On 16-1-2011 3:06, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> The government is not out to get me. That concept strikes me as rather
>> American.
>
> OK. I think that a lot of the bad feelings in the USA about the
> government falls along the lines of "the supreme court elected bush, not
> the people", or "corporations bribe the politicians", or that they're
> only interested in how much money and power they can get and not in
> doing the job, stuff like that. I.e., the politicians aren't doing what
> they were elected to do, so it doesn't really matter who you elected.
> They're working for the greedy folks who are taking your money and health.

Part of your problem might be that there is no real debate because that 
does not sell the advertising minutes. It is much easier to keep your 
consumers looking by telling them that what they already thought is true 
(irrespective of if that is true or not, broadcasting companies have 
only a moral duty to their shareholders). In Europe it is not as bad as 
in most countries there is still also a public funded politically 
independent broadcasting system. Yet also here there is too often no 
real debate, I agree with Warp on that.

> I just wondered if this was just an exaggerated view of what others also
> experience, or if my memories from decades ago thinking the government
> while perhaps misguided was at least trying were due to me not following
> politics as much.

sorry, can't parse that.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Part of your problem might be that there is no real debate 

Sure. I'm really just trying to get a feel for whether many europeans think 
of it as "us against them" when it comes to the government, or whether they 
think their government is succeeding, or at least failing due to something 
other than malice (like it being a fundamentally difficult task).

> sorry, can't parse that.

Basically, I was saying "it seems the goverment is much more toxic in the 
USA than I remember from when I was younger. Is it really more toxic than 
other civilized western governments, or am I just remembering poorly?"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Keeping a country afloat economically, politically and socially requires
> that the people making decisions want to do that.

Yes. I'm worried that the USA is racing towards the brink in that respect.

Thank you for your extended response and the time it took. It sounds like 
you're mostly happy but it seems to also be slowly changing for the worse in 
some important ways.  I hope the trend reverses for your country. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/16/2011 10:22 AM, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Part of your problem might be that there is no real debate
>
> Sure. I'm really just trying to get a feel for whether many europeans
> think of it as "us against them" when it comes to the government, or
> whether they think their government is succeeding, or at least failing
> due to something other than malice (like it being a fundamentally
> difficult task).
>
>> sorry, can't parse that.
>
> Basically, I was saying "it seems the goverment is much more toxic in
> the USA than I remember from when I was younger. Is it really more toxic
> than other civilized western governments, or am I just remembering poorly?"
>
I think, in the US, we have seen a marriage, on the left, between a 
sense of social justice that allows for change, and woo. This is bad, 
since woo isn't based on fact, so you get what I like to call "chaos 
theory social engineering". Try things, even if someone is telling you 
it won't work, and why, just to see if they *can* work. On the right we 
have a marriage between capitalism, a distorted version of Ann Rand, and 
the view, "I have mine, screw you!". Rand's "heroes", as someone pointed 
out, honored contracts, paid decent wages, etc., as a social contract to 
those around them, they didn't just try to maximize profit. They are the 
capitalist equivalent of the socialist worker, who gives everything, for 
the good of the whole. Neither exist. She probably would have been 
appalled at what Wall Street has turned into, and done, but she might 
not have really grasped why it derived *directly* from her own philosophy.

In the cases of both Ann Rand capitalism, and pure socialism, you start 
with the baseline assumptions of either, in the first case, perfect 
knowledge, and no one willing to shoot themselves in the foot, by 
cheating, and in the later, basically unlimited resources, and perfect 
means to distribute them. Both are pure, absolute, fictions.

What you end up with, in Ann's model, is people cheating, lying, and 
underpaying their workers, while believing they are doing the best they 
can for society, after all *they* are doing just fine, and then adding 
to that the argument, "And so, I also don't need to give some government 
money to help people who, in my imaginary world, are just too lazy to 
work, and don't really need the help."

Or, as someone recently blogged it, "Examining the reason why 
conservatives in general don't like programs, it always seems, when you 
boil away the rhetoric, to be, 'I don't like it/need it, so I shouldn't 
have to pay for/allow 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

On 16-1-2011 18:22, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Part of your problem might be that there is no real debate
>
> Sure. I'm really just trying to get a feel for whether many europeans
> think of it as "us against them" when it comes to the government, or
> whether they think their government is succeeding, or at least failing
> due to something other than malice (like it being a fundamentally
> difficult task).
>
>> sorry, can't parse that.
>
> Basically, I was saying "it seems the goverment is much more toxic in
> the USA than I remember from when I was younger. Is it really more toxic
> than other civilized western governments, or am I just remembering poorly?"

You're getting old. Complaining that it used to be better is what old 
men have been doing for as long as they could write. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 16-1-2011 18:26, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Keeping a country afloat economically, politically and socially requires
>> that the people making decisions want to do that.
>
> Yes. I'm worried that the USA is racing towards the brink in that respect.
>
> Thank you for your extended response and the time it took. It sounds
> like you're mostly happy but it seems to also be slowly changing for the
> worse in some important ways.

Nah, Warp is also getting a few years older ;)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:57:29 -0500, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

> Do you believe your government is working in the best interests of the  
> people of the country?

Without really getting into "why" and "how", I will just say "no" and  
leave it there.

> If you answer, what country are you in?

USA

-- 
Ian McDonald
Lean Agile .NET 4.0/MVC
Senior Application Architect,
Developer and Security Analyst

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> writes:

> only a moral duty to their shareholders). In Europe it is not as bad as
> in most countries there is still also a public funded politically
> independent broadcasting system. Yet also here there is too often no
> real debate, I agree with Warp on that.

So does the US (NPR & PBS).

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> Do you believe your government is working in the best interests of the
> people of the country? If you answer, what country are you in?

Define government: Federal? State? City? My general perception is that
corruption goes up the larger the constituency. It's hard to speak about
"best interests", but I'd say once you get to the federal level, it
seems that the primary concern is electability. Most do the most they
can to benefit themselves within that constraint. Electability is what
is supposed to guarantee that the country gains as well. 

Always counterexamples, of course. 

> I think a lot of what happens in the USA, a lot of what Americans
> complain about, is that it's pretty obvious that in spite of what the
> people want, and in spite of what would be good for the country as a
> whole, it just keeps not happening, regardless of who gets elected. How

How often have these people who complain a lot decided to "make
compromises" and end up voting Republican or Democrat? As long as that
is their reasoned approach, the party they vote for has no incentive to
cater to them.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Define government: Federal? State? City? My general perception is that
> corruption goes up the larger the constituency. 

Same here.  Except HOAs maybe. :-)

> "best interests", but I'd say once you get to the federal level, it
> seems that the primary concern is electability. Most do the most they
> can to benefit themselves within that constraint. Electability is what
> is supposed to guarantee that the country gains as well. 

Yep.  But I think they're less worried about getting re-elected now than 
they were, perhaps.

> How often have these people who complain a lot decided to "make
> compromises" and end up voting Republican or Democrat? As long as that
> is their reasoned approach, the party they vote for has no incentive to
> cater to them.

Yep. But the very idea that "as long as I get reelected, I'll do anything I 
can get away with" is what I'm talking about. I mean, we have all kinds of 
scandals, the whole gitmo bay thing, the whole wikileaks thing, etc etc.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message