Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> Voter turnout in the US, even when relatively very high, is still fairly 
> low.  http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

Good reference, thanks! I guess my hearsay was incorrect, then.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> I supported Bush for at least 3 years.  By the second election, I had strong 
> doubts, but believing that Republicans were more in-touch with my beliefs, I 
> went and voted for him again.  Republicans later proved that no one in 
> government shares my beliefs, save a small few, like Ron Paul.  They seemed 
> to think that they could pass some worthless legislation to impress the 
> Religious Right, instead of passing legislation that really speaks to the 
> core values of those of us who are more Libertarian than Republican (limited 
> government/taxation, and basically a "just stay out of my way" attitude). 
> The Republicans, largely under Bush's guidance, completely lost touch with 
> that segment of the American Public, and it was largely those people that 
> voted them into office in 1994.  So, we made sure to vote them out in 2006. 
> At this point in my life, I no longer feel a strong party affiliation.  I 
> find myself agreeing with Barney Frank (a far left gay congressman from 
> Massachusettes), than I do with just about any of the Republicans currently 
> in office.
> 
> Poor John McCain got associated with Bush, and yet he was the one Republican 
> to actually stand up against the President and the rest of his party when he 
> felt it was necessary.  No, he wasn't 180 degrees different, but perhaps 30. 
> LOL. 
> 

What you failed to grasp is that the only "libertarian" values shared by 
the Republicans is to "keep hands off ***their*** industries." They have 
no problem screwing everyone else's. That said, I think the Libertarian 
position is naive, and fails to, often, even acknowledge, the prior time 
periods, "before" legislation of businesses, when the only thing not 
controlling them got was everything from arsenic in medications or 
making people work for less money than they could live off of, while at 
the same time, selling them everything from the houses they lived in, to 
the clothes on their backs. I think you miss a key point. Innovation 
must be unfettered, but "commerce" can't be. Innovation creates new 
things, commerce will quite happily ignore the new, if its more 
profitable, would cost them more money than they want to spend, or 
threatens something else they make. And, no, I am not talking about 
something like someone finding a cure for cancer. For one thing, the 
insurance companies wouldn't stand for it, if something denied such a 
medication, thus making the insurance companies pay thousands for years 
of treatment, if their was a $20 solution. You don't find a lot of 
"syphilis" specialist doctors around, for precisely that reason. It was 
cheaper to pay for $20 of penicillin than pay thousands to doctors that 
treated it with the older methods.

What I am talking about is the short sighted stuff you get every place. 
Light rail. If Obama's Change.gov site didn't have that on the "top" of 
a list of things people like the idea of, it might never happen. It 
would require technology from a numerous industries, but its "existence" 
would, at the same time, undermine car sales, undermine plane travel, 
undermine... nearly every industry that right now makes 100% of their 
money off of selling "bad" systems to people, while only giving them 
back about.. 40% of that, maybe? Companies do not do what is in the best 
interest of people, of nations, of other companies, or even, in some 
case, themselves. They would rather make $1M now, than spend $2M to make 
$5M later, even if in 20 years, it will cost them 50 times as much to 
finally convert to something else, when they have no damn choice but to 
do so. And that is without even considering what they will do to screw 
everyone they can on the way there.

Example, where I work, they renegotiate with what in Arizona is 
"laughably" called a union every 3 years. In the 15 one person has been 
working there, her salary has "dropped" every single year, while 
everything else has gone up, and we have less vacation, shorter breaks 
(two 10 minute breaks in 8 hours), and we get paid, over all, $2 less 
per hour than the same chain a few hundred miles away, despite the fact 
that, as a resort location, some months we have "more" business than the 
other place gets in the same time period. Every time they "negotiate" 
the company steals something else. This wouldn't happen in a state that 
wasn't "unregulated", and where the only thing the damn union does is 
make sure you get 20 hours a week, some, but less than before, vacation 
time, and insurance. Without them, they would make me work only one day 
a week, and, without "federal laws", probably give me no vacation at 
all, and deny me insurance too.

