2 year presidential term??
Chad A Lehrman
last couple hundred years, I was thinking that maybe a Presidential term
should be limited to two years instead of four. What do you think? Does
that seem too short?
Steve Muratore
Chad A Lehrman <cleh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.HPX.4.10.99103...@pavo.U.Arizona.EDU...
the country to perpetually be in presidential campaign mode?
It seems to me that such a change might magnify the traditional Washington
practice of dishing out the pork. Unless, of course, some radical
transformation took place in the campaign finance system.
The Arizona version of Clean Election law goes into effect for next fall's
elections, I think. We shall see.
And wasn't the front page news story in the Sunday (Oct 31) Tribune papers
interesting? I refer to the story about certain valley mayors suggesting
adoption of a LIVING WAGE! At least having the state and cities require
contractors to pay employees a living wage.
These are REPUBLICANS! Perhaps the light might be coming on for some. For
cities, which must deal with the problems of homeless and the working poor,
to begin to realize that requiring a living wage might LOWER taxes or
government costs in the LONG RUN (now, that's a novel concept -- politicians
thinking past the next election!!!).
Kent Paul Dolan
Steve Muratore <STEVEM...@netvalue.net> wrote:
>Chad A Lehrman <cleh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote in message
>news:Pine.HPX.4.10.99103...@pavo.U.Arizona.EDU...
>> Given the rapid pace that everything changes now in comparison with in the
>> last couple hundred years, I was thinking that maybe a Presidential term
>> should be limited to two years instead of four. What do you think? Does
>> that seem too short?
The better proposal is to make the term _six_ years, but only allow one term.
That way, the president isn't always running for office with his every offical
action, and can be more a statesman and less a campaign contribution soliciting
whore for most of his term. There are lots of advantages to being a "lame
duck president", the main one being that it leaves a good man the time to
be great.
[I could have made that sentence gender neutral, and would have, but the
"whore" might get taken a lot less generically by the other gender. Why
take the risk.]
=> The answer to your question lies within another question. Would you
=> like the country to perpetually be in presidential campaign mode?
More than that, since, at least in theory, it takes acts of Congress to
1) declare war
2) ratify a treaty
3) impeach a president
4) confirm a supreme court appointment (and many others) upon the death,
incapacitation, or retirement of an incumbant
5) vote emergency funds for a disaster
and many other legal requirements, do you really think a country this
complex can be run by a government that simple, and one that is out to
lunch the majoriy of every two years?
This is the common failing of the libertarians, the anarchists, and the
other government minimalists; what they propose just will not work, and
in cases like the one above, are too dangerously ill considered even to
test.
While I can sympathize with Mark Twain and Abraham Lincoln both considering
the country safest when Congress is adjourned, that was then, this is now,
when the budget deadline has been pushed from July to October, and the
Congress _still_ cannot vote a budget in on time.
[That problem _does_ have a simple cure, at least to my mind, except
that the ones voting on it would be the ones whose oxen got gored.
Decrease congressional wages 2% annually for every day the budget is
overdue, weekends, and holidays included, and make half of that
decrease permanent. Then require a national referendum instead of a
vote by the beneficiaries, to raise Congressional wages. My guess is
the budget would be done and on the President's desk the previous
January, every single year. How come all the folks nattering for
accountability in education let this kind of unaccountable government
continue unremarked?]
=> It seems to me that such a change might magnify the traditional
=> Washington practice of dishing out the pork. Unless, of course, some
=> radical transformation took place in the campaign finance system.
So long as any politician is allowed to seek a second term of office, "what's
pleasing to my constituents" is going to beat out "what's good for the
nation" every single time. Thus the profusion of pork in politics; we've
built it into the system.
=> The Arizona version of Clean Election law goes into effect for next fall's
=> elections, I think. We shall see.
Any chance it won't be instantly overturned by the courts, like term limits
for Federal congress-slime was a couple of years back?
=> And wasn't the front page news story in the Sunday (Oct 31) Tribune papers
=> interesting? I refer to the story about certain valley mayors suggesting
=> adoption of a LIVING WAGE! At least having the state and cities require
=> contractors to pay employees a living wage.
What this does is push the onus of making sure the low level employed
have enough not to need to hold two jobs (and so let their kids run
with the gangs) goes back onto the employers where it belongs, and
removes it from the government. Never going to happen; business is too
fond of having burger flipper wages subsidized by welfare supplements.
A little historical perspective seems needed.
When I went to work as an unskilled laborer during college summers and
after too avid a love for computers ended my first try for a degree, I
just naturally earned the minimum wage, which in those days was $1.35.
How awful, I sense you thinking.
How awful for the wage earner today, I reply.
That was 1961, a pound and a half loaf of bread, a gallon of gas, and a
pound of round steak all cost about 19 cents, less if you shopped the
sales, a very decent house could be had for around twelve thousand
dollars, and a pretty good used car for two or three hundred dollars.
In today's dollars, I was making around $15 an hour. This is half
again more than my wife gets paid temping today after 20 years of
skilled clerical work experience, more than two and a half times
today's minimum wage, and my skill set consisted entirely of picking up
heavy things here, and putting them down there.
Tell today's business-persons the minimum wage needs to be raised four
bits, and they tell you the economics just won't work.
So how were they able to pay my generation two and a half times this
much and still turn a profit? Are business persons today _really_ that
much stupider, that much less competent to run a business at a profit,
than the ones in my mother's generation?
Maybe so; that generation didn't have money-obsessed, next quarter's
stock price obsessed, all theory and no practice MBAs hung around their
necks as a replacement for a real "how to run a business" education
learned partly in classes, but mostly from the shop floor and on up.
However, I think there are some heavy doses of greed and disdain for the
workers mixed in with that incompetence somewhere.
=> These are REPUBLICANS! Perhaps the light might be coming on for some.
=> For cities, which must deal with the problems of homeless and the
=> working poor, to begin to realize that requiring a living wage might
=> LOWER taxes or government costs in the LONG RUN (now, that's a novel
=> concept -- politicians thinking past the next election!!!).
I'll tell you what. Go plant a radio microphone on the moon, tell
these business people of whatever political stripe that next year they
start paying $15 an hour minimum wage, like they did to my generation,
and see if you can't pick up the screams of outrage through a quarter
million miles of hard vacuum.
If I were a betting man, I'd be listening for the echoes back off the
lunar surface, without benefit of the radio link.
Xanthian.
--
Kent, the man from xanth. | Can we hurry this up? | Reputed net.scum Latter
Kent Paul Dolan. | I have places to go, | Day Saint propagandist
<xant...@well.com> | and people to insult. | and known rabid atheist.
Kent Paul Dolan
lunch the majority of every two years?
This is the common failing of the libertarians, the anarchists, and the
other government minimalists; what they propose just will not work, and
in cases like the one above, are too dangerously ill-considered even to
test.
with the gangs) back onto the employers where it belongs, and removes
it from the government. Never going to happen; business is too fond of
having burger flipper wages subsidized by welfare supplements.
A little historical perspective seems needed.
