On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:35:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>> 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.

The solution to dealing with the "slippery slope" isn't to avoid starting 
something that /may/ head that direction, but to be vigilant about when 
things start sliding.

>> 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. ;-)

???  I don't understand.

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

Better to include a "none of the above" option on the ballot, I think.

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

That's about our individual behaviour, though - we still expect (or 
"hope" if you wish) that those who have earned a license demonstrated 
some basic competency in driving a motor vehicle.

And most of the time, that's a valid expectation to have, otherwise there 
would be far more accidents.

>> 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.

I'm not that disillusioned yet. ;)

>> 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.

Sure, but my frame of reference is American politics, where we have 
idiots like Broun, Akin (no more), and Mourdock (again, no more).

>> 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.

See above re: my own frame of reference.  Those in the US who pine for a 
"better, simpler time" are pining for the world of "Leave it to Beaver", 
an idyllic, perfect world where there were no problems, unlike today 
where everything is someone else's fault.  (That view, incidentally, is 
most often put forth by the Republican party, which ironically bills 
itself as the "party of personal responsibility" - but they won't take 
responsibility for anything *they* do, and try to shift the blame for the 
current situation to anyone *but* them).

> 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'd believe that. :)

> 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)

I'd take your Blair if you'd take our Bush Jr., Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

>> 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.

That's what I guessed. ;)

>> but it does seem that giving something to the country - some form of
>> sacrifice
> 
> Does paying your taxes count?

That's a tough one.  On the one hand, yes - but it's more or less a 
passive activity, like paying your phone bill.

>> - 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

I think it makes a difference if it's the lions making that decision or 
someone who remembers what it was to be a donkey (to extend the metaphor) 
in the heat of battle.

I think there also is a difference in the experience between those two 
groups - military leaders who got there not through combat experience but 
by being in the officer corps are different than those who enlist and 
work their way up through the ranks.

>> 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.

Personally, I can't - and I wouldn't want to be in a position of making 
such a decision, because I haven't lived it.

>> 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?

LOL - I do find his perspective to be extremely interesting - and over 
the past couple of years, he's just gotten that much better, taking it to 
a whole other level.  Watched him interview/debate Newt Gingrich a few 
days ago, and it was quite good.

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

I hadn't when you wrote this (busy week, hopefully have an interview in 
the next couple of weeks and I've been prepping for it as well as doing 
the contract work), but I have now.  Enjoyed it very much - and 
appreciated the reminder that it was that time again. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message