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?


The reason I ask is that there seems here often to be confusion about stuff 
going down in the USA.  Like how some people whose judicial system doesn't 
include juries think that professional juries or judges would be a better 
answer than a group of random uneducated people off the street.

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 many people want the wars 
to continue? How many people think the TSA is doing a good job? How many 
people think the tax situation can't be made far better?

So, do you folks in Europe or Africa or South America or wherever you may 
live trust your government to be trying to do well for you? (Obviously, not 
perfect, or government wouldn't have to enforce the laws.) Or do you think 
your government is out to get you?

-- 
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 15/01/2011 12:57 AM, Darren New wrote:
> 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?

Well, I wouldn’t trust our government as far as I could throw them. Not 
100% true, I would trust most of them to feather their own beds.
What is most annoying is they don’t listen to people and do what they 
*think* is best for the common herd. I won’t mention the recent wars as 
enough has been said already. Take assisted suicide or drugs for 
instance. Legalising the first would annoy the church and legalising the 
latter would bring down the wrath of America.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1/14/2011 6:29 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 15/01/2011 12:57 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Well, I wouldn’t trust our government as far as I could throw them. Not
> 100% true, I would trust most of them to feather their own beds.
> What is most annoying is they don’t listen to people and do what they
> *think* is best for the common herd.

USA method of governing:

1. Make a poll that makes answering anything but A sound bad.
2. Determine that 90% of the people picked A.
3. Tell everyone, over and over, that 90% of the US wants Q, because 
they all picked A. Never mind that Q is a blatant distortion of what 
*most* people likely intended when they said A.
4. If called on it, ignore the fact, and just release a new misleading poll.
5. If necessary, lie, so people pick the right answer again.
6. Insist that, since you have stacked the data in your favor, this is 
what the people "want". Thus, what you are doing, even when someone 
else's poll shows 180 degrees the opposite result, is what the people 
"want".
7. Rake in the cash, buy stock options, and get reelected.
8. Return to #1.

Mind, I might be biased, but this seems to be *way* more common among so 
called "conservatives". It seems that having "higher morals" means you 
get to lie, cheat, steal, etc., as long as you don't get caught at it, 
while *not* claiming the moral high ground in the first place means you 
are an evil, communist, bent on destroying the country. lol

As one person put it, "You don't get to claim that your beliefs make you 
more moral, have better values, and a clearer idea what the *right* 
thing to do is, then the next day cry, 'But I am human, like everyone 
else, so its hardly a surprise I was found soliciting a male prostitute, 
in the office of the BP CEO, with my pants stuffed with Chinese 
currency!" Either you *are* made better by your supposed superior views, 
or you are a hypocrite, and liar. The other side doesn't even have to be 
better than you, you just have to be **as bad**.

-- 
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

The problem with politicians isn't that 
they don't do the right thing,
it's that they need to think about what
the right thing to do is.

Post a reply to this message

On 15-1-2011 1:57, Darren New wrote:
> 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?


You have to split this question in three
1) Do politicians *think* they are doing the best for their country?
2) Are they?
3) Are they controlling the government and the legislative process?

To start with the simplest one: I am Dutch, but you knew that

ad 1) In my country many of them are convinced they know best what 
direction the country should go. A small minority is in it solely as a 
job, a way to make money. The only one I have doubts about is Geert 
Wilders. I think he is intelligent enough to see that to expand his 
influence he is actually harming the cohesion of the country. Yet even 
he might be seriously thinking that his way is the only way to save the 
country in the long run. So either he or me is badly informed.

ad 2) Often it does not matter much what direction you take as long as 
you are consistent for some time. Changing direction every few years 
might actually be better than following one path too long. In that sense 
I don't mind it if the party that I support does not get a part in the 
government. As long as it happens in a democratic way.*

ad 3) mostly not. Which might explain a lot of the frustration of the 
people.

> The reason I ask is that there seems here often to be confusion about
> stuff going down in the USA. Like how some people whose judicial system
> doesn't include juries think that professional juries or judges would be
> a better answer than a group of random uneducated people off the street.
>
> 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
> many people want the wars to continue? How many people think the TSA is
> doing a good job? How many people think the tax situation can't be made
> far better?
>
> So, do you folks in Europe or Africa or South America or wherever you
> may live trust your government to be trying to do well for you?
> (Obviously, not perfect, or government wouldn't have to enforce the
> laws.) Or do you think your government is out to get you?