When I went to work as an unskilled laborer during college summers and
after too avid a love for computers ended my first try for a degree, I
just naturally earned the minimum wage, which in those days was $1.35.
How awful, I sense you thinking.
How awful for the wage earner today, I reply.
That was 1961, a pound and a half loaf of bread, a gallon of gas, and a
pound of round steak all cost about 19 cents, less if you shopped the
sales, a very decent house could be had for around twelve thousand
dollars, and a pretty good new car for around a thousand dollars.
If I were a betting man, I'd just be listening for the echoes back off
Steve Muratore
Banner_of_Truth
It sounds like sheer non-sense. Kent like most, fails to realize
that the problems he outlined are merely symptomatic and the solutions
proposed are yet another band aid that fails to treat the root cause
of the problem.
--
chad
Thanks for your ideas! They were definitely better than mine!
Banner of Truth- You watch too much cnn or somethin man. Dont respond
unless you have something to say. If you're gonna say that something is
sheer nonsense, at least come back with a statement of your own.
On Sun, 7
Arthur L. Rubin
>
> Goood reading?,
>
> It sounds like sheer non-sense. Kent like most, fails to realize
> that the problems he outlined are merely symptomatic and the solutions
> proposed are yet another band aid that fails to treat the root cause
> of the problem.
What do you consider the root cause of the problem?
(I have my own opinions, but you go first...)
--
Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
Hawke
so whats the root cause of the problem (since you brought up this
point)???
Hawke
Banner_of_Truth wrote:
> Goood reading?,
>
> It sounds like sheer non-sense. Kent like most, fails to realize
> that the problems he outlined are merely symptomatic and the solutions
> proposed are yet another band aid that fails to treat the root cause
> of the problem.
marie Snell
Chad A Lehrman <cleh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> Given the rapid pace that everything changes now in comparison with
in the
> last couple hundred years, I was thinking that maybe a Presidential
term
> should be limited to two years instead of four. What do you think?
Does
> that seem too short?
>
>
one six year term. This gives the president time to really understand
the issues, concentrate on being president rather than campaigning and
avoiding so much time of his time in office as a _lame duck_.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
William Maslen
be a good idea. But do we really want a bum one in office that long? As long
as they were good, it would be fine, but if you got someone who was really
incompetent or senile in there, it would be pretty difficult to get them out.
And by the time we went through the impeachment process the country could
suffer great damage.
But one thing I have advocated for several years is to change the makeup of
the House of Representatives. Congress was supposed to be modeled on the old
Roman legislature. The Senate was for the Patrician families ( the wealthy )
and the lower chamber was for representatives of the common people.
But what we have wound up with is a Senate full of wealthy people, some of
whom have been able to hand their seat down to their sons, thus building
empires. And a House of Representatives filled mostly with wealthy lawyers.
I advocate that members of the House of Representatives should be chosen by
random computer selection of the voters in the district in the last
Presidental election. The person so chosen could elect not to serve. But if
they accepted, they would serve one 4 year term and go home. They could not be
chosen again. Their employer ( if they worked for someone else) would be
required to hold their job for when they returned. And they would go back to
the same house where they lived before. Quarters in Washington would be
provided by the gov't. All assets would be frozen during their term in office.
Upon leaving office their finances would be audited for the next 10 years to
help prevent delayed payoffs.
I know there are glitches in the above idea, but I think if people put their
mind to it they could solve the problems that arose. And the country would
have a House of Representatives that was truly representative instead of being
ran by wealthy lawyers and businessmen. Thus the common man would have input
in legislation directly. Your representative might be a small business person,
or a carpenter, or a car dealer ( wait no they aren't eligible, we want
someone halfway honest <smile>). The super rich would continue to run the
Senate just as they do now.
marie Snell wrote:
> <SNIP>
Neil
>
> I advocate that members of the House of Representatives should be chosen by
> random computer selection of the voters in the district in the last
> Presidental election. The person so chosen could elect not to serve. But if
> they accepted, they would serve one 4 year term and go home. They could not be
> chosen again. Their employer ( if they worked for someone else) would be
> required to hold their job for when they returned. And they would go back to
> the same house where they lived before. Quarters in Washington would be
> provided by the gov't. All assets would be frozen during their term in office.
> Upon leaving office their finances would be audited for the next 10 years to
> help prevent delayed payoffs.
The random people you would be sending to Washington under this scheme would
be even worse than the people we have there right now.
First of all, as a law student I am particularly sensitive to this issue: you
will have a bunch of utter morons with no knowledge of the law, 100% in charge
of MAKING the law. Does that make sense to you? As it stands right now,
somewhere around 90% of Congressmen have law degrees, and they STILL produce
enormous amounts of legislative garbage, sometimes impossible to decipher,
often producing the wrong results, and almost always defective in one way or
another. You want to change that 90% to 1% (the percentage of the general
population I'm stipulating has a law degree) thinking this situation will
IMPROVE?
Secondly, you will be taking away all political accountability, and our right
to representative government.
Third, you will make it even easier for political interest groups to fling
themselves upon susceptible citizens who may be even more interested in making
their hometowns a better place to live than current Congressmen.
Fourth, you will have several individuals sitting in Congress who will be
motivated by the wrong reasons with much more frequency than current
Congressmen (whether you want to admit it or not, the majority of our
politicians are to some degree motivated by a desire to serve the public and
further the interests of the nation).
The list goes on and on.
-N
Banner_of_Truth
challenged... it's sheer nonsense. It's not my problem that
you don't like my response. My "statement" is there is nothing
wrong with the United States Constitution, it doesn't need to
be changed.
--
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:31:42 -0700, chad <cleh...@U.Arizona.EDU>
wrote:
>Kent and Steve-
>Thanks for your ideas! They were definitely better than mine!
>Banner of Truth- You watch too much cnn or somethin man. Dont respond
>unless you have something to say. If you're gonna say that something is
>sheer nonsense, at least come back with a statement of your own.
>
>On Sun, 7
Banner_of_Truth
--
On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 01:05:39 -0700, Hawke <prou...@interwrx.com>
wrote:
>ok?
>so whats the root cause of the problem (since you brought up this
>point)???
>
>Hawke
>
Banner_of_Truth
one has demonstrated that there is anything wrong with the current
Constitutional four year term. Our problems lie more with an
ignorant electorate. Changing the Constitution will not resolve that.
Making an ignorant electorate un-Constitutional would only result in
making being Liberal a crime... <chuckle>...
--
On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 18:30:53 +0700, "Arthur L. Rubin"
<216-...@mcimail.com> wrote:
>Banner_of_Truth wrote:
>>
>> Goood reading?,
>>
>> It sounds like sheer non-sense. Kent like most, fails to realize
>> that the problems he outlined are merely symptomatic and the solutions
>> proposed are yet another band aid that fails to treat the root cause
>> of the problem.
>
William Maslen
Congressman himself doesn't need to be a lawyer in order to listen to his
constituents and formulate positions that serve them. Legal technicalities can be
explained to him by all the lawyers on his staff.
And I don't think we would get people with wrong motivations serving. First of all,
they wouldn't have asked for the job. Second, they didn't have to campaign for the
job. Third, they didn't have to raise boodles of money to campaign for the job.
