![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Tue 06/11/12 13:45, Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
>> No, you need some sort of intelligence test for the *voters*, otherwise
>> they will just vote against such leader testing or vote to make it so
>> easy it's pointless.
>
> Who exactly voted for those scientifically illiterate people to be put
> in the government's scientific committee?
Yes that was exactly my point, unless the voters are "intelligent"
enough they will not know/care how scientifically literate the people
are that are working for the government they chose.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> And for countries that have minimal wages, politics should be paid only
> that amount.
You pay peanuts you get monkeys.
> I, for once, regret the old Athenian random designation system: you get
> in charge for a year, randomly chosen amongst the voters, and cannot
> resign before term.
You don't think some people would be better at running a country than
others?
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Le 06/11/2012 15:24, scott a écrit :
>> And for countries that have minimal wages, politics should be paid only
>> that amount.
>
> You pay peanuts you get monkeys.
Well, if politics want a better salary, they can raise the minimal
wages... for everyone.
>
>> I, for once, regret the old Athenian random designation system: you get
>> in charge for a year, randomly chosen amongst the voters, and cannot
>> resign before term.
>
> You don't think some people would be better at running a country than
> others?
Of course, but election is no better than random, and it might even be
worse.
Let's compare an honest modest citizen and a corrupted Mafiosi with huge
financial support from deleter industries (they want to get baby as a
product, to be able to sell it as a whole as well as in pieces... within
asbestos... to the Hollywood's forever young stars... ) :
* random : it's 50/50
* election : guess who has the most valuable campaign and get elected ?
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>>> And for countries that have minimal wages, politics should be paid only
>>> that amount.
>>
>> You pay peanuts you get monkeys.
>
> Well, if politics want a better salary, they can raise the minimal
> wages... for everyone.
Some jobs only need monkeys though, surely you're not saying the amount
of skill/experience needed in politics is equal to the lowest skilled
jobs in society? The more you pay below the "market rate" for
politicians jobs the fewer good people you'll have to choose from.
>>> I, for once, regret the old Athenian random designation system: you get
>>> in charge for a year, randomly chosen amongst the voters, and cannot
>>> resign before term.
>>
>> You don't think some people would be better at running a country than
>> others?
>
>
> Of course, but election is no better than random, and it might even be
> worse.
>
> Let's compare an honest modest citizen and a corrupted Mafiosi with huge
> financial support from deleter industries (they want to get baby as a
> product, to be able to sell it as a whole as well as in pieces... within
> asbestos... to the Hollywood's forever young stars... ) :
> * random : it's 50/50
> * election : guess who has the most valuable campaign and get elected ?
Well you can put a cap on the amount companies are allowed to give to
political parties (or just ban it totally) and force them to make all
donations public (if they don't already). But again it comes back to the
intelligence of the voters if they vote in someone like the above.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Scientific illiteracy in boards of education
Date: 6 Nov 2012 12:02:36
Message: <509942ac$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 11/5/2012 5:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 04:30:43 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> but I get the impression that it's one of the worst of its kind) boards
>> of education are often staffed by people who are completely illiterate
>> in terms of science and education.
>
> Not just BoEs, but legislative bodies. One of our US house of
> representatives members on the science committee thinks that evolution
> and the big bang theory are "from the devil".
>
> We've got representatives who talk about it being God's will when a woman
> is raped that the baby be carried to full term, and that if it's a
> "legitimate rape", the female body has "ways of shutting that down" (so
> the woman doesn't get pregnant - IOW, if she wasn't 'legitimately' raped,
> she must've 'wanted it' and if she got pregnant, that means that it
> wasn't a "real" rape. I guess.)
>
> It's a sad, sad state of affairs.
>
> We need to have some sort of intelligence test for our elected leaders.
> If they can't pass basic science, history, and math, they shouldn't be
> allowed to hold political office.
>
> But I'm saying that partly because I'm getting absolutely sick and tired
> of this election. Tomorrow can't be over soon enough.
>
> Jim
>
Unfortunately, if the wrong person wins, it won't be over tomorrow.