The government is not out to get me. That concept strikes me as rather 
American.


*) Which given the current situation means that I think this government 
should not have happened. They don't have a majority in the country and 
only half plus one** support in parliament. Plus too many people in it 
that are solely in it for themselves. We used to have governments with 
better ethics. Though I might be biased.

**) There is an interesting reason why this happened and why I think our 
queen needs more power to prevent this, but in order to keep this post 
within bounds I won't bother you with that.

Post a reply to this message

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.

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.

-- 
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 1/15/2011 5:33 AM, Tim Attwood wrote:
> The problem with politicians isn't that they don't do the right thing,
> it's that they need to think about what
> the right thing to do is.
Uh.. No, in my experience the problem arises when people **don't** think 
about what the right thing to do is, they just *know* what it is, then 
distort, twist, mangle, and/or redefine things, until, even if it only 
seems so to them, the "facts" appear to conform to the "truth (tm)" they 
imagined all along.

You get the same thing among the religious. As one article's title 
described it: "God’s Leading = My Desire". In politics, this is, "The 
right thing = What ever I want to work, even if it actually doesn't".

Show me someone that doesn't think, at all, about what is right and 
wrong, and I will show you someone with the same name as me, running as 
fast as I can away from 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 1/15/2011 7:06 PM, 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.
>
> 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.
>
Probably the later, to some extent, but even some of the politician 
admit that things have gotten to the point where you can't get jack 
done, because neither side is transparent, both sides have their own pet 
methods of hiding what is going on (the rights calls them "faith based 
initiatives", or, "helping small businesses via deregulation", while the 
left call it "privacy", or "respecting people" - code for not call them 
on what ever they are doing wrong, especially if they are on the left, 
which often amounts to the same thing), and both sides, at this point, 
want to win at any cost, even if it means the federal government grinds 
to a halt (or rather to a bigger halt than only showing up 3 days a 
week, then whining about how you missed the meeting, so didn't get a 
chance to look at the legislation proposed, already does to it).

That last bit I really love. How many jobs, including 100% of al 
businesses, would let you only show up 3 days a week, pay you a full 
time 40 hour salary, give you full health care benefits, then listen 
when you whined at them that, "I didn't know the company was going to do 
**that**! Someone should have had a meeting about it before we 
decided!!" Head->desk...

Better yet, what twit put that in the law?

-- 
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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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?

  It's rather obvious that the majority of elected representatives are
not there exclusively to benefit themselves at the cost of their citizens
because if that were the case, the country would have crumbled long ago.
Keeping a country afloat economically, politically and socially requires
that the people making decisions want to do that.

  There are (still) many things here (and most other European countries)
that directly benefit the citizens and are considered of upmost importance,
such as free/inexpensive education for everybody (here including up to
university level), free/inexpensive health care and so on. (And even more
importantly, at least here in Finland, and probably at least in the other
Nordic countries and probably in many other European countries, there is
no difference between rich and poor in this respect. Rich and poor all go
to the same schools, the same hospitals, and so on. Even the notion of a
difference sounds very foreign.)

  Of course this doesn't mean that there aren't individual politicians who
think more about themselves than anybody else.

  However, there are some other more worrying general trends among the
governments of many European countries, including to some extent Finland's.
The importance of some of the most fundamental tenets of society have been
slowly devalued. Things like democracy and freedom of expression.

  It may sound like nutjob political conspiracy theorist stuff, but it
really isn't. It really has been happening. The importance of, for example,
asking the citizens' opinion on certain things and voting for things has
been noticeably reduced in the last 10 or 20 years. Less and less decisions
are subject to public discussions, polls and votes, important decisions
which affect the society as a whole. Even in Finland important laws are
being passed by the parliament in a rush, without giving the public any
time to voice their opinion on it. It's no coincidence that in many cases
these are controversial laws which the politicians know people disagree with.
(Good examples of this include the new draconian gun control law, the
controversial new immigration law, the internet censorship law, and the
new copyright law.)