Fourth, they don't have to raise boodles of money to get re-elected because they
can't serve again. Fifth, they will return to the same house they left and have to
face their neighbors and friends. They won't be there long enough to leave wealthy
and retire to Arizona or Florida and leave their old neighbors behind. Sixth, they
go back to their old job and have to face the people they worked with before.
Seventh, their finances are audited to prevent them taking delayed payoffs for
voting for a special interest.
But, naturally, being a would be shyster, you want to see things continue the way
they are, with virtually only lawyers holding office.
Kent Paul Dolan
>> I advocate that members of the House of Representatives should be
>> chosen by random computer selection of the voters in the district in
>> the last Presidental election. The person so chosen could elect not to
>> serve. But if they accepted, they would serve one 4 year term and go
>> home. They could not be chosen again. Their employer ( if they worked
>> for someone else) would be required to hold their job for when they
>> returned. And they would go back to the same house where they lived
>> before. Quarters in Washington would be provided by the gov't. All
>> assets would be frozen during their term in office. Upon leaving
>> office their finances would be audited for the next 10 years to help
>> prevent delayed payoffs.
> The random people you would be sending to Washington under this scheme
> would be even worse than the people we have there right now.
Picking random people from asylums, maximum security prison inmate
rolls, and homes for the feeble-minded would be an improvement over the
government we have now. Picking ordinary citizens at random for a body
with over 500 members would be an incredible improvement in
comparision.
> First of all, as a law student I am particularly sensitive to this
> issue: you will have a bunch of utter morons with no knowledge of the
> law, 100% in charge of MAKING the law. Does that make sense to you? As
> it stands right now, somewhere around 90% of Congressmen have law
> degrees, and they STILL produce enormous amounts of legislative
> garbage, sometimes impossible to decipher, often producing the wrong
> results, and almost always defective in one way or another. You want to
> change that 90% to 1% (the percentage of the general population I'm
> stipulating has a law degree) thinking this situation will IMPROVE?
And I quote:
=> "We are not out to blame anyone for this problem. To do so would be
=> unfair. Could programmers have prevented this? I think not. Some of
=> our visitors feel that _attorneys are to blame_. Just because attorneys
=> are the root of every other conceivable problem known to man, it could
=> possibly be unfair to blame them for the Y5B Bug as well. We will
=> remain silent on the issue."
=> -- http://y5b.com/
Being a slow learner is thinking that lawyers who write unreadable laws
are an improvement on idiots who write laws in sentences of one
syllable words.
> Secondly, you will be taking away all political accountability, and
> our right to representative government.
Well, no, you would merely be changing the _kind_ of "representative"
government we have. For almost any purpose, a random sample of over
500 samples is surely "representative" of the larger body. Ten years
of snooping on the selectee's receipts is enough accountability that
most of our current politicians could not take that much heat.
> Third, you will make it even easier for political interest groups to
> fling themselves upon susceptible citizens who may be even more
> interested in making their hometowns a better place to live than
> current Congressmen.
Not really; you've given no advanced notice of who will be elected, so
the whole "campaign funding as a form of bribery" issue goes away, and
you have pretty strict controls on cash after office. The current
bribery statutes should nicely cover the period in between.
> Fourth, you will have several individuals sitting in Congress who will
> be motivated by the wrong reasons with much more frequency than current
> Congressmen (whether you want to admit it or not, the majority of our
> politicians are to some degree motivated by a desire to serve the
> public and further the interests of the nation).
Do you live on this planet? The chance to grasp for power, puff one's
ego, and illegally enrich oneself have long overtaken "desire to serve"
as political motivations.
> The list goes on and on.
Indeed it does. This proposal has been covered in Science Fiction in
various near approximations; some of them are quite well considered.
--
Kent Paul Dolan.
<xant...@well.com> <xant...@aztec.asu.edu> <xant...@whistle.com>
D7
> with over 500 members would be an incredible improvement in
> comparision.
This is an incredibly naive statement. I am NOT defending the problems we
have currently. The average Joe doesn't think much beyond tomorrow. All
planning would disappear entirely and would cause our Federal government to
react only. On top of that the gov is all too often used to punish people
others don't like - this practice would only increase with the average
person in there. Some may like the idea of a gun nut sitting in their seat
in congress, but after that you might get a politically correct airhead who
would go in and change all that their predecessor accomplished. And if you
think it's easy for a millionairre lawyer to take a bribe, then how hard do
you think it would be for big business to buy out someone in poverty???
The problem is with lackadasical voters and the system which allows groups
with either money or voting clout to run the government. If the majority of
people would vote, we would have the clout to take back control of the
politicians. Individual voters put these guys in there, but how they vote in
congress is determined by special interests groups. If our esteemed senators
thought that their conduct while in office might actually get them removed
back home in the next election then it would change.
> Being a slow learner is thinking that lawyers who write unreadable laws
> are an improvement on idiots who write laws in sentences of one
> syllable words.
Yeah, we would get laws that read like a Children's book. Just what I want
in a world full of complicated issues. The average person's education is
just below high school graduation. They recently demonstrated their lack of
undrstanding by saying that they didn't really think Bill Gates had done
anything wrong.
> Well, no, you would merely be changing the _kind_ of "representative"
> government we have. For almost any purpose, a random sample of over
> 500 samples is surely "representative" of the larger body. Ten years
> of snooping on the selectee's receipts is enough accountability that
> most of our current politicians could not take that much heat.
Then why not do it to our current politicians?
> Not really; you've given no advanced notice of who will be elected, so
> the whole "campaign funding as a form of bribery" issue goes away, and
> you have pretty strict controls on cash after office. The current
> bribery statutes should nicely cover the period in between.
Like I said before - apply it to the guys in their now. The one benefit we
have from voluntary instead of forced service is that at least at the heart
of where alot of these people started is a desire to serve the public.
You're average Joe doesn't give a shit.
> Do you live on this planet? The chance to grasp for power, puff one's
> ego, and illegally enrich oneself have long overtaken "desire to serve"
> as political motivations.
And this doesn't describe Joe average why? Most politicians start at the
local level and become corrupt because of the system. If Joe wants to get
home and watch reruns of Roseanne then he won't pay much attention to what's
going on. What incentive is it for him to do a good job? Absolutely none. If
he wants to get rich, be lazy he can because he has no one to answer to back
home. What if a Nazi or some other one issue whacko get's in? Do you think
they will bother to learn about the economy of foreign relations?
And what about the staff? Do want Bubba to hire is retarded brother-in-law
to manage his expenses? Are we going to keep a proffessional staff permantly
in office to run it. Guess what - we end up with that staff running the
inductee and we have the same problem we started out with.
> Indeed it does. This proposal has been covered in Science Fiction in
> various near approximations; some of them are quite well considered.
You're right about one thing. The thought that the average couch potatoe can
run the country properly is true science fiction.
Kent Paul Dolan
>[Kent Paul Dolan wrote:]
>> Picking ordinary citizens at random for a body
>> with over 500 members would be an incredible improvement in
>> comparision [to the present system].
