock.usc.edu...
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >"Lee DeRaud" <lee.d...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> >news:cusrov8cg72kuqfgk...@4ax.com...
>
> [California Recall]
>
> >> Indeed. In fact in this instance, the degree of outrage, indignation,
> >> and general dissatisfaction expressed seems to be *directly*
> >> proportional to the speaker's distance from here.
>
> >If Arnold is recalled (quite possible, since so few votes are required),
>
>
> ???
>
> Recalling Arnold, or any other California governor, requires the votes
> of more than 50% of the people who cast votes. In Arnold's case, that
> is pretty clearly not going to happen.
Yeah, I said this badly, as I just replied to Lee. Take it as read that I
meant "if a recall election is held".
>
> It is a minor weakness of the California recall system that one can
> postulate not entirely implausible scenarios where a candidate who
> takes office as a result of recall is immediately vulnerable to recall,
> even where the office flip-flops as fast as recalls can be organized.
> But that requires a contrived balance between three parties that is
> very rare in American politics and not present here and now.
What do parties have to do with it? Democrats are the majority party by a
comfortable margin here, but Davis was still recalled on the basis of his
personal unpopularity. Let Arnold make some major missteps, and he'll find
out he is not immune.
phil hunt
>
>Recalling Arnold, or any other California governor, requires the votes
>of more than 50% of the people who cast votes. In Arnold's case, that
>is pretty clearly not going to happen.
Clearly? In the recent election, >50% of Californian voters voted
against him being governor.
>It is a minor weakness of the California recall system that one can
>postulate not entirely implausible scenarios where a candidate who
>takes office as a result of recall is immediately vulnerable to recall,
I'm sure if that happened they'd change the procedure. Or install
computerised voting machines, to guarantee the "right" result.
John Schilling
>On 16 Oct 2003 09:33:55 -0700, John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>>Recalling Arnold, or any other California governor, requires the votes
>>of more than 50% of the people who cast votes. In Arnold's case, that
>>is pretty clearly not going to happen.
>Clearly? In the recent election, >50% of Californian voters voted
>against him being governor.
Very slightly >50% voted *for* someone else being governor, which is
not quite the same as voting *against* Schwarzenegger. Some of them
will be people who felt that Arnold would be a good governor but that
e.g. McClintock would be a better governor.
And some of the people who *did* vote against Schwarzenegger, did so
because they opposed the concept of recall generally.
Even the most pessimistic estimates for the "(X) best but Arnold
good enough" and the "recall always bad" crowds, added to the very
nearly 50% who specifically did vote for Arnold, make for a majority
against the hypothetical re-recall.
John Schilling
>"John Schilling" <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
>news:bmmh9j$a8p$1...@spock.usc.edu...
>> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >"Lee DeRaud" <lee.d...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>> >news:cusrov8cg72kuqfgk...@4ax.com...
>> [California Recall]
>> >> Indeed. In fact in this instance, the degree of outrage, indignation,
>> >> and general dissatisfaction expressed seems to be *directly*
>> >> proportional to the speaker's distance from here.
>> >If Arnold is recalled (quite possible, since so few votes are required),
>> ???
>> Recalling Arnold, or any other California governor, requires the votes
>> of more than 50% of the people who cast votes. In Arnold's case, that
>> is pretty clearly not going to happen.
>Yeah, I said this badly, as I just replied to Lee. Take it as read that I
>meant "if a recall election is held".
Even that is highly unlikely. Twelve percent of the active electorate
may be a small number of *votes*, but it's a rather large number of
petition signatures. Requires a deeper level of popular support than
just winning an election, and the logistics will cost the proponents
megabucks.
People who actually have megabucks to spend on this sort of thing,
generally won't do it unless the polls show they have a real chance
of winning, so the support has to be broad as well as deep, and no
pollster is going to be telling anyone they have a chance of pulling
Arnold out of office any time soon.
There will certainly be polls circulated calling for Arnold's recall,
but no concentrated effort by anyone with the means to make it happen.