Companies don't think like individuals, they think like groups, and 
basic group psychology is that **groups** will do things that, if given 
bad direction, will be worse, more vile, less moral or ethical, and 
fundamentally less beneficial to anyone "but themselves", than they 
would as individuals.

So, stop all the BS preventing people using ideas to make new things, 
but nail the fracking "companies" feet to the floor, if you have to, to 
keep them from using that in a way that "impedes" rational progress, for 
idiotically short term goals. Because, most of them, once they start 
seeing "numbers" instead of people, communities, or even countries, 
won't be able to tell the difference, and "will" do things that hurt 
everyone, long before they hang themselves with the rope they wove.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:39:23 -0000, Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay  
<jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> did spake thusly:

> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4978b02c$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>> I've also heard (without substantiation on my part) that this is the  
>> first
>> election where more than half the eligible general population actually
>> cast a vote for the winner. So that's something.
>>
>
> Voter turnout in the US, even when relatively very high, is still fairly
> low.  http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
>
> When George Bush (not W) was elected, he won a majority of the popular  
> vote
> (meaning more than 50%).  I don't think that happened again until Obama's
> election, as very close elections and 3rd party candidates got in the  
> way.

2004 was 51.0%/48.1%/0.9% with a turnout of 55.3% hence all the talk about  
Dubya receiving a 'mandate' from the people.

30% of the eligible voting population voted for Obama, Dubya got 26% in  
2004 and Bush Sr. got 27% in 1988

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Halbert [mailto:hal### [at] gmailcom]
> You might have been able to make the same comment even if you were 250
> years
> old. I think he may very well be the worst *ever*.

To be fair, a lot of people said the same thing about Harry S. Truman.
Yet history seems to indicate that the guy did a rather decent job[1].

Along those same lines, JFK was extremely popular, but there's good
evidence that he would have caused us quite a few problems had he not
been assassinated[2].

[1]At least, if preventing Ike from starting WWIII is considered a
decent job.
[2]I think there was even a Red Dwarf episode about this.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

A render isn't slow unless it won't finish until after your next
birthday.

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
>   If that's so, then why was he elected a second time?

As one of the people who voted for him (twice), let me defend myself by
saying that his true incompetence wasn't manifest until his second term.

Until then he made unpopular choices, sure, but that doesn't make him
any different from any other president.  I try not to second guess other
people's decisions, especially when they have access to information I
don't.  The nature of the decisions the President makes are such that
there's no way to maintain a proper perspective at the time; you have to
wait a while for all the facts to come to the surface.

After which many things became apparent about Bush that made me regret
my choice.  Although, it's not like the Dems actually had a decent
candidate during that timeframe.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

What's the difference between a drug dealer and a whore?
A whore can wash her crack and sell it again.

Post a reply to this message

You know, from your post it seems that you would enjoy a book I'm
reading right now.  It's called "Real Change," and it was written by
Newt Gingrich.

Basically, it's a da**ing indictment of both political parties, along
with specific examples of failed government contrasted with successful
government.  Oh, and he pushes his civic action group a lot in it.

The only problem I really have with him is his insistence that public
opinion should be consulted when determining long-term policy (he's
careful in his emphasis on long-term planning & policies rather than
short term, which limits mob mentality a bit).  It's not that I think
the average person is incapable of making a good decision, it's just
that the average person hasn't done the research in order to make a good
decision.

In theory[1], we elect leaders who are supposed to do the research to
make decisions that we don't have the time (or inclination) to study,
thus freeing us to pursue other interests.  It goes against common sense
to then second-guess those leaders because, at first glance, we don't
like the decisions they make.

[1]See my sig.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

I'd like to live in Theory.  Everything works there.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Companies don't think like individuals, they think like groups, and 
> basic group psychology is that **groups** will do things that, if given 
> bad direction, will be worse, more vile, less moral or ethical, and 
> fundamentally less beneficial to anyone "but themselves", than they 
> would as individuals.

And what is government but the biggest, richest "group" (mob)?