>This is an incredibly naive statement.
No, it is the statement of a mathematician trained in probability
theory on how many samples from a "potentially infinite" population it
takes to have a "representative" sample for the usual probability
theory usage of the term "representative".
You ought to do your homework before making incredibly naive statements
about the naivete of statements which in fact you merely lack the
education to understand.
>I am NOT defending the problems we have currently.
No, you are defending continuing the selection of the crowd of bozos
who created them, not quite the same thing, and just a little more
reprehensible than merely claiming the problems to be non-problems.
>The average Joe doesn't think much beyond tomorrow.
Some 47% of the average Joes and Jills in America invest in the stock
market.
Probably a larger percentage own life insurance.
Still more have savings.
Many are attending night school.
Most where it is possible grow some of their own food.
The majority of those eligible are registered to vote.
More yet are scheming toward their next raise, promotion, or heist.
You lie.
>All planning would disappear entirely and would cause our Federal
>government to react only.
That is on the unsupported presumption that our society elects its
superiors to office.
The evidence for that presumption fails on the record of the results of
those bozos _being_ in office.
They are not our superiors.
Anything but.
You make false claims.
>On top of that the gov is all too often used to punish people others
>don't like - this practice would only increase with the average person
>in there.
On what ridiculous basis do you make _this_ counter-intuitive claim?
The average Joe or Jill doesn't have powerful enemies only a Congress
would suffice to punish.
The average Joe or Jill calls the cops, or punches out the miscreant,
depending on mood and blood alcohol level.
You make false claims.
>Some may like the idea of a gun nut sitting in their seat in congress,
More in proportion in the population than the proportion of the current
Congress beholden to the National Rifle Association for donations?
Some of our population _are_ gun nuts. Why are they any less deserving
of representation than saner people?
>but after that you might get a politically correct airhead who would go
>in and change all that their predecessor accomplished.
Every two years, we do the same thing deliberately in the House of
Representatives. Fashions change, bodies politic change their
leanings on issues. Why is ripping out the old and putting in the
new unacceptable to you?
Lots of our population believes firmly in political correctness. Why,
in your mind, are they any less deserving of representation or being
among the pool from which representatives are selected than others?
You attempt to exclude from representation those who disagree with you.
>And if you think it's easy for a millionairre lawyer to take a bribe,
>then how hard do you think it would be for big business to buy out
>someone in poverty???
Above a certain fairly low level, there are no honestly gotten
fortunes. A person may be poor exactly _because_ he or she is honest.
Given the choice, I'll take Lincoln and the log cabin background every
time. I, personally have been well-to-do, and now am not. "Not" is
much preferable, even though I've been homeless for a couple of months
now. The "small change" I gave away in the past would make a pretty
big change in my life today.
You attempt to exclude the poor from representation or the chance to
represent.
In that, you have the profound collusion of the present political
process, which is so expensive only the incredibly famous poor person
stands a chance at election.
In a lottery system of choosing representatives, the poor person and
the rich person would have equal chance to serve.
That improves over the "representativeness" of the current system.
>The problem is with lackadasical voters
I just missed my second election in my life, not because I wasn't
ready and able to vote, but because the local registrar of voters
would not accept the application of a person without a residence
address.
The first time I was locked up in jail, for my own protection.
A system which ignores the opinions of those too lazy to vote is
probably working about as well as is to be expected.
A system that prevents willing voters from voting is badly broken.
>and the system which allows groups with either money or voting clout
>to run the government.
I'd think it a pretty poor democratic system if groups with voting
clout were _not_ the ones running an elected government.
The issue with money running elections is exactly the reason that a
non-fund-requiring election method is worth considering, and a lottery
to select representatives is just such a method.
>If the majority of people would vote, we would have the clout to take
>back control of the politicians.
Why hasn't that worked in all the other countries where the voting
participation is above 90%?
You voice uninformed opinions without reflection.
>Individual voters put these guys in there, but how they vote in
>congress is determined by special interests groups.
And which special interest groups would have influence on how a lottery
chosen representative voted, before the selection?
>If our esteemed senators
Only by those who refuse to consider alternatives to those methods that
put this bunch of crooks in office and keep bringing them back.
>thought that their conduct while in office might actually get them
>removed back home in the next election then it would change.
You might want to espouse a freer press if that is your goal. Right now
the repeated electability of the Congress with the power to destroy a
free press makes pointing out Congressional malfeasance a rather risky
business for the press. In other countries the press are quite regularly
murdered. Here we try to be a bit more subtle, but not much.
>> Being a slow learner is thinking that lawyers who write unreadable laws
>> are an improvement on idiots who write laws in sentences of one
>> syllable words.
>Yeah, we would get laws that read like a Children's book.
As opposed to laws that, like your writing here, do not even scan as
English many places, and which it takes an entire massive judiciary
to interpret in response to lengthy weasel-worded arguments by the
best trained liars in creation?
I speak, of course, of attorneys.
>Just what I want in a world full of complicated issues.
Readable laws to help uncomplicate the issues. What a novel concept.
How repugnant a concept to one hoping to win riches from the complexity
of laws crafted under the current system.
>The average person's education is just below high school graduation.
And this makes the average person less deserving of representation, or
of participating in a pool from which representatives are elected, how?
You denigrate the rights to representation of the less than splendidly
educated.
>They recently demonstrated their lack of undrstanding by saying that
>they didn't really think Bill Gates had done anything wrong.
Granted, Bill Gates didn't finish college either, but this is pretty
much _his_ claim as well. Since the matter is under advisement in the
courts, and since a verdict has been neither rendered nor appealed to
the final level sufficient to convince one side that the issue is
decided, I'd have to grant that under the current law, any wrong-doing
by Bill Gates is at best "unproven", nor is he the accused.
You fail to use your own education to good offices when debating.
>> Well, no, you would merely be changing the _kind_ of "representative"
>> government we have. For almost any purpose, a random sample of over
>> 500 samples is surely "representative" of the larger body. Ten years
>> of snooping on the selectee's receipts is enough accountability that
>> most of our current politicians could not take that much heat.
>Then why not do it to our current politicians?
1) Because accountability is not nearly all that wrong with politicians
selected by the current methods.
2) Because such a violation of privacy would have to become law by the
actions of politicians selected by the current methods. Local to
Arizona, we cannot even get them to vote out receiving gifts from
lobbiests, much less to vote to open their books to auditing.
You ask questions in rhetorical mode as if that made the answers
obviously in your favor, but such is not the case.
>> Not really; you've given no advanced notice of who will be elected, so
>> the whole "campaign funding as a form of bribery" issue goes away, and
>> you have pretty strict controls on cash after office. The current
>> bribery statutes should nicely cover the period in between.
>Like I said before - apply it to the guys in their now.
You argue the same point repeatedly to a single posted note, as if you
were engaging in a face to face debate where the opponent kept
repeating the same claims.
You fail to grasp the realities of Internet debate, and use habits not
appropriate here.
>The one benefit we have from voluntary instead of forced service is
>that at least at the heart of where alot of these people started is a
>desire to serve the public.