  I think this is a good example of a situation where the representatives
are not even listening to the people they represent, even though that's
kind of what they are for.

  Another thing being devalued is freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech
does not mean you can ..." has always been a guiding principle. However,
if you compare how that sentence was typically completed 20 years ago and
how it is typically completed today, you will notice that what is allowed
today is significantly narrower than what was ok 20 years ago. More and
more things are being added to the list of things not allowed by freedom
of speech.

  In many cases the law itself has not changed, only its *interpretation*.
It's being applied more strictly today than 20 years ago, and the only
guiding principle seems to be the political correctness trend. What is
trendy today affects how judges interpret the same law.

  It can be noticed that many politicians, and especially the media, hate
freedom of speech (as ironic as that might sound). They hate it because
it allows people to express the "wrong" opinions. No longer is the basis
of a free society "I disagree with what you are saying, but I'll defend
to death your right to say it". No. There is more and more demand today
to forcibly shut up people with the "wrong" opinions. The value of people
being able to freely disagree and express their disagreement is being lost.

  The pressure on politicians to do something about this "problem" of
people being allowed to express the "wrong" opinions is rather high, and
more and more laws limiting freedom of speech are being passed.

  There is also clearly a growing dislike of democracy for the same reason:
Democracy allows citizens to vote for the "wrong" people, which is seen as
a huge "problem" by many. It's to be seen where this sentiment will lead.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16-1-2011 10:08, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> 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?
>
>    It's rather obvious that the majority of elected representatives are
> not there exclusively to benefit themselves at the cost of their citizens
> because if that were the case, the country would have crumbled long ago.
> Keeping a country afloat economically, politically and socially requires
> that the people making decisions want to do that.
>
>    There are (still) many things here (and most other European countries)
> that directly benefit the citizens and are considered of upmost importance,
> such as free/inexpensive education for everybody (here including up to
> university level), free/inexpensive health care and so on. (And even more
> importantly, at least here in Finland, and probably at least in the other
> Nordic countries and probably in many other European countries, there is
> no difference between rich and poor in this respect. Rich and poor all go
> to the same schools, the same hospitals, and so on. Even the notion of a
> difference sounds very foreign.)
>
>    Of course this doesn't mean that there aren't individual politicians who
> think more about themselves than anybody else.
>
>    However, there are some other more worrying general trends among the
> governments of many European countries, including to some extent Finland's.
> The importance of some of the most fundamental tenets of society have been
> slowly devalued. Things like democracy and freedom of expression.
>
>    It may sound like nutjob political conspiracy theorist stuff, but it
> really isn't. It really has been happening. The importance of, for example,
> asking the citizens' opinion on certain things and voting for things has
> been noticeably reduced in the last 10 or 20 years. Less and less decisions
> are subject to public discussions, polls and votes, important decisions
> which affect the society as a whole. Even in Finland important laws are
> being passed by the parliament in a rush, without giving the public any
> time to voice their opinion on it. It's no coincidence that in many cases
> these are controversial laws which the politicians know people disagree with.
> (Good examples of this include the new draconian gun control law, the
> controversial new immigration law, the internet censorship law, and the
> new copyright law.)
>
>    I think this is a good example of a situation where the representatives
> are not even listening to the people they represent, even though that's
> kind of what they are for.
>
>    Another thing being devalued is freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech
> does not mean you can ..." has always been a guiding principle. However,
> if you compare how that sentence was typically completed 20 years ago and
> how it is typically completed today, you will notice that what is allowed
> today is significantly narrower than what was ok 20 years ago. More and
> more things are being added to the list of things not allowed by freedom
> of speech.
>
>    In many cases the law itself has not changed, only its *interpretation*.
> It's being applied more strictly today than 20 years ago, and the only
> guiding principle seems to be the political correctness trend. What is
> trendy today affects how judges interpret the same law.
>
>    It can be noticed that many politicians, and especially the media, hate
> freedom of speech (as ironic as that might sound). They hate it because
> it allows people to express the "wrong" opinions. No longer is the basis
> of a free society "I disagree with what you are saying, but I'll defend
> to death your right to say it". No. There is more and more demand today
> to forcibly shut up people with the "wrong" opinions. The value of people
> being able to freely disagree and express their disagreement is being lost.
>
>    The pressure on politicians to do something about this "problem" of
> people being allowed to express the "wrong" opinions is rather high, and
> more and more laws limiting freedom of speech are being passed.
>
>    There is also clearly a growing dislike of democracy for the same reason:
> Democracy allows citizens to vote for the "wrong" people, which is seen as
> a huge "problem" by many. It's to be seen where this sentiment will lead.

Funny, my impression is that there is continuously less restrictions on 
freedom of expression. Both legislative, the article on blasphemy is 
effectively a dead letter and it is under threat to be removed entirely, 
and in practice, people are ridiculing the Islamic god and its believers 
in the same way as they used to do with the Christian god and his'.

It might be that your perceived intolerance of opinions may partly be 
explained by the fact that such opinions were not as often expressed 
outside the pub 20 years ago.

(I know the situation is much more complicated than what you or I are 
expressing, and I know you know)

Post a reply to this message

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

On 18-1-2011 4:30, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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).
>
Never seen those. Not even when I was in the states as far as I can 
remember. How many people watching these channels?

Post a reply to this message

> 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?

You can't answer that correctly unless you have access to the same 
information and expertise that the government has.  On the one hand the 
government shouldn't be able to do anything they want without a way for 
the people to stop them, but on the other hand a lot of decisions the 
government take might be too complex for the general population to 
understand completely.  In those cases you probably don't want to risk 
the general population voting against it and then unknowingly preventing 
the best outcome for the country.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> writes:

> On 18-1-2011 4:30, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> 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).
>>
> Never seen those. Not even when I was in the states as far as I can
> remember. How many people watching these channels?

Don't really know - I'm sure PBS is fairly low in comparison to all the
other channels. NPR is the radio station, and I suspect a lot more
people listen to it while driving.

Post a reply to this message

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

>> "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.

Perhaps the two parties' platforms are closer to each other than they
used to be?

> 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.

What Wikileaks scandals represent a state of affairs that is worse now
than when you were younger?

Ditto the Gitmo thing. Trashing the rights of the "other" is part of US
history. It sucks, but I don't think it's worse than before. If you
think of the wider issue of atrocities and crappy treatment of others,
it wouldn't surprise me if things were worse in the past.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> What Wikileaks scandals represent a state of affairs that is worse now
> than when you were younger?

More like the response to it. When Nixon was called out, we went after the 
President, not the newspapers. I don't remember people threatening Deep 
Throat with being locked up in solitary without a trial, or being shipped 
off to a foreign country military base to be tortured to death.  Pinko 
commies got blackballed, not disappeared into torture centers.

> Ditto the Gitmo thing. Trashing the rights of the "other" is part of US
> history. 

It is still considered scandalous that Lincoln locked people up without 
trial during the civil war. People are still bothered by the US locking up 
people of Japanese descent during WW2 - we still recognise *that* as wrong.

And, face it, most people *are* outraged at Gitmo, at bankers trashing the 
economy, at the "too big to fail" concept, etc etc etc. Yet it continues.

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

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> You can't answer that correctly unless you have access to the same 
> information and expertise that the government has.  

You seem to have missed the word "believe" in there.

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

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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?
>>
>> You can't answer that correctly unless you have access to the same
>> information and expertise that the government has.
>
> You seem to have missed the word "believe" in there.

I don't like to believe, I like to know :-)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
> > What Wikileaks scandals represent a state of affairs that is worse now
> > than when you were younger?

> More like the response to it. When Nixon was called out, we went after the 
> President, not the newspapers. I don't remember people threatening Deep 
> Throat with being locked up in solitary without a trial, or being shipped 
> off to a foreign country military base to be tortured to death.  Pinko 
> commies got blackballed, not disappeared into torture centers.

  This whole phenomenon happening in the US after the 9/11 attacks,
the whole "war on terror", gradually taking away people's rights to
privacy, things like the Patriot Act and so on, is quite saddening.
They demonstrate that the ultimate goal of the terrorists was achieved:
To instigate fear.

  One of the major principles of the US has always been "never submit to
terrorist demands". If I understand this correctly, the idea is that if
you start conceding some demands, it will only cause a slippery slope
where the terrorist demand more and more, and it will be hard to stop
the vicious cycle.

  The same idea could be restated as "never submit to fear of terrorism".
The most basic goal of terrorism is to instigate fear, and if you succumb
to it, the terrorist will have won, and it will only result in a similar
slippery slope, where the fear itself can be abused to cause even more
fear, with no end in sight. Once you start fearing the terrorists, there's
no end to the vicious cycle that follows.

  Degrading your own citizen's privacy and enacting draconian "anti-terrorist"
laws that bypass basic human and civil rights, is succumbing to the fear.
This is a sad state of affairs.

  (Not that Europe hasn't succumbed to the same fear as well. It's just
that the symptoms are slightly different. One could best describe these
symptoms as a "battered wife syndrome" at a multinational level.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >>> 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?
> >>
> >> You can't answer that correctly unless you have access to the same
> >> information and expertise that the government has.
> >
> > You seem to have missed the word "believe" in there.

> I don't like to believe, I like to know :-)

  That may be a good goal, but it's impossible to know everything for
certain, and very often you just *have* to make assumptions.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> They demonstrate that the ultimate goal of the terrorists was achieved:
> To instigate fear.

I disagree that's the ultimate goal, but yes.

> The most basic goal of terrorism is to instigate fear,

The most basic goal of terrorism is to get the big guy (the USA in this 
case) to strike back indiscriminately, harming people near the terrorist who 
would otherwise not be fighting the USA.  I.e., a terrorist from Afganistan 
blows up a building in the USA, so the USA blows up a building full of 
innocent Afganis, so now huge numbers of Afganis who didn't care before are 
now allied with the terrorists.

I don't think folks in Iran or Iraq or whatever care if average Americans 
are afraid if that's all that happens. When it changes policy to put them in 
power locally, that's the benefit.

Rationally speaking, of course. Religious nutcases are something different.

>   Degrading your own citizen's privacy and enacting draconian "anti-terrorist"
> laws that bypass basic human and civil rights, is succumbing to the fear.
> This is a sad state of affairs.

Agreed.

I'm also trying to figure out where the War On Drugs fits in.  Maybe the US 
government tried that first, and found there weren't really all that many 
people who cared about it. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message

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

> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> What Wikileaks scandals represent a state of affairs that is worse now
>> than when you were younger?
>
> More like the response to it. When Nixon was called out, we went after

Oh, OK. 

> the President, not the newspapers. I don't remember people threatening

The media landscape has definitely changed, as is a factor for all of
this. Easy access to propaganda leads to easier radicalization.

>> Ditto the Gitmo thing. Trashing the rights of the "other" is part of US
>> history. 
>
> It is still considered scandalous that Lincoln locked people up without
> trial during the civil war. People are still bothered by the US locking

And I don't doubt 150 years from now, Gitmo will be considered
scandalous as well.

> up people of Japanese descent during WW2 - we still recognise *that* as
> wrong.

But Gitmo is not locking up Americans, which is the difference between
the current scenario and your two scenarios. 

> And, face it, most people *are* outraged at Gitmo, at bankers trashing
> the economy, at the "too big to fail" concept, etc etc etc. Yet it
> continues.

Keep electing the guys who let you down, and it will continue.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/17/2011 8:34 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> 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.
>
P1: You can pick between the man with the bloody axe, or the one with 
the bloody knife.

P2: Uh, what about the guy in the corner?

P1: Oh, that's Fred, he's quite mad and keeps a chainsaw under the 
table. We suspect it *may* be a bit bloody too.

P2: Hmm, right... how about I just be going now then?

P1: Sure, if you think you can make it to the door before Fred does!

-- 
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

>    That may be a good goal, but it's impossible to know everything for
> certain, and very often you just *have* to make assumptions.

Sure, but assuming/believing that what the government is doing is for or 
against the country as a whole seems to involve a huge number of 
assumptions, so I would rather reply with "sorry, don't know enough 
about that" than answer one way or the other.

Post a reply to this message