On 27-1-2010 23:13, Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> But if you ask them, they'll insist they're not racist, 
> 
> I liked the poll I saw where they asked people if they thought the color 
> of the candidate's skin would affect their vote.  8%.
> 
> Then they asked if they thought the color of the candidate's skin would 
> affect their neighbor's vote: 46%.
> 
> (Numbers from memory, but it was something like that. :-)

Could very well be. There has been a turning of opinion about black 
presidents last two years. People know they have changed their mind, but 
assume that it is something particular of their own and the neighbour 
was still against it when they talked about it. But that was five years ago.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I'm pretty certain that we have a female president largely because she
> is female and not because of her political views. Many women can't even see
> what's wrong in voting someone for president *because* she is a woman (and
> no, most of these women couldn't mention even *one* political opinion that
> our president has).

Oh, that's easy.  "Women are cooler than men!"

All the opinion you need, amirite?

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On 01/27/10 14:40, Warp wrote:
>   I'm pretty certain that we have a female president largely because she
> is female and not because of her political views. Many women can't even see
> what's wrong in voting someone for president *because* she is a woman (and

	The thing with democracies is that that kind of behavior isn't wrong.
It just is.

-- 
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   I'm pretty certain that we have a female president largely because she
> > is female and not because of her political views. Many women can't even see
> > what's wrong in voting someone for president *because* she is a woman (and
> > no, most of these women couldn't mention even *one* political opinion that
> > our president has).
>
> Oh, that's easy.  "Women are cooler than men!"

they are much hotter.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:49:42 -0500, nemesis wrote:

>> Oh, that's easy.  "Women are cooler than men!"
> 
> they are much hotter.

Guys are sweatier, though.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

You know, I'm not sure on the State of the Union address - I had 
completely spaced it.  Will have to check it out.

It sounded like he was going to freeze spending.

I've said to some of my conservative friends that I wish that Obama would 
do a little of what Bush did - just do what he thinks is right and don't 
care what other people think - especially those on the other side.

At least that way, those of us who are on the left could have some of the 
things we want instead of trying to negotiate for everything.

Part of the problem, though, is the Democratic Party has such a broad 
base, the representation ranges from centrist to progressive - and they 
can't agree on anything.  Jon Stewart was right to make fun of them for 
not being able to get anything done in spite of having a larger majority 
in the Senate than the Republicans have since something like 1923.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:49:42 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>
> >> Oh, that's easy.  "Women are cooler than men!"
> >
> > they are much hotter.
>
> Guys are sweatier, though.

what do you expect? next to a hottie after all?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:21:10 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:49:42 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>>
>> >> Oh, that's easy.  "Women are cooler than men!"
>> >
>> > they are much hotter.
>>
>> Guys are sweatier, though.
> 
> what do you expect? next to a hottie after all?

LOL

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Compare the number of lies spread about Obama
> (in comparison to the amount
> of true stories), explained here: ...


An interesting sociological observation that could perhaps be proven with
research is the following.  I've done a lot of browsing on political websites,
and I think that I see a lot more sexual references interspersed into the nasty
things said about Obama than I ever did in reference to Bush.  People may have
disagreed with both for good reason, and mean people may have said nasty things
about both, but this different theme keeps popping up again and again against
Obama.  I think it has to do with racist associations about sexuality, forced or
forbidden.  One of my facebook friends used some of this kind of language in an
update to diss Obama, then a month later (December) asked us to "remember the
reason for the season."  Would like to see (actually, no I wouldn't) what kind
of religious catechism he'd write.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/27/2010 5:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> You know, I'm not sure on the State of the Union address - I had
> completely spaced it.  Will have to check it out.
>
> It sounded like he was going to freeze spending.
>
> I've said to some of my conservative friends that I wish that Obama would
> do a little of what Bush did - just do what he thinks is right and don't
> care what other people think - especially those on the other side.
>
> At least that way, those of us who are on the left could have some of the
> things we want instead of trying to negotiate for everything.
>
> Part of the problem, though, is the Democratic Party has such a broad
> base, the representation ranges from centrist to progressive - and they
> can't agree on anything.  Jon Stewart was right to make fun of them for
> not being able to get anything done in spite of having a larger majority
> in the Senate than the Republicans have since something like 1923.
>
> Jim
Yeah, he did say he was going to freeze it. Nearly everyone involve with 
economics says this is a bloody stupid idea, not the least due to how 
much the bloody government *spends* on things in the private sector, to 
support all the stuff being frozen.

What some people, including me, find so idiotic about this is McCain 
***ran on*** the idea that we should freeze spending, as a solution to 
the economic problem. Now that Obama is doing it, McCain is whining that 
it doesn't, "Go far enough!".

Seeing the right react to everything done by Democrats, including when 
those things are the very ideas they **themselves** ran on, is like 
watching the two clones running for President on Futurama:

"Jack Johnson: I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.

John Jackson: And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far 
enough!"

Its funnier than hell, until you consider that many of these clowns 
*got* elected, and McCain only missed with a Palin pick for VP. (Rhyms 
conveniently with appalling).

-- 
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

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:web.4b623c39e9f0323c34d207310@news.povray.org...
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> > Compare the number of lies spread about Obama
> > (in comparison to the amount
> > of true stories), explained here: ...

> An interesting sociological observation that could perhaps be proven with
> research is the following.  I've done a lot of browsing on political
websites,
> and I think that I see a lot more sexual references interspersed into the
nasty
> things said about Obama than I ever did in reference to Bush.