Post a reply to this message

On 23-Jan-09 12:02, Chambers wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Halbert [mailto:hal### [at] gmailcom]
>> You might have been able to make the same comment even if you were 250
>> years
>> old. I think he may very well be the worst *ever*.
> 
> To be fair, a lot of people said the same thing about Harry S. Truman.
> Yet history seems to indicate that the guy did a rather decent job[1].
> 
> Along those same lines, JFK was extremely popular, but there's good
> evidence that he would have caused us quite a few problems had he not
> been assassinated[2].
> 
> [1]At least, if preventing Ike from starting WWIII is considered a
> decent job.
> [2]I think there was even a Red Dwarf episode about this.

there was, only it was sort of suicide in that story.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:02:19 -0800, Chambers wrote:

> Along those same lines, JFK was extremely popular, but there's good
> evidence that he would have caused us quite a few problems had he not
> been assassinated[2].
> 
> [2]I think there was even a Red Dwarf episode about this.

There was, but Red Dwarf isn't exactly intended to be used as a show for 
prognostication about what "might have been". ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> Companies don't think like individuals, they think like groups, and 
>> basic group psychology is that **groups** will do things that, if 
>> given bad direction, will be worse, more vile, less moral or ethical, 
>> and fundamentally less beneficial to anyone "but themselves", than 
>> they would as individuals.
> 
> And what is government but the biggest, richest "group" (mob)?
Hmm. That is sometimes true. However, in principle, governments like 
ours have what corporations don't. In corporations you get one guy 
leading everything, a board that only sees what it wants, and everyone 
below that doesn't get much say on "anything". There are no checks and 
balances, no means to "elect" a new person, unless they lose money, 
etc., and the board gets rid of them (that they did the right thing 
isn't relevant at all, just that they hurt someone's pocket book). There 
is no principles in most businesses that demand they "try" to find the 
right path, not just the most profitable one. This means they are more 
stream lined, and directed at one thing, even if that thing leads to 
something like the near collapse of IBM back when the mainframe market 
failed, or the recent drop in Microsoft's fortunes, and the layoffs from 
it, which resulted from the same short sighted view of trying to "own" 
the market.

In short, Governments are made up of a "lot" of independent groups, all 
trying to get what they want, while businesses tend to all be one 
monolithic group, with a single goal. In the former, if one group drives 
over a cliff, only the people who attached themselves to that goal go 
over with them. With businesses, **everyone** goes over the same cliff. 
Its not much, but its "way" better than basically letting everyone jump 
off cliffs, without trying to prevent it. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:02:19 -0800, Chambers wrote:
> > [2]I think there was even a Red Dwarf episode about this.
> 
> There was, but Red Dwarf isn't exactly intended to be used as a show
> for
> prognostication about what "might have been". ;-)

What, you mean I shouldn't take it seriously? :o

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com



> 
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In corporations you get one guy 
> leading everything, a board that only sees what it wants, and everyone 
> below that doesn't get much say on "anything".

Not really. Of course, it depends on the size of the corporation.

Stockholders elect the Board of Directors, who in turn hire the officers, 
who in turn run the business and make the decisions.

> is no principles in most businesses that demand they "try" to find the 
> right path, not just the most profitable one. 

For for-profit corporations, "profitable" is the "right path", by law.

> In short, Governments are made up of a "lot" of independent groups, all 
> trying to get what they want, while businesses tend to all be one 
> monolithic group, with a single goal. In the former, if one group drives 
> over a cliff, only the people who attached themselves to that goal go 
> over with them. 