>> It is a minor weakness of the California recall system that one can
>> postulate not entirely implausible scenarios where a candidate who
>> takes office as a result of recall is immediately vulnerable to recall,
>> even where the office flip-flops as fast as recalls can be organized.
>> But that requires a contrived balance between three parties that is
>> very rare in American politics and not present here and now.
>What do parties have to do with it? Democrats are the majority party by a
>comfortable margin here, but Davis was still recalled on the basis of his
>personal unpopularity.
Which suffices for *one* recall, and creates a stable new equilibrium
with the new guy in office and >50% of the electorate in favor of him
staying there for a while.
For the double-tap recall, much less the indefinite flip-flop recall,
you need three seriously competing parties, candidates, power groups,
or whatnot. Two parties, and the winner comes into office with enough
support to hold that office.
>Let Arnold make some major missteps, and he'll find out he is not immune.
By the time Arnold has made enough missteps to leave himself seriously
vulnerable to a recall, his term will be close enough to over that his
opponents and the electorate generally will be content to wait it out.
Repeated recalls require *multiple*, massive shifts in voter sentiment
in rather short order, as such things so. That generally means a third
party or power group is shifting alliances to play kingmaker, and again,
we don't really have one of those in California these days.
Mike Schilling
There are many Democrats here with megabucks, many of whom are quite pissed
off about the recall, and combine it, fairly or not, with the 2000
unpleasantness in Florida, the recent redistricting-at-gunpoint in Texas,
etc. to make a GOP plot to grab power. Money will not be lacking.
>
> People who actually have megabucks to spend on this sort of thing,
> generally won't do it unless the polls show they have a real chance
> of winning, so the support has to be broad as well as deep, and no
> pollster is going to be telling anyone they have a chance of pulling
> Arnold out of office any time soon.
>
> There will certainly be polls circulated calling for Arnold's recall,
> but no concentrated effort by anyone with the means to make it happen.
>
It's hard to say. If he pushes further power deregulation and his Floridian
auditor lives up to her repuation, he'll make a lot of enemies very quickly.
George William Herbert
>> Even that is highly unlikely. Twelve percent of the active electorate
>> may be a small number of *votes*, but it's a rather large number of
>> petition signatures. Requires a deeper level of popular support than
>> just winning an election, and the logistics will cost the proponents
>> megabucks.
>
>There are many Democrats here with megabucks, many of whom are quite pissed
>off about the recall, and combine it, fairly or not, with the 2000
>unpleasantness in Florida, the recent redistricting-at-gunpoint in Texas,
>etc. to make a GOP plot to grab power. Money will not be lacking.
It's not the money.
Nobody is going to try with a governor who has a popularity of
above or around 50%. It wouldn't be likely to succeed, and very
few people get political points in the long term by fucking
things up just to fuck them up some.
Now that we've done it once, I posit that any governor in CA who
seriously loses popular support will likely face a recall, as the
required few megabucks to hire petition circulators is really
trivial in major political terms.
But that's not 'the day after Schwartzenneger is confirmed';
that's if he's been a monumental screwup six months or a year
down the road. It took Davis losing half the Democrats in
polls for Issa to throw money on this recall. A number of
those came back to vote for him before all things were said
and done, but at the time of the recall starting Davis had
only about a 51% anti-recall support in his own party.
He was perceived to be that bad...
No politician is ever really that far from public humiliation
and rejection, in this day and age. None of the various accused
prior sex scandals will do it for Arnie, but ongoing stuff,
or political ineptness, or some other huge screwup could do
it for him. But it will take him screwing up. Unless he
does I predict no successful recall petition gathering
drive in California prior to the next governors election.
Whether he wins the next election, now. *shrug*
A lot of people have assumed a lot of whacky things
about this whole process and what it means for political
theory and governance and the like. There is really only
one real lesson: Don't ever seriously piss off the public.
The path to the result differs from government to government,
but the end result is highly predictable.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
pervect
"James F. Cornwall" <JCornwall_must_...@cox.net> wrote in
message news:3F8D8CF3...@cox.net...
> (a) Flynt, not Flint.