The character juxtiposition "alot" is not a word. The two words you
want are "a lot". The word confusing you is spelled "allot" and means
something entirely different.
Most of these people chose to run for election for lack of interest
in honest work.
>You're average Joe doesn't give a shit.
Your average Joe or Jill spends a significant fraction of his or her
life arguing politics.
You make false claims on absent evidence.
>> Do you live on this planet? The chance to grasp for power, puff one's
>> ego, and illegally enrich oneself have long overtaken "desire to serve"
>> as political motivations.
>And this doesn't describe Joe average why?
Because Joe or Jill Average is not now, and has probably never been, a
political office holder, and is therefore not among a group
self-selected for political ambition.
>Most politicians start at the local level and become corrupt because of
>the system.
How is that different from seeing a system which is inherently corrupt
and working day and night to get your share of the loot?
Most people avoid political service, just like most people avoid becoming
lawyers, because the reek of the jobs and those currently serving in them
is not something they want filling their nostrils day after day.
You have chosen otherwise, making all your opinions suspect.
>If Joe wants to get home and watch reruns of Roseanne then he won't pay
>much attention to what's going on.
This differs from politicians being wined, dined, bribed, and furnished
with willing sex partners by lobbiests exactly how?
>What incentive is it for him to do a good job?
He or she has to live with the results, among people whose opinions of
him or her matters most of all: friends and neighbors.
>Absolutely none.
You make false claims with much emphasis but no support.
>If he wants to get rich, be lazy he can because he has no one to answer
>to back home.
Quite to the contrary, as noted above.
>What if a Nazi or some other one issue whacko get's in?
They don't now? At least a quarter, perhaps half, of the current
Congress was elected on the litmus test of the abortion issue.
Why are one issue whackos less deserving of serving as representatives
than other people, remembering that their numbers in a representative
sample will be in proportion to their numbers in the population as a
whole?
You continue to attempt to exclude from serving as representatives
those with whom you do not agree.
>Do you think they will bother to learn about the economy of foreign
>relations?
Most folks in my acquaintance run their households better than the
US government runs its economy, and treat their neighbors better than
our government treats its neighboring governments.
I would suggest that Joe and Jill Average are _way_ ahead of the
current politicos in these areas.
>And what about the staff?
"Thy rod and thy staff they shall comfort me." That one?
>Do want Bubba to hire is retarded brother-in-law to manage his
>expenses?
Sure, as long as it is Bubba and Bertha Lottery-Picked's expenses,
and not the nations.
The implied claim that we do not have retarded persons crafting the
federal budget will not withstand close scrutiny, or indeed any at
all. The Republican majority in Congress just sent to the president
a budget violating _all_ of the budget constraints recently voted in
by, guess who, the Republican majority in Congress.
>Are we going to keep a proffessional staff permantly in office to run
>it.
It takes a combination of years of service and age equaling 80 to
retire from Federal Government service, yet tens of thousands of
people do so the first of each month. We have _always_ had a
"professional" staff to back up the elected one. This will never
change, and its inertia is a problem of all bureaucracies, not of
those connected to elected governments per se.
>Guess what - we end up with that staff running the inductee and we
>have the same problem we started out with.
Perhaps I lead a privileged life, but the folks I meet are not that
easily led, nor nearly as brain dead as your average lawyer, say.
Given a staff, they would tend to put that staff to work carrying
out the political selectee's orders.
Given that the Senator or Representative can hire or fire staff, the
uncooperative staff members would probably be out on the street a lot
quicker under a lottery representation system than under one where the
officeholder must pass vetting by the Federal Employee's unions to get
re-elected.
>> Indeed it does. This proposal has been covered in Science Fiction in
>> various near approximations; some of them are quite well considered.
>You're right about one thing. The thought that the average couch
>potatoe can run the country properly is true science fiction.
So, you are voting for Dan Quayle in the upcoming elections, I see.
Walking on the moon, cars as smooth as a glass bead, computers that can
be worn on a wrist, cars that exceed the speed of sound, were all
Science Fiction once upon a time. The SF writers have a pretty fair
track record, in the sense that among all the many futures they
foresaw, was this one, in the frittery little details if not so much in
the broad brush strokes.
If you want to write a Science Fiction future history now, make the
political bungling not much different from that at present.
You can justify this guess on the basis that the lawyers fought tooth
and nail from now to then to prevent Congress's being replaced by a
system that wasn't full of cushy political jobs for failed lawyers.
D7
> >> Picking ordinary citizens at random for a body
> >> with over 500 members would be an incredible improvement in
> >> comparision [to the present system].
>
> >This is an incredibly naive statement.
>
> No, it is the statement of a mathematician trained in probability
> theory on how many samples from a "potentially infinite" population it
> takes to have a "representative" sample for the usual probability
> theory usage of the term "representative".
>
> You ought to do your homework before making incredibly naive statements
> education to understand.
So that explains it. You're a mathematician hung up on statistics. I had
those courses too... Statistics are great in the lab but do little in
solving real problems. They merely explain them.
By the way, you should be more careful in second guessing someone's
education after a few paragraphs.
>
> >I am NOT defending the problems we have currently.
>
> No, you are defending continuing the selection of the crowd of bozos
> who created them, not quite the same thing, and just a little more
> reprehensible than merely claiming the problems to be non-problems.
I am doing nothing of the sort. I am discussing the lack of merits in this
lottery.
>
> >The average Joe doesn't think much beyond tomorrow.
>
> Some 47% of the average Joes and Jills in America invest in the stock
> market.
>
> Probably a larger percentage own life insurance.
>
> Still more have savings.
>
> Many are attending night school.
>
> Most where it is possible grow some of their own food.
>
> The majority of those eligible are registered to vote.
>
> More yet are scheming toward their next raise, promotion, or heist.
>
> You lie.
I lie? You love to toss around accusations, don't you? Nowhere in you little
list do I see anything that suggests anything but people thinking of
themselves. Is that what you want people to do in this new lottery, place
their own interests first? To serve the country in this capacity you would
have to have (in my opinion) a need to better the country for everyone -
otherwise we have a legislature no better then the one we replaced. Where
are your statistics for people who volunteer? Belong to philanthropic
organizations? Serve their child's school for free by being an assistant
teacher? Serve on a neighborhood watch? Those numbers aren't high, otherwise
their results would be obvious.
>
> >All planning would disappear entirely and would cause our Federal
> >government to react only.
>
> That is on the unsupported presumption that our society elects its
> superiors to office.
This is a statement that those unprepared to serve in our government would
fail to see the big picture and act accordingly. It was not an endorsement
of those already serving in office. I would hope that if given a chance we
would elect our superiors. The thought that any idiot picked at random could
hold the reigns of the legislature is not comforting. We would invest in a
business run that way.
> >On top of that the gov is all too often used to punish people others
> >don't like - this practice would only increase with the average person
> >in there.
>
> On what ridiculous basis do you make _this_ counter-intuitive claim?
>
> The average Joe or Jill doesn't have powerful enemies only a Congress
> would suffice to punish.