I'll disagree. If a government goes over a cliff, they take everyone with 
them. See, for example, Zimbabwe.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:51:29 -0800, Chambers wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:02:19 -0800, Chambers wrote:
>> > [2]I think there was even a Red Dwarf episode about this.
>> 
>> There was, but Red Dwarf isn't exactly intended to be used as a show
>> for
>> prognostication about what "might have been". ;-)
> 
> What, you mean I shouldn't take it seriously? :o

Imagine that! ;-)

FWIW, I think the episode title was "Time Jump" - I haven't looked it up 
but that's what popped into my head.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> In corporations you get one guy leading everything, a board that only 
>> sees what it wants, and everyone below that doesn't get much say on 
>> "anything".
> 
> Not really. Of course, it depends on the size of the corporation.
> 
> Stockholders elect the Board of Directors, who in turn hire the 
> officers, who in turn run the business and make the decisions.
> 
>> is no principles in most businesses that demand they "try" to find the 
>> right path, not just the most profitable one. 
> 
> For for-profit corporations, "profitable" is the "right path", by law.
> 
>> In short, Governments are made up of a "lot" of independent groups, 
>> all trying to get what they want, while businesses tend to all be one 
>> monolithic group, with a single goal. In the former, if one group 
>> drives over a cliff, only the people who attached themselves to that 
>> goal go over with them. 
> 
> I'll disagree. If a government goes over a cliff, they take everyone 
> with them. See, for example, Zimbabwe.
> 
Yes, but, you are using yet another example of a government that "is" 
basically monolithic. Most governments are made up of a small number of 
people in charge, with all the same opinions (or at least consistency in 
them), who, if things go bad, can't recover, because when they go bad it 
undermines "all of them". Its the sort of government that the 
Republicans in the US have been striving for, where nearly everyone in 
every branch is a Republican, all the justices are, the president is, 
and everyone under him is, etc. When everyone agrees, and they are 
wrong, well... the government is pretty much screwed, since there isn't 
anyone around that can say, "Uh... I think I know how to fix this, if 
you will listen 'this time'." Everyone just runs around trying to 
ineffectively put out the fire, by beating it to death with what ever 
idiot idea they started the fire with in the first place.

Governments where everyone has the same vision either work, because its 
a workable vision, or they eventually crash like a plane that lost all 
its engines. Same for companies. And, if someone takes over, who shifts 
that "universal" vision in a bad direction, you go from "it works" to 
"crash and burn" very quickly. You have to have, in stable governments, 
the ability for some people, who where *not* involve with the "current" 
scandal, to step in and fix things. Governments that function like 
businesses, with one single perspective, and all of that perspective 
focused only on themselves, can't recover from scandals, because pretty 
much everyone in them is either complicit with the problem, or isn't 
aware it existed, so has no plan to fix things already in place.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> You have to have, in stable governments, 
> the ability for some people, who where *not* involve with the "current" 
> scandal, to step in and fix things. 

Hence the constitution, separation of powers, limited enumerated powers, 
FOIA, etc.  Having a government that ignores *these* things is the problem.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Also, women in France cry when the American Idol winner is announced. I
> wouldn't make too much of that.

http://sorethumbs.keenspot.com/d/20041108.html

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> You have to have, in stable governments, the ability for some people, 
>> who where *not* involve with the "current" scandal, to step in and fix 
>> things. 
> 
> Hence the constitution, separation of powers, limited enumerated powers, 
> FOIA, etc.  Having a government that ignores *these* things is the problem.
> 
True. But, its only "really" a problem if you also have a government 
which, like a company, can appoint someone to the top, or elect them, 
then "keep them there", forever. Imagine if companies had to re-elect 
CEOs ever 4 years, with a limit of 8 for any single leader... Would see 
a very different situation there, even "with" the same identical board 
members. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:

>>  Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic 
>> habit of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions.
> 
> Um when has America ever courted world opinion when there hasn't been 
> something in it for America?

Um why should we?

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 27-Jan-09 2:55, John VanSickle wrote:
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> 
>>>  Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic 
>>> habit of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions.
>>
>> Um when has America ever courted world opinion when there hasn't been 
>> something in it for America?
> 
> Um why should we?

He might have phrased that like: "when has America ever courted world 
opinion when there hasn't been something in it for America just now?" 
with the obvious answer to your question: "because it would make the 
world safer and that will ultimately pay off to the US as well".

Post a reply to this message