>
> (b) Just because the porn actress makes money with her body, doesn't
> mean her brain doesn't work! Nina Hartley has made a lot of money and
> runs a very successful business kingdom (no quite big enough to be an
> empire) based on her porn career. While I don't know any particulars
> about the candidate, just excluding her from being a "real" candidate on
> the basis of her career is kinda premature.
No it isn't. Because she doesn't have a chance of being elected - because
of her background. Regardless of her qualifications.
So she's in it for the publicity. Which I guess she got, though not enough
that I recall her name. I do recall that she was having a fund raising
dinner at which she was selling "dates". Or maybe her underwear. I forget
exactly which.
George William Herbert
>"James F. Cornwall" <JCornwall_must_...@cox.net> wrote:
>> (a) Flynt, not Flint.
>> (b) Just because the porn actress makes money with her body, doesn't
>> mean her brain doesn't work! Nina Hartley has made a lot of money and
>> runs a very successful business kingdom (no quite big enough to be an
>> empire) based on her porn career. While I don't know any particulars
>> about the candidate, just excluding her from being a "real" candidate on
>> the basis of her career is kinda premature.
>
>No it isn't. Because she doesn't have a chance of being elected - because
>of her background. Regardless of her qualifications.
>
>So she's in it for the publicity. Which I guess she got, though not enough
>that I recall her name. I do recall that she was having a fund raising
>dinner at which she was selling "dates". Or maybe her underwear. I forget
>exactly which.
Backing up a couple of meta-levels...
The question here was whether having such a low threshold for
nominations for the recall replacement candidates was a real
problem or not. It's been repeatedly posited that it was,
however, the voting results were (preliminary, from
http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/gov/00.htm )
Arnold Schwarzenegger Rep 3,952,381 48.7
Cruz M. Bustamante Dem 2,563,617 31.6
Tom McClintock Rep 1,083,929 13.4
Peter Miguel Camejo Grn 224,669 2.8
Arianna Huffington Ind 45,047 0.6
Peter V. Ueberroth Rep 23,717 0.3
Larry Flynt Dem 16,258 0.3
Gary Coleman Ind 13,319 0.2
George B. Schwartzman Ind 11,571 0.2
Mary Cook Ind 10,513 0.2
Nobody else got over 10,000 votes. The totals above represent
over 98% of the total votes. Only 3 'joke' candidates totalling
0.7% of the vote made it into the top 10. The 'top 5' candidates,
at the main debate, got a subtotal of over 97% of the vote.
Not a real problem, as far as I can tell...
This actually suggests something interesting about
the overall political process. Perhaps primaries are
not such a useful thing after all. But that's off topic
in several of these newsgroups...
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Dwight Thieme
> "John Schilling" <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
> news:bmmv18$g8r$1...@spock.usc.edu...
> > "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
> There are many Democrats here with megabucks, many of whom are quite pissed
> off about the recall, and combine it, fairly or not, with the 2000
> unpleasantness in Florida, the recent redistricting-at-gunpoint in Texas,
> etc. to make a GOP plot to grab power. Money will not be lacking.
They might have reason to be angered, but, imho, they're reading the
signs wrong; these GOP slam moves aren't a sign of strength, but
rather, desperation. The American public has shown on a range of
issues - everything from Social Security to public schooling to the
legality of abortion to the regulation of business - that they pretty
much side with the Democrats. And the shift in demographics is only
going to make this worse. The only thing left to the Republicans is
pursuit of their agenda by extra-democratic means: redistrictring,
propaganda, dissimulation, harrassing a popular president, packing the
courts, etc. Oh - and the Grover Norquist strategy - put the US so
far in debt that presumably the dismantling of most major social
programs will follow.
Regardless, none of the above tactics will change public opinion in
the long run. And the right-wingers currently in power know it.
>
> > People who actually have megabucks to spend on this sort of thing,
> > generally won't do it unless the polls show they have a real chance
> > of winning, so the support has to be broad as well as deep, and no
> > pollster is going to be telling anyone they have a chance of pulling
> > Arnold out of office any time soon.
> >
> > There will certainly be polls circulated calling for Arnold's recall,
> > but no concentrated effort by anyone with the means to make it happen.