No, but the average Joe might hate his Asian/gay/Jewish neighbor. Congress
already has a history of using laws to punish legal activities. This would
only get worse if we put unqualified citizens randomly into office.
> >Some may like the idea of a gun nut sitting in their seat in congress,
>
> More in proportion in the population than the proportion of the current
> Congress beholden to the National Rifle Association for donations?
>
> Some of our population _are_ gun nuts. Why are they any less deserving
> of representation than saner people?
>
> >but after that you might get a politically correct airhead who would go
> >in and change all that their predecessor accomplished.
>
> Every two years, we do the same thing deliberately in the House of
> Representatives. Fashions change, bodies politic change their
> leanings on issues. Why is ripping out the old and putting in the
> new unacceptable to you?
The incumbent rarely loses in congress. Because of this we rarely see a big
shift of any sort. Prepare to see that change with a lottery. If you are
such an educated person I'm sure you understand what constant major policy
swings of any type would end up doing to business or foreign relations.
>
> Lots of our population believes firmly in political correctness. Why,
> in your mind, are they any less deserving of representation or being
> among the pool from which representatives are selected than others?
>
> You attempt to exclude from representation those who disagree with you.
No, I merely used those as an example of how wildly things could shift.
People do rely on their representatives to protect the electorates best
interests. How would this work with your system.
>
> >And if you think it's easy for a millionaire lawyer to take a bribe,
> >then how hard do you think it would be for big business to buy out
> >someone in poverty???
>
> Above a certain fairly low level, there are no honestly gotten
> fortunes. A person may be poor exactly _because_ he or she is honest.
> Given the choice, I'll take Lincoln and the log cabin background every
> time. I, personally have been well-to-do, and now am not. "Not" is
> much preferable, even though I've been homeless for a couple of months
> now. The "small change" I gave away in the past would make a pretty
> big change in my life today.
>
> You attempt to exclude the poor from representation or the chance to
> represent.
No I don't. Once again you pick apart a sentence without regard to the whole
paragraph. I was discounting the ability of the population on average to
refuse pac money if they were in need. Choosing people in a lottery would
not solve this problem.
>
> In that, you have the profound collusion of the present political
> process, which is so expensive only the incredibly famous poor person
> stands a chance at election.
>
> In a lottery system of choosing representatives, the poor person and
> the rich person would have equal chance to serve.
>
> That improves over the "representativeness" of the current system.
It does nothing of the sort. It only shifts the focus of special interest
groups away from developing long term connections with congressmen to
shorter term relationships. It possibly also allows them to spend much less
money to get the job done. Let's see, you've made it easier for the special
interest groups to control the congress. Is this the "representativeness"
that you want?
> >The problem is with lackadaisical voters
>
> I just missed my second election in my life, not because I wasn't
> ready and able to vote, but because the local registrar of voters
> would not accept the application of a person without a residence
> address.
>
> The first time I was locked up in jail, for my own protection.
>
> A system which ignores the opinions of those too lazy to vote is
> probably working about as well as is to be expected.
>
> A system that prevents willing voters from voting is badly broken.
Your system prevent willing voters from voting. Is this an amazing
revelation to you?
> >and the system which allows groups with either money or voting clout
> >to run the government.
>
> I'd think it a pretty poor democratic system if groups with voting
> clout were _not_ the ones running an elected government.
>
> The issue with money running elections is exactly the reason that a
> non-fund-requiring election method is worth considering, and a lottery
> to select representatives is just such a method.
And money continues to buy the officials once they're in office. You've
improved nothing in taking away voter's rights and handing everything over
to big money politics.
> >If our esteemed senators
>
> Only by those who refuse to consider alternatives to those methods that
> put this bunch of crooks in office and keep bringing them back.
Sarcasm is obviously lost on such a gifted individual as yourself (hint:
more sarcasm)
>
> >thought that their conduct while in office might actually get them
> >removed back home in the next election then it would change.
>
> You might want to espouse a freer press if that is your goal. Right now
> the repeated delectability of the Congress with the power to destroy a
> free press makes pointing out Congressional malfeasance a rather risky
> business for the press. In other countries the press are quite regularly
> murdered. Here we try to be a bit more subtle, but not much.
The lottery system would only help freedom of the press get squashed. I hope
I don't have to explain this to you also.
> >Yeah, we would get laws that read like a Children's book.
>
> As opposed to laws that, like your writing here, do not even scan as
> English many places, and which it takes an entire massive judiciary
> to interpret in response to lengthy weasel-worded arguments by the
> best trained liars in creation?
>
I don't believe I offered the current system as the perfect one. What we
need is tort reform, not legal libraries replaced one sentence laws that say
"Murder bad"
The average person has no idea what tort reform is. If you don't believe me,
start asking.
> I speak, of course, of attorneys.
>
> >Just what I want in a world full of complicated issues.
>
> Readable laws to help uncomplicated the issues. What a novel concept.
>
> How repugnant a concept to one hoping to win riches from the complexity
> of laws crafted under the current system.
I've worked in the legal system (not an attorney). I've seen how complicated
things get. The copyright infringement/IP/anti trust cases I've seen would
be so far over the heads anyone that it would make them hide. Not everything
in this world is simple.
>
> >The average person's education is just below high school graduation.
>
> And this makes the average person less deserving of representation, or
> of participating in a pool from which representatives are elected, how?
>
> You denigrate the rights to representation of the less than splendidly
> educated.
And again you ignore what is said here. They have every right to
representation - by voting. They should be voting, not effecting my future
by being forced to do a job they can't effectively do.
>
> >They recently demonstrated their lack of understanding by saying that
> >they didn't really think Bill Gates had done anything wrong.
>
> Granted, Bill Gates didn't finish college either, but this is pretty
> much _his_ claim as well. Since the matter is under advisement in the
> courts, and since a verdict has been neither rendered nor appealed to
> the final level sufficient to convince one side that the issue is
> decided, I'd have to grant that under the current law, any wrong-doing
> by Bill Gates is at best "unproven", nor is he the accused.
>
> You fail to use your own education to good offices when debating.
You are classic. I fail to use my own education....? Are you kidding me?
What about you. Every paragraph you have written makes it appear as if you
have no idea about what you have read. What the heck does Bill Gates
education have to do with anything that I wrote?
>
> >> Well, no, you would merely be changing the _kind_ of "representative"
> >> government we have. For almost any purpose, a random sample of over
> >> 500 samples is surely "representative" of the larger body. Ten years
> >> of snooping on the selector's receipts is enough accountability that
> >> most of our current politicians could not take that much heat.
>
> >Then why not do it to our current politicians?
>
> 1) Because accountability is not nearly all that wrong with politicians
> selected by the current methods.
>
> 2) Because such a violation of privacy would have to become law by the
> actions of politicians selected by the current methods. Local to
> Arizona, we cannot even get them to vote out receiving gifts from
> lobbyists, much less to vote to open their books to auditing.
>
> You ask questions in rhetorical mode as if that made the answers
> obviously in your favor, but such is not the case.
What? Accountability is everything. How would a lottery work if the inducted
representative had no accountability? So you want a lottery based non voting
anarchic lottery as your government?