I've not seen any significant number of sexual references for either. You
are probably thinking of Clinton.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:10:21 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> What some people, including me, find so idiotic about this is McCain
> ***ran on*** the idea that we should freeze spending, as a solution to
> the economic problem. Now that Obama is doing it, McCain is whining that
> it doesn't, "Go far enough!".

Yep.  I had a debate with some self-confessed ultra-conservatives who 
were railing against Obama for the bank bailout.  I rather pointedly 
asked if they would have rather had unemployment skyrocket with all these 
banks and auto companies failed so they could be complaining about that 
instead.

Not a single one had an answer to that question.

Because truth be told, if Obama had said "let the banks and car companies 
fail", they'd have been screaming about that instead, about how Obama was 
causing unemployment to skyrocket.

It's a case where there was no way to win.

Of course, now that the Democrats have lost Ted Kennedy's seat in the 
Senate, we're pretty hosed; after all, they only have the second largest 
majority in 32 years in the Senate, control of the house and the white 
house.  With that lack of power, there's no way they'll be able to get 
anything passed without giving some serious concessions to the Republican 
*-19* vote majority in the Senate.

I'm pretty fed up with the Democrats right now.  I think I'm voting 
independent next time around.  They control 2 of 3 branches of government 
and *still* can't get anything done.  What a bunch of tossers.

> Seeing the right react to everything done by Democrats, including when
> those things are the very ideas they **themselves** ran on, is like
> watching the two clones running for President on Futurama:

LOL, that is a great one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2/1/2010 10:15 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm pretty fed up with the Democrats right now.  I think I'm voting
> independent next time around.  They control 2 of 3 branches of government
> and *still* can't get anything done.  What a bunch of tossers.
>
Sadly, it *is* possible to blame the president for a lot of it. There 
was a statement made on a blog when he was running, by the blogger that, 
"My greatest fear is that he is someone that badly wants to be liked by 
everyone, and this will result in him not doing anything if its making 
the opposition unhappy.", or something to that general effect. Its not 
*precisely* the case, but he is trying to bridge a gap between a 
political party that is what the conservatives where, in too many ways, 
in the 30-40s, with one whose membership seems to belong to nothing but 
evangelical, right wing, churches, or just got off the bus from the 
national institute of the insane, which has a special wing set aside for 
people who are perpetual liars. What is left of the "core" of the 
republicans is being sidelined by the nutcases, the nutcases think 
*anything* vaguely liberal is evil, especially if you suggest that the 
world isn't run by a religious version of Andrew Ryan from Bioshock, and 
his ultra-libertarianism and rampant conspiracy theories, and members of 
the Democrats are even turning out, like in the case of Liberman, to be 
bloody sleeper agents.

But, they have spent so damn long "compromising" at every turn, 
including on their own principles, and moving right of center, that, 
without someone willing to stand up and say, "This will stop.", not, "I 
really wish, if you would like, hopefully, that you will sort of stop 
this, not that you are really doing it.", they can't do anything but 
what they did for the last several decades, and compromise everything.

I love that Obama stands up and says that people are being 
obstructionists and doing stupid things, especially in the last few 
speeches, but he has got to get past the assumption that the people 
holding the puppet string in the Republican party give a crap about 
being wrong, doing wrong, or fixing problems, unless it helps them 
personally.

-- 
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

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:34:09 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> I love that Obama stands up and says that people are being
> obstructionists and doing stupid things, especially in the last few
> speeches, but he has got to get past the assumption that the people
> holding the puppet string in the Republican party give a crap about
> being wrong, doing wrong, or fixing problems, unless it helps them
> personally.

Agreed.  He needs to stop talking about doing things and just do them.

I'm also inclined to agree with Doris Kearns Goodwin (who was on Jon 
Stewart's show last week) who said that Obama and the Democratic 
leadership in the Senate should just let the GOP filibuster - then people 
can see what a bunch of tossers *they* are.

I often feel that the whole of DC just needs to have a big cage put 
around it; then we'll have locked up a fairly significant number of 
criminals who peddle in influence over laws.

But I think the real solution would be to return political positions to 
being an unpaid (and cannot-accept-gifts under ANY ANY ANY circumstances) 
positions.  Give them a studio apartment in DC and a stipend, but never 
let them forget that they work for the *people*.  Take away the salaries, 
the high-end health plans, and all of the benefits.  Make it truly a 
public service that they fulfill.

And put term limits in place.

But of course for any of these things to happen, those in power have to 
decide to put those restrictions on themselves.  Like *that* will ever 
happen.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message

> But I think the real solution would be to return political positions to
> being an unpaid (and cannot-accept-gifts under ANY ANY ANY circumstances)
> positions.  Give them a studio apartment in DC and a stipend, but never
> let them forget that they work for the *people*.  Take away the salaries,
> the high-end health plans, and all of the benefits.  Make it truly a
> public service that they fulfill.

Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm thinking
in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) and
much more to lose by doing so. Then send packs of hungry lawyers after them
to uncover any wrongdoing.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/4/2010 6:05 PM, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson"<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote in message
>
>> But I think the real solution would be to return political positions to
>> being an unpaid (and cannot-accept-gifts under ANY ANY ANY circumstances)
>> positions.  Give them a studio apartment in DC and a stipend, but never
>> let them forget that they work for the *people*.  Take away the salaries,
>> the high-end health plans, and all of the benefits.  Make it truly a
>> public service that they fulfill.
>
> Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm thinking
> in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) and
> much more to lose by doing so. Then send packs of hungry lawyers after them
> to uncover any wrongdoing.
>
You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it. The 
#1 thing causing problems right now is that companies and private 
groups, and sometimes people, funnel large amounts into electing 
someone, then expect them to do what they want, usually by bribing them 
with more money to help with X pet project, or the next re-election. 
Needless to say, a recent supreme court decision is just going to make 
this stupid idiocy worse. The last thing you need is to make it a field 
that only crazies and the corrupt want to even try to get into, because 
it pays shit to work at it.

-- 
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

somebody wrote:
> Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm thinking
> in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) and

Oh yes. Because we all know that really, really rich and well-rewarded 
people never do evil things to get even more money.  NOT!  :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b6bb03b$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm
thinking
> > in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes)
and

> Oh yes. Because we all know that really, really rich and well-rewarded
> people never do evil things to get even more money.  NOT!  :-)

Of course not, hence the "pack of hungry lawyers". However, IME, poor and
badly-rewarded people are so readily corrupted and manipulated (as they have
much more to gain and much less to lose) that I wouldn't trust any important
and powerful job to them.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm 
>> thinking
>> in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) 
>> and
> 
> Oh yes. Because we all know that really, really rich and well-rewarded 
> people never do evil things to get even more money.  NOT!  :-)
> 

So cynical for one so young :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:05:04 -0700, somebody wrote:

> Don't you want the exact opposite?

Nope, because if you do the opposite, then they make a career out of it.  
Politics *shouldn't* be a career, it should be a term of service to the 
public.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:11:02 -0700, somebody wrote:

> Of course not, hence the "pack of hungry lawyers".

You can do that without paying the politicians anything above a living 
stipend.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:44:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it. 

You remove the incentive for them to make a career out of it, and get the 
people who *want* to do a real *public service*.  If there's no money in 
it, you keep the money out of it (you have to monitor contributions, 
bribes, and the like - but you take the money that's being paid to the 
congresscritters right now and hire people to monitor that - you'd still 
end up with leftovers).

You're assuming that if you remove the money from it, the same people 
would participate.  I don't think they would because those people are 
largely driven by a profit motive.

> The
> #1 thing causing problems right now is that companies and private
> groups, and sometimes people, funnel large amounts into electing
> someone, then expect them to do what they want, usually by bribing them
> with more money to help with X pet project, or the next re-election.

Yeah, so you watch for that activity like a hawk, and if someone is 
receiving bribes, you prosecute them and throw their asses in jail - both 
the person bribing the official and the official who accepted the bribe.

> Needless to say, a recent supreme court decision is just going to make
> this stupid idiocy worse. 

I agree with this.  One of the worst supreme court decisions in all time.

> The last thing you need is to make it a field
> that only crazies and the corrupt want to even try to get into, because
> it pays shit to work at it.

Only crazies and the corrupt want to get into it now, for the most part.  
Look at Michelle Bachmann or watch *any* of the house or senate debates 
on TV where they pull out a stupid chart on an easel.  You have to be 
crazy to say some of the things that are said on the house floor.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:05:04 -0700, somebody wrote:
> 
>> Don't you want the exact opposite?
> 
> Nope, because if you do the opposite, then they make a career out of it.  
> Politics *shouldn't* be a career, it should be a term of service to the 
> public.
> 

Remind me again Jim, what part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land do you live in? :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b6e194b$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:11:02 -0700, somebody wrote:

> > Of course not, hence the "pack of hungry lawyers".

> You can do that without paying the politicians anything above a living
> stipend.

Sure but you'd then only attract losers or fanatics, or more likely both.
Unless you live in dreamland. In that case, why pay any professional above
minimum wage? Make doctors work for a can of soup. I am sure that would
ensure brightest people providing the best health care.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b6e1aa9$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:44:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> > You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it.
>
> You remove the incentive for them to make a career out of it, and get the
> people who *want* to do a real *public service*.

What makes you think *I* want people that are so useless and naive that they
cannot do anything else with their lives than politics as public service for
free?

> You're assuming that if you remove the money from it, the same people
> would participate.

No. You are assuming *better* people would participate if you pay them less.
I'm afraid that doesn't quite work like that. If it did, it would mean we
have built the modern society entirely bass ackwards.

> I don't think they would because those people are
> largely driven by a profit motive.

I definitely want people driven by the profit motive. I wouldn't trust
anyone that's *not* driven by the profit motive, as it would likely mean
they are either not smart enough or have a darker motive. It's a matter of
regulating *where* that profit comes from. You want to make sure that the
profit does not come under the table.

If I can legitimately make $1M a year, why would I take a $10K bribe? I
don't need it, and it's absolutely not worth risking getting caught and
losing the $1M pay. But if I make $10K a year, that same $10K bribe starts
to look much more appetizing.

Post a reply to this message

On 7-2-2010 13:50, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4b6e1aa9$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:44:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it.
>> You remove the incentive for them to make a career out of it, and get the
>> people who *want* to do a real *public service*.
> 
> What makes you think *I* want people that are so useless and naive that they
> cannot do anything else with their lives than politics as public service for
> free?
> 
>> You're assuming that if you remove the money from it, the same people
>> would participate.
> 
> No. You are assuming *better* people would participate if you pay them less.
> I'm afraid that doesn't quite work like that. If it did, it would mean we
> have built the modern society entirely bass ackwards.
> 
>> I don't think they would because those people are
>> largely driven by a profit motive.
> 
> I definitely want people driven by the profit motive. I wouldn't trust
> anyone that's *not* driven by the profit motive, as it would likely mean
> they are either not smart enough or have a darker motive. It's a matter of
> regulating *where* that profit comes from. You want to make sure that the
> profit does not come under the table.
> 
> If I can legitimately make $1M a year, why would I take a $10K bribe? I
> don't need it, and it's absolutely not worth risking getting caught and
> losing the $1M pay. 

Strange but true in practice they do. Possibly partly explained by the 
fact that if you and all your colleagues are corrupted anyway that 10K 
is just like any other bribe. Watch the British scandal over the 
declarations of the MPs. That is often below 10K, and almost everybody 
defends themselves by pointing at the others.

> But if I make $10K a year, that same $10K bribe starts
> to look much more appetizing.

Politicians here earn about 100K enough for very comfortable living but 
not so much that we only get people that are motivated by money. Just 
being motivated by money has too much danger of corruption. That starts 
during the campaign because getting elected is of utmost financial 
importance, and after being corrupted things will go on as usual while 
in parliament/senate. Second problem is that you get a very small social 
subgroup, which is not good for democracy. People earning 1M are too 
often too much trying to earn money and making sure their friends also 
get a 'fair' share. You get legislation aimed at increasing the wealth 
of the current wealthy and aiming at diminishing opportunities of those 
that are now less well off.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/7/2010 9:33 AM, andrel wrote:
>> But if I make $10K a year, that same $10K bribe starts
>> to look much more appetizing.
>
> Politicians here earn about 100K enough for very comfortable living but
> not so much that we only get people that are motivated by money. Just
> being motivated by money has too much danger of corruption. That starts
> during the campaign because getting elected is of utmost financial
> importance, and after being corrupted things will go on as usual while
> in parliament/senate. Second problem is that you get a very small social
> subgroup, which is not good for democracy. People earning 1M are too
> often too much trying to earn money and making sure their friends also
> get a 'fair' share. You get legislation aimed at increasing the wealth
> of the current wealthy and aiming at diminishing opportunities of those
> that are now less well off.
>
Point is, if I can make $10K a year, and *still* somehow get another 
$10K donated for "campaign money", or other projects, out of which I can 
funnel some cash for myself, you haven't solved anything. Its not about 
whether someone makes $10K a year, or $10 million a year, its whether or 
not various other interests can get by with funneling as much, or more, 
to them other ways, while they are there. And, in the US at least, its 
been the trend for the politicos to arrange things so this *is* 
possible, to support reelection campaigns, pet projects, and various 
crazy assed revisionist/activist goals they have, which ignore the 
people, in favor of what ever schizo idea they (or their 
church/party/secret_cult/personal_business_associates/family/all_of_the_above 
happen to hold).

-- 
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

On 7-2-2010 18:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 2/7/2010 9:33 AM, andrel wrote:
>>> But if I make $10K a year, that same $10K bribe starts
>>> to look much more appetizing.
>>
>> Politicians here earn about 100K enough for very comfortable living but
>> not so much that we only get people that are motivated by money. Just
>> being motivated by money has too much danger of corruption. That starts
>> during the campaign because getting elected is of utmost financial
>> importance, and after being corrupted things will go on as usual while
>> in parliament/senate. Second problem is that you get a very small social
>> subgroup, which is not good for democracy. People earning 1M are too
>> often too much trying to earn money and making sure their friends also
>> get a 'fair' share. You get legislation aimed at increasing the wealth
>> of the current wealthy and aiming at diminishing opportunities of those
>> that are now less well off.
>>
> Point is, if I can make $10K a year, and *still* somehow get another 
> $10K donated for "campaign money", or other projects, out of which I can 
> funnel some cash for myself, you haven't solved anything. Its not about 
> whether someone makes $10K a year, or $10 million a year, its whether or 
> not various other interests can get by with funneling as much, or more, 
> to them other ways, while they are there. And, in the US at least, its 
> been the trend for the politicos to arrange things so this *is* 
> possible, to support reelection campaigns, pet projects, and various 
> crazy assed revisionist/activist goals they have, which ignore the 
> people, in favor of what ever schizo idea they (or their 
> church/party/secret_cult/personal_business_associates/family/all_of_the_above 
> happen to hold).

I agree, but a major part of the reason why the US law works the way it 
does is that the people who are 'in charge' are precisely the ones who 
got there in that way. And often they are part of the same subculture 
that also 'influences' broadcasting networks to give more time to people 
who defend this system than to the ones who are opposed. Then you are in 
danger of ending up with a situation where the majority of politicians 
is corrupt *and* the people re-elect them because they believe that is 
the way it should be.
The US need a very big crisis to get out of this mess. The last one was 
apparently not enough.

There are probably good historical reasons why the US politics work the 
way they do. I am happy to live in a more sane country. ;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> The US need a very big crisis to get out of this mess. The last one was 
> apparently not enough.

Historically speaking, it tends to be the crises that make it worse, not better.