> >
>
> It's hard to say. If he pushes further power deregulation and his Floridian
> auditor lives up to her repuation, he'll make a lot of enemies very quickly.
Sho 'nuff. But the recall procedure is not the answer - it's already
been tainted, the same way the independent prosecutor statutes were
tainted. And anyway, the regular procedure, elections, should be
quite satisfactory. About the only mischief Arnold can do is let the
power companies off the hook for their past misdeeds, something we all
pretty much was going to happen anyway, given the connivance of FERC
of the probable complicity of Cheney.
Lee DeRaud
wrote:
>> mean her brain doesn't work! Nina Hartley has made a lot of money and
>> runs a very successful business kingdom (no quite big enough to be an
>> empire) based on her porn career. While I don't know any particulars
>> about the candidate, just excluding her from being a "real" candidate on
>> the basis of her career is kinda premature.
>
>No it isn't. Because she doesn't have a chance of being elected - because
>of her background. Regardless of her qualifications.
>
>So she's in it for the publicity.
And how exactly would that be different from Ralph Nader?
Lee
Jeff Walther
<perv...@netscape.net> wrote:
> There are several problems with the current system
>
> 1) It's too easy to become a candidate if there is a recall. I believe that
> we had an adult entertainment star running for governor, for instance.
> (Besides Larry Flint from hustler, that is.)
And the problem with that is? How is that relevant to his or her ability
to govern?
--
A friend will help you move. A real friend will help you move a body.
Mike Schilling
"Dwight Thieme" <dbt...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote in message
news:b12606fc.03101...@posting.google.com...
> About the only mischief Arnold can do is let the
> power companies off the hook for their past misdeeds, something we all
> pretty much was going to happen anyway, given the connivance of FERC
> of the probable complicity of Cheney.
It would now be smart politics for Bush to put pressure on FERC to do the
right thing. I am not holding my breath, though.
Dwight Thieme
I respectfully disagree. About the politically smart thing to do for
Bush, that is. Despite the significance of the implications, the
actual gaming of the system remains a mostly local - mostly California
issue. Why should Bush expend political capital (and lose campaign
dollars to boot) by doing the right thing for a state he can't
possibly carry?
pervect
"George William Herbert" <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote in message
news:bmnig6$q5k$1...@gw.retro.com...
> Backing up a couple of meta-levels...
>
> The question here was whether having such a low threshold for
> nominations for the recall replacement candidates was a real
> problem or not. It's been repeatedly posited that it was,
> however, the voting results were (preliminary, from
> http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/gov/00.htm )
>
> Arnold Schwarzenegger Rep 3,952,381 48.7
> Cruz M. Bustamante Dem 2,563,617 31.6
> Tom McClintock Rep 1,083,929 13.4
> Peter Miguel Camejo Grn 224,669 2.8
> Arianna Huffington Ind 45,047 0.6
> Peter V. Ueberroth Rep 23,717 0.3
> Larry Flynt Dem 16,258 0.3
> Gary Coleman Ind 13,319 0.2
> George B. Schwartzman Ind 11,571 0.2
> Mary Cook Ind 10,513 0.2
>
> Nobody else got over 10,000 votes. The totals above represent
> over 98% of the total votes. Only 3 'joke' candidates totalling
> 0.7% of the vote made it into the top 10. The 'top 5' candidates,
> at the main debate, got a subtotal of over 97% of the vote.
>
> Not a real problem, as far as I can tell...
The real problem is the expense of a special election at a time when the
state can ill afford it (maybe it can't even afford it).
The fact that voters had to wade through so many candidates who are in it
for the publicity rather than being serious candidates is mostly a major
irritation in "engineering terms". [Not the best choice of words, I hope
you can figure out what I meant by that.]
Of course, if you takes a social approach rather than an engineering one,
the associated publicity and the circus atmosphere is a 'social problem'.
This is not a short-term functional problem, it's a question of how the
election process is perceived.
Related issues are the question of "what if this happens again / a lot".
pervect
> And how exactly would that be different from Ralph Nader?