>
> >> Not really; you've given no advanced notice of who will be elected, so
> >> the whole "campaign funding as a form of bribery" issue goes away, and
> >> you have pretty strict controls on cash after office. The current
> >> bribery statutes should nicely cover the period in between.
>
> >Like I said before - apply it to the guys in their now.
>
> You argue the same point repeatedly to a single posted note, as if you
> were engaging in a face to face debate where the opponent kept
> repeating the same claims.
>
> You fail to grasp the realities of Internet debate, and use habits not
> appropriate here.
There are no realities of internet debate because this is not a debate.
Anyone can come in at any time with an opinion - which is what I have done.
By the way - go back and read what you wrote - you are repeating the same
claims.
>
> >The one benefit we have from voluntary instead of forced service is
> >that at least at the heart of where alot of these people started is a
> >desire to serve the public.
>
> The character juxtaposition "alot" is not a word. The two words you
> want are "a lot". The word confusing you is spelled "allot" and means
> something entirely different.
I think you are too hung up on form. Do you get this from being a
mathematician ? I'm not writing a magazine article here. I've noticed that
people who worry about the spelling and grammar in a post rarely have much
of any importance to say.
> Your average Joe or Jill spends a significant fraction of his or her
> life arguing politics.
>
> You make false claims on absent evidence.
Once again that false claims sentence. My point can be made by the shear
idiocy of yours. The average Joe spends a significant fraction of his or her
life arguing politics??? Come on! The surest way to clear a room is to argue
politics. Very few people ever join in. Most people just say "Oh well", or
"Fuck the government" , and never vote. The surest evidence of a lack of
interest in politics is low voter turnout.
Sorry - I erased the rest of your post. It's too tiring for me to continue
to follow you around in your prattling argument. It seems like you enjoy the
argument more than the point so I have chosen to stop here.
The lottery idea only adds new problems that we would have to deal with. If
you want the kind of representation that it will take to clean up government
then register everyone to vote when they get their social security card.
Then remove any ability for a representative to take cash during or after
the election.
Not that this would solve every problem, but just think of the looks on our
congressmen's faces if it were to pass.
--
Kent Paul Dolan
rather than ranting unchanging on in complete disregard of new information,
I'd not have bothered to answer your first post. Do have a nice life.
===== random archival quality quote =====
"This program posts news to billions of machines throughout the galaxy.
Your message will cost the net enough to bankrupt your entire planet.
As a result your species will be sold into slavery. Be sure you know
what you are doing.
Are you absolutely sure you want to do this? [ny] y"
-- rsho...@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Rich Holmes)
D7
the sound of your own prattle. I answered what was written. If you are to
lazy or afraid to respond then don't respond at all.
Since ignorance is bliss, I'm sure you will have a nice life.
--
Kent Paul Dolan <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
news:SAAY3.2160$G51.5...@news.wenet.net...
Kent Paul Dolan
1) anonymous
and
2) from a forged reply address
but seems to follow on the conversation ongoing with
ne...@imap1.asu.edu
in message
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.991109...@email2.asu.edu>
which really calls into question the author's thinking processes.
It really isn't possible to carry on a conversation with someone
practicing ignorance by choice, so I'll not be bothering any more. It
is too hard to decide if the correspondent is really so illiterate as
to be unable to read, and thus respond to, what is actually written, or
is merely ignoring everything that is said in order to take a long ride
on a favorite hobby horse, tilting at straw men instead of at
windmills. In neither case is a continued dialog fruitful for other
participants or for onlookers. The Net has better use for its "still
scarce in comparision to the demand" bandwidth.
===== random quote by or about this author =====
"I just wanted to call everyones attention to this particularly
agonizing and downright Kentish work of grammatical convolution. (I
have no brain...)"
-- ham...@chopin.udel.edu (Chris Adams)
Neil
> Notice in passing that this article is
> 1) anonymous
> and
> 2) from a forged reply address
> but seems to follow on the conversation ongoing with
> ne...@imap1.asu.edu
> in message
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.991109...@email2.asu.edu>
> which really calls into question the author's thinking processes.
Kent, I have no idea what in the name of God you are talking about, nor have I
been following this particular thread, nor did I forge any reply address. I
only even saw this post solely because you personally emailed me your
accusation.
I have no idea who you have been arguing with, but it was not me. Apparently
your sole reason for believing it was me was a single post (or two maybe?) I
wrote with my ASU account, and the fact that the supposed forger's posts "seem
to follow on the conversation ongoing" with me. Right. So every nutcase that
forges a post on usenet who seems to agree with anything I might have ever
said must obviously be me.
You can ask anyone whose read my posts over the years that I don't hide behind
the anonymity of forged posts to express controversial or strong opinions.
I've engaged in rhetoric-wars with people all the time, using my ASU account.
I'm also confident that even people who disagree with me here politically will
say that I might have a big mouth, but I'm not a dishonest person, at least as
far as they know from my usenet postings.
You owe me an apology. I don't necessarilly expect one, but you have
wrongfully accused me of forging posts, and you really should apologize.
-N
D7
The fact that you tried to email me and have done it to others proves that I
did the
right thing in keeping my email address to myself. Just because I express my
opinions doesn't mean I have to open myself up to unsolicited email.
If you want to respond, you can respond in this forum. Why would anyone in
their right mind try to trace down someone else's email from a newsgroup?
You want to harass me? Do so in public.
You have proven yourself to be a crank and the very person I don't want to
have my email. I wrote legitimate responses to your post. You seem to
respond to people disagreeing with you by calling them liars, uneducated,
and illiterate. You dodge everything with slander. I guarantee you that I
have a better education than you do.
These are OPINIONS that are being expressed here. THEY ARE NOT IMPORTANT. If
you don't like my response then don't reply. Calm down and get on with your
life.
Kent Paul Dolan <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
news:pAcZ3.56$aj3....@news.wenet.net...
> Notice in passing that this article is
> 1) anonymous
> and
> 2) from a forged reply address
> but seems to follow on the conversation ongoing with
> ne...@imap1.asu.edu
> in message
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.991109...@email2.asu.edu>
> which really calls into question the author's thinking processes.
>
Kent Paul Dolan
>I'm the guy you are referring to.
> The fact that you tried to email me and have done it to others proves
> that I did the right thing in keeping my email address to myself. Just
> because I express my opinions doesn't mean I have to open myself up to
> unsolicited email.
Another compulsive illiterate who hasn't read the net ettiquette information
in news.announce.newusers, is what you make yourself out to be with these
statements.
Just to save you the trouble of seeking out and reading the
basis documents for acceptable behavior here, apparently a action you cannot
complete, I'll take the time to tell you here a few facts of net life.
1) Posting from a forged address is a netiquette violation which can be
in and of itself, separate from any content issues of your posting,
cause for your account to be cancelled, if a complaint is sent to your
postmaster (and since your site, and your message ID, are both
documented in the header lines of each article you post despite your
laughably amateur and wimpy attempts at forgery, this would be easy
enough for anyone to do, without you being notified in the process).