You don't get the draft during peacetime. You don't get the Federal Reserve 
when the economy is humming along.  You don't get to toss out Habeas Corpus 
unless there's a big "emergency" that "justifies" it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On 7-2-2010 22:02, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> The US need a very big crisis to get out of this mess. The last one 
>> was apparently not enough.
> 
> Historically speaking, it tends to be the crises that make it worse, not 
> better.
> 
> You don't get the draft during peacetime. You don't get the Federal 
> Reserve when the economy is humming along.  You don't get to toss out 
> Habeas Corpus unless there's a big "emergency" that "justifies" it.

I was thinking about a crisis so severe that the US drops to place 
number 50 of richest countries in the world and their government is 
forced to comply with the rules dictated by the now richest 8.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> forced to comply with the rules dictated by the now richest 8.

Maybe. I don't really see *that* happening too soon. :-) I suspect the 
leaders would ensure something more catastrophic happens before that.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:36:32 -0700, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4b6e194b$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:11:02 -0700, somebody wrote:
> 
>> > Of course not, hence the "pack of hungry lawyers".
> 
>> You can do that without paying the politicians anything above a living
>> stipend.
> 
> Sure but you'd then only attract losers or fanatics, or more likely
> both. Unless you live in dreamland. In that case, why pay any
> professional above minimum wage? Make doctors work for a can of soup. I
> am sure that would ensure brightest people providing the best health
> care.

It's called public service.  There are people who do that who aren't 
"losers or fanatics", even in the system we have today.  Just not that 
many - those are the types of people that need to be attracted to 
actually *serve* the public rather than themselves (which is what most 
politicians do).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:42:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:05:04 -0700, somebody wrote:
>> 
>>> Don't you want the exact opposite?
>> 
>> Nope, because if you do the opposite, then they make a career out of
>> it. Politics *shouldn't* be a career, it should be a term of service to
>> the public.
>> 
>> 
> Remind me again Jim, what part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land do you live in? :-P

The western USA. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:50:31 -0700, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4b6e1aa9$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:44:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>> > You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it.
>>
>> You remove the incentive for them to make a career out of it, and get
>> the people who *want* to do a real *public service*.
> 
> What makes you think *I* want people that are so useless and naive that
> they cannot do anything else with their lives than politics as public
> service for free?

You are assuming that only useless and naive people who can't find other 
work would be the only ones to do public service.

>> You're assuming that if you remove the money from it, the same people
>> would participate.
> 
> No. You are assuming *better* people would participate if you pay them
> less. I'm afraid that doesn't quite work like that. If it did, it would
> mean we have built the modern society entirely bass ackwards.

I'm saying make sure that they're provided for.  I'm not suggesting they 
be made homeless - but at the same time, if the average congresscritter 
is making more than the people they ostensibly represent, then they 
aren't actually *representing* those people very well, because they can't 
*identify* with them.

So you take the money out of it entirely.  Make sure they have a place to 
live (it doesn't have to be fancy, a studio apartment should suffice for 
most), food to eat, basic health coverage (including catastrophic care), 
and a way to do the people's work.

>> I don't think they would because those people are largely driven by a
>> profit motive.
> 
> I definitely want people driven by the profit motive. I wouldn't trust
> anyone that's *not* driven by the profit motive, as it would likely mean
> they are either not smart enough or have a darker motive. It's a matter
> of regulating *where* that profit comes from. You want to make sure that
> the profit does not come under the table.

People driven by a profit motive will do what increases THEIR profit, 
whether that helps the people they represent or not is inconsequential.

> If I can legitimately make $1M a year, why would I take a $10K bribe? 

There are plenty who do.  Why?  Because they can.

> I
> don't need it, and it's absolutely not worth risking getting caught and
> losing the $1M pay. But if I make $10K a year, that same $10K bribe
> starts to look much more appetizing.

Where did I say they would make $10K a year?  I said make sure their 
needs are provided for.  Don't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars 
a year.

There are more ways than "cash in pocket" to pay someone for public 
service that don't compromise the integrity of the system.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:42:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> 
>> Remind me again Jim, what part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land do you live in? :-P
> 
> The western USA. ;-)
> 

Ah! The western part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, I remember now.

Apologies to both of the sensible Americans ;)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:53:15 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:42:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> 
>>> Remind me again Jim, what part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land do you live in?
>>> :-P
>> 
>> The western USA. ;-)
>> 
>> 
> Ah! The western part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, I remember now.
> 
> Apologies to both of the sensible Americans ;)

LOL

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> You are assuming that only useless and naive people who can't find other 
> work would be the only ones to do public service.

The vast majority of all military people I've spoken to are in it because 
they want to "serve". Certainly Schwartzenegger didn't need the money either.

>> If I can legitimately make $1M a year, why would I take a $10K bribe? 
> There are plenty who do.  Why?  Because they can.

And people are stupid. Like people who take bribes in the form of real 
estate.  Consider: the only way to give someone real estate is to record it 
publicly in the county recorder's office where, by definition, everyone can 
see it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:04:14 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> You are assuming that only useless and naive people who can't find
>> other work would be the only ones to do public service.
> 
> The vast majority of all military people I've spoken to are in it
> because they want to "serve". Certainly Schwartzenegger didn't need the
> money either.

Exactly.  Though it's debatable what the Governator's motivation is.  I 
think power is a powerful siren call as well....

>>> If I can legitimately make $1M a year, why would I take a $10K bribe?
>> There are plenty who do.  Why?  Because they can.
> 
> And people are stupid. Like people who take bribes in the form of real
> estate.  Consider: the only way to give someone real estate is to record
> it publicly in the county recorder's office where, by definition,
> everyone can see it.