You don't know? Time to take off those blinders, methinks. But ask again
nicely, and I'll explain it to you (I'm easy in a lot of ways).
pervect
> gher...@gw.retro.com (George William Herbert) writes:
> That the end result was popular doesn't mean there isn't room for
> real improvement in how it was achieved. I wanted Davis out, I'm
> reasonably happy with Schwarzenegger in, and I also would like to
> see the system modified. In particular, either cut down the field
> of replacement candidates and/or implement a runoff if no would-be
> replacemend wins a clear majority on the initial ballot.
>
> Not that it would have mattered this time; both Davis's unpopularity
> and Arnold's popularity were such that any half-decent system would
> have had the same end result. But where the numbers aren't so clear,
> one can get perverse results from allowing a plurality win in a crowded
> field.
>
>
> I do, of course, agree with you that the crowd for whom "modify the
> recall mechanism" was a euphemism for "make it practically impossible
> to force a recall" is dead in the water.
I'm not particularly impressed by Schwarzenegger, but I guess he'll have a
chance to show what he can do.
I suppose he'll still be able to say "I'll be back" :-)
The person I really blame for Calfornia's troubles is not Davis, but Bush.
A little bit of action or support by the federal government could have
avoided a whole bunch of trouble. Not only for California, but for everyone
who took a bath as a result of the Enron scandal. Bush's claim that "he did
nothing" which were his main defense at the time did not and do not sit well
with me. If only Bush would have done nothing in Iraq, and instead saw fit
to do something for California. Ah well, it's all water under the dam &
over the bridge now.
Of course, the voters who voted in that stupid power deragulation scheme
have to share some of the responsibility for opening the door to the power
troubles. Like a traffic accident, I am placing a good share of blame on
the person who had the last clear chance to avert disaster.
I really don't think there was much Davis could have done. Perhaps he
should not have signed the contracts with the power comapines the gun to his
head (not a real gun, the threat of no electrical power to the state).
Perhaps Davis should have threatened to nationalize the power plants and
have them operated by the national guard. (I don't see any way in hell he
could have actually pulled that off, though, and I don't think that the
players in this game would have responded to a bluff, so I don't really
think that could have worked). Which leaves one with the question - just
should he have done? He obviously failed, and he's going to pay the
political price for that failure.
I'm a bit dissapointed that the courts found it fit to uphold those power
contracts that were signed under duress.
Lee DeRaud
wrote:
>The real problem is the expense of a special election at a time when the
>state can ill afford it (maybe it can't even afford it).
I wish there was a way to quantify the cost of leaving Davis in charge
for another two years, but all things considered I'm glad we'll never
know.
>The fact that voters had to wade through so many candidates who are in it
>for the publicity rather than being serious candidates is mostly a major
>irritation in "engineering terms". [Not the best choice of words, I hope
>you can figure out what I meant by that.]
I seriously doubt that any serious voter had *any* problem at all
"wading" through that ballot. Anyone who did probably shouldn't be
trusted to feed and dress themselves.
The real irritation is people who define "serious candidate" as
"someone who has a chance of being elected". You can usually identify
them by the Nader button they're wearing.
Lee
Lee DeRaud
wrote:
That *was* nicely. Methinks you're a bit sensitive.
Lee
Steve Hix
"pervect" <perv...@netscape.net> wrote:
> The person I really blame for Calfornia's troubles is not Davis, but Bush.
> A little bit of action or support by the federal government could have
> avoided a whole bunch of trouble. Not only for California, but for everyone
> who took a bath as a result of the Enron scandal.
Enron was *not* the main cause of California's woes. There's no way that
anyone but California's governor and senate/assembly can be blamed for
running up $38B in the hole...more than all the rest of the states
combined. Enron was a drop in the bucket, for California.
Steve Hix
"pervect" <perv...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Of course, the voters who voted in that stupid power deragulation scheme
> have to share some of the responsibility for opening the door to the power
> troubles.
Stupid is right. Model your "deregulation" notion on the British
model...but throw out all the safeguards built into the latter model.
Kewl.
Oh yeah, base your spending on a temporary economic bubble, and keep on
spending long after it was clear that the bubble had burst.