2) Standard net practice is to take discussions which are no longer of
interest to the newsgroup as a whole, to email. When you disguise your
email address, you contribute to the degrading of the newsgroup signal
to noise ratio by forcing "noise" quality discussions to be conducted
only in public.
Really, you could have taken the trouble to find this stuff out for yourself
before making yourself out to be another September's child in front of the
whole net. Apparently your reputation is of no value to you.
>If you want to respond, you can respond in this forum. Why would anyone in
>their right mind try to trace down someone else's email from a newsgroup?
To find out if you are just Neil S arguing with himself, for one reason.
Others are explained above.
> You want to harass me? Do so in public.
You'd be hard pressed to stop me; harassing idiots based on the nonsense
in their own words is what I do for fun.
> You have proven yourself to be a crank and the very person I don't want to
> have my email.
Why thank you. Proving anything at all here in virtuality is usually quite
difficult. I wasn't after your "email", nor even your "email address", merely
after proof that you and Neil S are two different people, since you answered
my responses to him as if they had been responses to you.
> I wrote legitimate responses to your post.
Certainly, since you have left "legitimate" undefined. What you did
not write was _intelligent_, _well_informed_ repsonses to my postINGS,
since you answered several. Just to help you out, "post" is a synonym
for "mail", not for "posting", and has had that meaning for at least
several centuries, thus "post office", despite that over that same time
period, "posting" has been synonymous with "broadside" or "bill".
>You seem to respond to people disagreeing with you by calling them
>liars, uneducated, and illiterate.
Close; folks like you I respond to by _proving_ you to be compulsive
liars, uneducated fools, and compulsive illiterates-by-choice, based on
your very own words. Your words are the very best evidence you have
provided for the quality of your thinking, those rare times you stumble
across a thought in your otherwise aimless wanderings. Several
examples of such calling into account besides this one exist posted by
me in az.general and az.politics this very day.
>You dodge everything with slander.
Before you use a technical term of art in any field, take time to learn
what it means. It's only slander when it is not true.
>I guarantee you that I have a better education than you do.
There are the words of a fool, who considers himself better educated
than _any_ _possible_ _respondent_. Since you know exactly squat about
the level of my educational attainments and experience, your guarantee
is merely a bluster-shaped bare faced _lie_. Any refutation you care
to provide will be received with the scorn it deserves. I am certainly
not even close to the best educated person in the office space where I
type this posting, the place even this late at night is overrun with
workaholic postdocs, but I do have university credits from more
organizations than I can count on both hands, or even remember in total
without a lot of deep remembering, and even more formal education
outside of the university system than within it.
>These are OPINIONS that are being expressed here.
La, de, da.
>THEY ARE NOT IMPORTANT.
You wouldn't shout so in defending them if you believed that. Oh, but
then, not having read the netiquette documents, you probably don't even
know that all caps is Usenetese for shouting rudely, do you?
>If you don't like my response then don't reply.
I _love_ your responses. Putting pins into the hides of puffed up, self
important fools is the making of my day.
>Calm down and get on with your life.
Oh, I do, I do, but this is much more fun.
===== non-random particularly pertinent archival quality quote =====
"USENet Miranda Rights: You have the right to remain a silent reader.
Anything you mail or post may and will be used to flame you."
-- Chedley Aouririk
===== random archival quality quote =====
[that just happened to be right on the mark anyway]
The Krill _are_. It's plural. Unlike your brain cell.
-- smul...@cs.strath.ac.uk
Christoph Spuhler
I know this discussion was dead but....
With regards to having a house of reps. that seems to be out of touch with
the populace and bent on only making money, I think the problem is simple:
The country is too big.
-People can't identify with someone who makes their
laws thousands of miles away in a place they have never even seen in
person.
-laws that might be good for NewYork are not necesarilly good for Arizona.
-people in different places have different beliefs, (not necesarrily good
or bad, just different). Put them all in one place and have them make
laws and all you get is bickering and drastic disagreement.
Also, I think intorducing a proportional election system on the model of
European nations would allow for more diversity and represenation of ideas
in the parliament. Then people would not be stuck choosing between two
neither of which express their views.
For those who are not familiar with it, the proportional system (my
experience is with Switzerland), allows you to choose a party (out of
maybe 14), and from that party your favorite candidates. Candidates are
then placed into the parliament on a proportional basis with the amount of
votes their party receiveived.
Gotta go
Christoph
Kent Paul Dolan
Christoph Spuhler <c...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>Hi,
>I know this discussion was dead but....
Breathes there a man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said:
"Maybe when nobody's looking,
I can sneak in the last word here!"
>With regards to having a house of reps. that seems to be out of touch with
>the populace and bent on only making money, I think the problem is simple:
>The country is too big.
Not if we want to defend ourselves against "enemies foreign and domestic",
it isn't. It's too small, by just about the size of the rest of the planet.
>-People can't identify with someone who makes their
>laws thousands of miles away in a place they have never even seen in
>person.
Sure I can. What I _can't_ do is hunt them down and give them their just
reward.
Over a slow fire.
With sauce.
>-laws that might be good for NewYork are not necesarilly good for Arizona.
The _much_ bigger problem is that laws that might be good for Arizona
are not necessarily good for the country of which Arizona is a part,
yet Congress just keep right on trading ham for bacon for pork for
fatback for sows' ears for trotters for bellies for snouts ...
>-people in different places have different beliefs, (not necesarrily good
>or bad, just different). Put them all in one place and have them make
>laws and all you get is bickering and drastic disagreement.
The nice side of that process is that it grinds off a lot of rough
edges. The Arizona model of starving the hungry, harrassing the
homeless, undereducating the young, discriminating against the
different, might fly in a state full of people raised up in the lowest
funded school system in the country, who cannot really be expected to
know any better, but doesn't cut it in the larger and more
sophisticated forum of a national government (or your better run home
for the criminally insane, I suppose, for that matter).
>Also, I think intorducing a proportional election system on the model of
>European nations would allow for more diversity and represenation of ideas
>in the parliament. Then people would not be stuck choosing between two
>neither of which express their views.
Unfortunately, in Arizona, the state is stuck with electing people who
_exactly_ represent the views of the electorate. In a better run system,
one could hope to do much better than that.
>For those who are not familiar with it, the proportional system (my
>experience is with Switzerland), allows you to choose a party (out of
>maybe 14), and from that party your favorite candidates. Candidates are
>then placed into the parliament on a proportional basis with the amount of
>votes their party receiveived.
Of course, that assumes that anything as nebulous and unwilling to take
a stand stronger than a plate of mush, as a political party, could ever
offer a platform for which a sane person might choose to vote, a
proposition much in need of proving due to lack of examples to support
the proposition.
===== random quote by or about this author =====
"I agree with Kent, but ..."
-- Alan Wexelblat
--
Kent Paul Dolan.
<xant...@well.com> <xant...@aztec.asu.edu> <xant...@whistle.com>
Pretense of web presense [poorly hidden] at http://www.well.com/user/xanthian
(just dumps you into a directory: glitz minus). [Even more poorly maintained.]