Yep, true enough.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2/13/2010 1:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Where did I say they would make $10K a year?  I said make sure their
> needs are provided for.  Don't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars
> a year.
>
> There are more ways than "cash in pocket" to pay someone for public
> service that don't compromise the integrity of the system.
>
> Jim

I think you are missing a major issue here. Its not just about what they 
are payed. If you select for only those who are unbribable via 
corporations, you *assume* you are going to end up with those that 
support the people. All you have to do is look at the nutcases fighting 
over who the *real* Republicans, or even *real* Tea Baggers, are, to see 
what you could end up with instead. Many of these people truly believe 
that their side holds the truth, the other side is all liars, and that 
their tactics of harping on 1-2 key issues, to get elected, is a way to 
"get around" all the evil roadblocks, media bias, and liberal control, 
that might otherwise keep them from representing "the people". They 
could live in a bloody hut in a frozen snow field, and they would 
**still** imagine that the majority of Americans where anti-gay, 
anti-liberal, bible thumping, creationists, and that 90% of everything 
taught in history and civics classes are lies, unlike their 
**certainty** that the constitution references God, and probably even 
once had the Ten Commandments in it, before liberals hid this "fact".

What you, potentially, end up with, when you elect people who claim to 
represent the people, with **no** other alterior motives, is complete 
wackos. At least someone in the pocket of, say, a pharmaceutical 
company, is **marginally** less likely to cut their own, and their 
special interests, throats, by declaring that research on Stem Cells 
should completely halt and biology classes should stop, even badly, 
teaching about Evolution. Get someone whose only interests is either a) 
believing, without cause, that the country **wants** that, or worse, b) 
got elected by a state filled with idiots that actually think its true, 
and... the result would be an even worse damn mess than we have now.

Certain assumptions are flat out naive. Jefferson's assertion that his 
neighbors beliefs where not a threat to anyone, no matter what they 
might be (while ignoring the obvious fact that the neighbors neighbor 
might want to both rob and murder you), is one example. Another is this 
assumption that you can "cure" corruption in governments. The very thing 
you propose almost *guarantees* that are larger than normal number of 
people will have ideas that are disengaged from reality, the public 
interest, or anything else that might produce a useful result. And, 
ironically, the very thing that could stop such people, outside 
interests apposed to how those ideas might upset their wallets, is, by 
nature of your solution, absent. Its certainly not going to be some 
loser, who got into it to help people, isn't good at speeches, has no 
audience presence, and never had a job, or stocks, etc., that conflicted 
with doing their job. Such people are rare. The sort with personal 
agenda, huge stage presence, and a total disregard for right and wrong, 
in any sense, including the willingness to lie their way into power... 
those are **way** less rare, since they spend most of their lives 
practicing how to con people.

Bets on how many of which we would end up with?

-- 
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

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:07:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Bets on how many of which we would end up with?

There's nothing wrong with being an idealist, as long as it's tempered 
with some reality.  I've only been talking about an ideal situation so 
far.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 14-2-2010 3:07, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 2/13/2010 1:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Where did I say they would make $10K a year?  I said make sure their
>> needs are provided for.  Don't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars
>> a year.
>>
>> There are more ways than "cash in pocket" to pay someone for public
>> service that don't compromise the integrity of the system.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> I think you are missing a major issue here. Its not just about what they 
> are payed. If you select for only those who are unbribable via 
> corporations, you *assume* you are going to end up with those that 
> support the people. All you have to do is look at the nutcases fighting 
> over who the *real* Republicans, or even *real* Tea Baggers, are, to see 
> what you could end up with instead. Many of these people truly believe 
> that their side holds the truth, the other side is all liars, and that 
> their tactics of harping on 1-2 key issues, to get elected, is a way to 
> "get around" all the evil roadblocks, media bias, and liberal control, 
> that might otherwise keep them from representing "the people". They 
> could live in a bloody hut in a frozen snow field, and they would 
> **still** imagine that the majority of Americans where anti-gay, 
> anti-liberal, bible thumping, creationists, and that 90% of everything 
> taught in history and civics classes are lies, unlike their 
> **certainty** that the constitution references God, and probably even 
> once had the Ten Commandments in it, before liberals hid this "fact".
> 
[etc]

In the Netherlands the vast majority of members of parliament (150 in 
total) are either politically motivated (started as a member of a 
political party in their neighbourhood and had a career within the 
party) or were intelligent enough to complete a study at a university 
but did not choose a subject that could get them a job in industry and 
had a career either directly in politics or starting as a civil servant.

The number of nutcases as you call them is generally at most one or two 
and they generally don't last long. At the moment we have more because 
Dutch politics is a little unstable ATM, but I expect most of them won't 
be reelected.

Perhaps we do have the most optimal amount to pay politicians. Not 
enough that people who are in it solely for the money enter. Elsewhere a 
sociopath can make more money. Yet high enough to attract intelligent 
people that love to think and debate about how the future of the country 
should look like. Sometimes even people come from industry later in 
their career and take a step back in salary (though still being able to 
live comfortably), just to feel they are contributing to the country and 
its people.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/13/2010 7:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:07:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Bets on how many of which we would end up with?
>
> There's nothing wrong with being an idealist, as long as it's tempered
> with some reality.  I've only been talking about an ideal situation so
> far.
>
> Jim
Hmm. Prefer being a realist. Its like building security systems. An 
idealist expects to be able to "train" people to use the new system. A 
realist designs the system to deal with human nature, since anything 
that you put into the system that works different than people "normally" 
react **will** break. A lot of human psychology you can't change, 
without breaking the people you want to make do something. The result is 
usually not terribly pretty. Like the, "everyone has to use their 
keycard to open the front door", type things. Its fine, if only 1-2 
people every go through the door. The only "solution", if a lot of them 
do, is to only hire assholes that don't open doors for people, or 
destroy their compassion, so they never make the mistake of opening it 
to be nice to someone. The "proper" solution is to not install that kind 
of thing on the bloody front door of the building in the first place.