Meanwhile, most of the news seems to have devolved into discussion of
which one is ahead, not issues. As one cartoon put it, "If Obama wins
tomorrow, it will be devastating to Romney's tracking polls." lol
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Scientific illiteracy in boards of education
Date: 6 Nov 2012 12:10:12
Message: <50994474$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 11/6/2012 8:01 AM, scott wrote:
>>>> And for countries that have minimal wages, politics should be paid only
>>>> that amount.
>>>
>>> You pay peanuts you get monkeys.
>>
>> Well, if politics want a better salary, they can raise the minimal
>> wages... for everyone.
>
> Some jobs only need monkeys though, surely you're not saying the amount
> of skill/experience needed in politics is equal to the lowest skilled
> jobs in society? The more you pay below the "market rate" for
> politicians jobs the fewer good people you'll have to choose from.
>
Yeah, well. Even monkeys need to eat, and as things stand, the view, of
some of the wackos running, seems to be that it costs too much to buy
them bananas, so its, somehow, their own damn fault that they have to
eat their own feces. Case in point - My work doesn't pay its lowest
level employees more than minimum wages. They, if lucky, get 20-30 hours
a week, average, and then only if unionized, and the company just tacked
on a $5 a week health care charge, then gave them a 10 cent raise. So..
They plan to let everyone work 50 hours to make up the difference? Of
course not... And the current contract "explicitly" states that those
employees will *never* get a raise, since no one **ever** receives a
performance raise either, unless the state raises the minimum.
So, yeah, I would love to see the damn congress idiots, and senate, at
the minimum, have to try to live on that kind of wage, especially since
they don't seem to think they have to actually bloody spend time
working, either.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Scientific illiteracy in boards of education
Date: 6 Nov 2012 16:45:10
Message: <509984e6@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:27:24 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 06/11/2012 01:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's a sad, sad state of affairs.
>
> I'm sorry - *which* century do you live in? Because it sounds like the
> Dark Ages...
I live in the 21st century, but some of our legislators are in the dark
ages, certainly.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Scientific illiteracy in boards of education
Date: 6 Nov 2012 16:45:33
Message: <509984fd$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:12:49 +0000, scott wrote:
>> We need to have some sort of intelligence test for our elected leaders.
>> If they can't pass basic science, history, and math, they shouldn't be
>> allowed to hold political office.
>
> No, you need some sort of intelligence test for the *voters*, otherwise
> they will just vote against such leader testing or vote to make it so
> easy it's pointless.
That works, too, but candidates should be required to have a basic
understanding of how reality actually works.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Scientific illiteracy in boards of education
Date: 6 Nov 2012 16:49:34
Message: <509985ee$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:43:36 +0100, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 06/11/2012 15:24, scott a écrit :
>>> And for countries that have minimal wages, politics should be paid
>>> only that amount.
>>
>> You pay peanuts you get monkeys.
>
> Well, if politics want a better salary, they can raise the minimal
> wages... for everyone.
As well as benefits. I've always said that (for example) if the US
government got what those on the bottom end of the scale got for
healthcare (ie, emergency room visits only when things get really bad),
those who are the worst off would be better off, because the legislators
wouldn't put up with that.
I'd also be happy if while in office, the candidates were given basic
living quarters and a stipend to live on rather than a salary.
Living in modest accommodations with a modest salary and entry-level
benefits would change the makeup of those who participate - they'd have
to want to be there to help the people, not to further their own careers.
But elections would also need complete public financing and no private
fund raising of any kind - by the candidates or by PACs. No attack ads,
let the candidates tout their own plans on their own merits, rather than
not having a good idea other than slamming the opposition.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Scientific illiteracy in boards of education
Date: 6 Nov 2012 16:50:40
Message: <50998630$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:45:10 -0500, Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
>> No, you need some sort of intelligence test for the *voters*, otherwise
>> they will just vote against such leader testing or vote to make it so
>> easy it's pointless.
>
> Who exactly voted for those scientifically illiterate people to be put
> in the government's scientific committee?
Members of the public voted them into office, but the majority party
picks who is the chair of the internal committees, and the parties
themselves select who represents them on the committees.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |