On 12/11/2012 11:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:35:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>

>>> I don't think that's a "Godwin"-worthy comment to make.
>>
>> I do.
>
> Obviously, or you wouldn't have invoked it. ;)

First time.


>
> I don't always buy the "slippery slope" argument, but I see what you're
> saying.
>

Not always but it is there and can happen.

> It isn't about voting for the "right" party, though - inasmuch as a party
> doesn't put belief and ideology before demonstrable facts.

Tell that to the marines. ;-)

> IOW, if
> there's a party that declares that the world is flat, people voting for
> those candidates are very clearly voting for someone who doesn't support
> reality as it is.
>

Bad example, I think. Parties like the Monster Raving Loony Party, here 
in the UK are for disaffected voters.

My answers to the following statements are all the same. Maybe it is 
because I am old and disillusioned.

> We expect our doctors to be competent when they provide us care.
>

Hope our doctors...

> We expect people driving cars on the road to demonstrate competence in
> manouvering several thousand pounds of mechanical equipment at high
> speeds.
>

Hope people driving cars...


> We /should/ expect our politicans to have at least a rudimentary
> understanding of the things they're tasked with creating laws around.
>

Hope expect our politicians...

Actually you should expect every other road user is an idiot and drive 
defensively.

> And we /should/ expect those who vote for those politicians to understand
> that that minimally rudimentary understanding aren't denying the facts of
> the world around us.

Cloud cuckoo land, that one IMO.

> That evolution is real, for example.  That climate
> change is happening.  That these things aren't "from the devil" but are
> in fact the way the world works, and that we have to actually /deal/ with
> those issues.
>

I think that is more of an American viewpoint. In Europe only "Big 
Business" supporters would even say that.


> I agree that it should start with better vetting of candidates and
> weeding out those who deny reality in favor of some utopian idea based on
> an idea of what the '50s was like, when everything was perfect and
> sensible and no conflict existed anywhere (or some other rose coloured
> view of their past or childhood).
>

Again, that is American centric. The 50's in Europe was not that good. 
The 50's in Glasgow was a bit of a nightmare actually. I remember 
playing on bomb sites and being told not to play in the green stagnant 
puddles in the street.


>
>> I often wonder if picking politicians at random would be any worse than
>> picking one who put themselves forward.
>
> I'm with you on that.  Maybe something closer to the way the Greeks did
> it - election by lottery - would be a better solution.  At least then it
> wouldn't be a career path (which I think is one of the biggest problems
> in the US political system).
>

Probably. Take our Mr. Blair (please do and try him for war crimes). He 
was a posh boy who picked a side to get into politics. Then proceeded to 
change the Labour party into a mini Tory party so that he could succeed. 
(Not just my opinion)

>>> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
>>> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
>>> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
>>> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.
>>
>> Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?
>
> I've read a little bit, but I understand some of his views.  There's a
> part of me that agrees with (for example) doing some sort of federal
> service as a precondition to voting.  Not entirely behind that, though,

That is the one I was thinking about.

> but it does seem that giving something to the country - some form of
> sacrifice

Does paying your taxes count?

> - does make for better/more informed voters.  For example, many
> who see combat in the military are unlikely to send others into combat

I am gobsmacked with that one. The lions most likely believe that but 
the donkeys certainly don't. See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_led_by_donkeys


> unless it's the last resort.  Those who haven't served don't always
> understand what it is they're asking of young soldiers going into combat.
>

I don't think that you can know what it could be like. Unless you happen 
to live an an area where there has been fighting.

> That's not always the case, but those who have been in that situation are
> more likely to make a better-informed decision.
>

Maybe Jon Stewart should be made compulsory viewing over there?

On a lighter not. Did you get the new ISIHAC? It was broadcast on Monday

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message