Politics is much the same. Optimal is never going to happen, and human 
nature is such that the result will be as far from optimal as possible, 
given the conditions, so... your best option is a non-optimal one, 
where, hopefully, most of the flaws balance themselves out, due to the 
cost being distributed among a larger number of interested parties, and 
not just the one guy with a shitty pay check. It can still fail, if you 
also refuse to place limitations, checks and balances, or counters, in 
place against those influences. And, that is *precisely* why we have a 
problem. There are almost none, and the supreme court just erased 
another one of them.

-- 
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

On 2/14/2010 7:57 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 14-2-2010 3:07, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 2/13/2010 1:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Where did I say they would make $10K a year? I said make sure their
>>> needs are provided for. Don't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars
>>> a year.
>>>
>>> There are more ways than "cash in pocket" to pay someone for public
>>> service that don't compromise the integrity of the system.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> I think you are missing a major issue here. Its not just about what
>> they are payed. If you select for only those who are unbribable via
>> corporations, you *assume* you are going to end up with those that
>> support the people. All you have to do is look at the nutcases
>> fighting over who the *real* Republicans, or even *real* Tea Baggers,
>> are, to see what you could end up with instead. Many of these people
>> truly believe that their side holds the truth, the other side is all
>> liars, and that their tactics of harping on 1-2 key issues, to get
>> elected, is a way to "get around" all the evil roadblocks, media bias,
>> and liberal control, that might otherwise keep them from representing
>> "the people". They could live in a bloody hut in a frozen snow field,
>> and they would **still** imagine that the majority of Americans where
>> anti-gay, anti-liberal, bible thumping, creationists, and that 90% of
>> everything taught in history and civics classes are lies, unlike their
>> **certainty** that the constitution references God, and probably even
>> once had the Ten Commandments in it, before liberals hid this "fact".
>>
> [etc]
>
> In the Netherlands the vast majority of members of parliament (150 in
> total) are either politically motivated (started as a member of a
> political party in their neighbourhood and had a career within the
> party) or were intelligent enough to complete a study at a university
> but did not choose a subject that could get them a job in industry and
> had a career either directly in politics or starting as a civil servant.
>
> The number of nutcases as you call them is generally at most one or two
> and they generally don't last long. At the moment we have more because
> Dutch politics is a little unstable ATM, but I expect most of them won't
> be reelected.
>
> Perhaps we do have the most optimal amount to pay politicians. Not
> enough that people who are in it solely for the money enter. Elsewhere a
> sociopath can make more money. Yet high enough to attract intelligent
> people that love to think and debate about how the future of the country
> should look like. Sometimes even people come from industry later in
> their career and take a step back in salary (though still being able to
> live comfortably), just to feel they are contributing to the country and
> its people.
Well.. One of the US problem is a) a belief that elites and thinkers are 
"dangerous", and b) a population of people that think stupidity, so they 
don't do/say something that might confuse the general populous, is a key 
indicator of "good politics".

-- 
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

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:29:28 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Hmm. Prefer being a realist.

Go for it.

I find that using the approach of "what would be the ideal place to be" 
as a starting point works quite well.  Then what you do is you apply 
realism to that ideal position and come up with something that's as close 
to the ideal solution as you can.

Starting from a "realist" position means that you start with a suboptimal 
solution, and then you whittle down from that (who ever starts with a 
"realistic" solution and then says "hey, we could actually go a bit 
further than this"?

IOW, starting with a "realist" position limits one's thinking to a lower 
bar, and there's a very small chance of trying something with a slightly 
*higher* bar because one limits oneself to the thinking that "that'd 
never fly".

So I prefer starting out with the ideal solution, but with the 
understanding that the ideal solution is never going to be implemented 
and there will be some compromise.  I find I tend to come up with better 
solutions that way.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2/14/2010 1:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:29:28 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Hmm. Prefer being a realist.
>
> Go for it.
>
> I find that using the approach of "what would be the ideal place to be"
> as a starting point works quite well.  Then what you do is you apply
> realism to that ideal position and come up with something that's as close
> to the ideal solution as you can.
>
> Starting from a "realist" position means that you start with a suboptimal
> solution, and then you whittle down from that (who ever starts with a
> "realistic" solution and then says "hey, we could actually go a bit
> further than this"?
>
> IOW, starting with a "realist" position limits one's thinking to a lower
> bar, and there's a very small chance of trying something with a slightly
> *higher* bar because one limits oneself to the thinking that "that'd
> never fly".
>
> So I prefer starting out with the ideal solution, but with the
> understanding that the ideal solution is never going to be implemented
> and there will be some compromise.  I find I tend to come up with better
> solutions that way.
>
> Jim
Never said you *start from* a realist position. Sure, you start with the 
ideal, then work from there. The problem often is that some people are 
prone to start and end there, like gun advocates, for example. Had 
another one of them recently on a blog. They point out that people will 
still be violent, people will still attack other people with other 
things, etc. They then *leap* to the conclusion that more people armed 
will "prevent" the problem. Uh.. Run that by me again, because I think I 
missed something some place, and that is without including, "How do the 
people with the guns know, especially untrained, and undisciplined, who 
to shoot back at, and who is just defending themselves?" The same 
arguments they make for why banning them is a problem - which is that 
crazy, stupid, and violent people will still exist, is the *same* 
argument against making sure that 100% of the people in a room all have 
guns. The only people that won't have them are the people who didn't 
want them, wouldn't use one, and couldn't defend themselves with one 
anyway. **EVERYONE** else is someone that has already learned to shoot, 
one assumes fairly accurately, would use one, quite possibly believes in 
using one as a solution to the threat, and is **willing**, if not 
**intending** to kill someone.

Its like telling people that we would all be safer if everyone had a 
portable nuke. I mean, logically, its simply an extension of the same 
thing, right? And no "rational" person is going to get depressed, angry, 
violent, and/or suddenly snap, and set the thing off to get back at the 
neighbor for not returning their rake, right?

Oh.. And they are always willing to a) assert that their are "a lot" of 
cases where is improved the odds of people not dying, while b) their 
only evidence is situations that involved guns, and where there was no 
way to resolve the situation without more of them. Nothing is ever 
mentioned of the thousands of cases of cops, every year, which manage to 
avoid shooting people, as a solution to talking a hostage taker, or some 
other moron, out of a building, safely, and without people getting shot 
at, usually. Its almost like talking to the morons that think torture is 
"necessary" to get good information from people, despite every scrap of 
evidence to the contrary, including the huge amount that suggest that 
you get *bad* evidence from people, if they don't know anything in the 
first place, so you will stop torturing them. The failure of reality to 
match their assumptions just flat out doesn't register with them.

Anyway, point being, sure, you start with "optimal", then you try to 
work out what works at all. But, sometimes, there just isn't any. 
logically, "optimal" you can aim for.

-- 
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:
> Oh.. And they are always willing to a) assert that their are "a lot" of 
> cases where is improved the odds of people not dying, while b) their 
> only evidence is situations that involved guns, and where there was no 
> way to resolve the situation without more of them.

Not really. If you look at, for example, the FBI unified crime stats, you 
see that having a gun is somewhat safer than doing whatever the attacker 
says, which is in turn somewhat safer than anything else.

It's not like there isn't any scientific evidence.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On 2/14/2010 6:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Oh.. And they are always willing to a) assert that their are "a lot"
>> of cases where is improved the odds of people not dying, while b)
>> their only evidence is situations that involved guns, and where there
>> was no way to resolve the situation without more of them.
>
> Not really. If you look at, for example, the FBI unified crime stats,
> you see that having a gun is somewhat safer than doing whatever the
> attacker says, which is in turn somewhat safer than anything else.
>
> It's not like there isn't any scientific evidence.
>
It still doesn't mean that the odds of catastrophic situations isn't 
increased, and any improvement is countered by any situation where the 
person making the threat has more numbers, or a bigger gun. And, again, 
you have to be **willing** to use it, for it to matter at all.

The point was, the statistics apply to any state in which the possible 
victim has something that could be used in defense, and the attacker 
doesn't have something worse. All guns do is escalate the "worse" part, 
without solving the original problem. More of them, bigger ones, etc., 
just keep expanding the category of "worse", and every situation that 
can arise from it. There are legitimate uses for guns, legitimate 
situations where they can be useful, etc. Arming every fracking idiot on 
the street, starting with paranoids, people that think liberals want to 
steal them, and every other sort that is **likely** to actually use one, 
and not as a last resort, is a damn stupid way to fix a problem that 
only exists *when* any idiot that wants to can stuff one in a pocket and 
take it out in public, whether with training, carry permits, or without 
*either*. The people that need defense from people with guns are *not* 
going to be the first ones buying the damn things, so.. logically, the 
solution of making it easier for people to get, use, and carry, them, 
isn't fixing much, of anything.

I imagine something of the same argument was made when someone worked 
out how to make a spear, and they found a guy with one in his gut. "If 
everyone has spears, this wouldn't have happened." Right....

-- 
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 be **willing** to use it, for it to matter at all.

This has also been shown not to be true. :-)

> All guns do is escalate the "worse" part, 

Not really. They level the playing field. Muggers don't attack people that 
look like the Terminator. They attack little old ladies. Unless the little 
old ladies probably have a gun.

> I imagine something of the same argument was made when someone worked 
> out how to make a spear, and they found a guy with one in his gut. "If 
> everyone has spears, this wouldn't have happened." Right....

Yes. And then they invented firearms. Shortly after, the feudal period ended.

The whole point of a gun is that it doesn't take a whole lot of physical 
training. The power to use the weapon comes from concealable sources.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:50:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> The problem often is that some people are prone to start and end there,
> like gun advocates, for example.

And I never said I was one of them, nor do I think I've presented 
evidence that that's how I operate.  What would give you that idea about 
me?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b78ba99$1@news.povray.org...

> Not really. They level the playing field. Muggers don't attack people that
> look like the Terminator. They attack little old ladies. Unless the little
> old ladies probably have a gun.

If it were common knowledge that little old ladies carried guns, they would
get mugged much more frequently (for their guns).

Post a reply to this message