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

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

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:45:10 -0500, Warp wrote:

> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> 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

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:47:44 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 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".
> 
> The people who appoint completely incompetent people to those positions
> would certain not want for a completely incompetent person to perform
> eg. heart surgery on them. I would like to see the politician who allows
> a witch doctor who thinks that heart problems are caused by evil spirits
> to perform surgery on them. Yet they put completely incompetent people
> on the science committee?

Yep.

But then again, we've got at least one representative who believes that 
vaccines cause autism, because an autistic kid's mother told her so once.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:02:45 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> 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

That's certainly true.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> 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.

I guess they find it incredibly hard to find anyone to work for them then?

> 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.

There's nothing to stop the above people working for your company on the 
minimum wage deciding to go into politics.

I don't know how it is in the US, but in the UK politicians salaries are 
pretty mediocre compared to equivalent jobs in industry. For example our 
prime minister has a salary of £142k, in industry someone in charge of 
what 50-200 people (depending on the industry) could probably be on that 
salary and have a fraction of the responsibility the PM has.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 08:27:49 +0000, scott wrote:

> There's nothing to stop the above people working for your company on the
> minimum wage deciding to go into politics.

Other than, perhaps, their sense of dignity.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> But then again, we've got at least one representative who believes that 
> vaccines cause autism, because an autistic kid's mother told her so once.

It's curious how the word of a few laymen, with no education nor experience
in the required fields of science, completely trump the thousands and
thousands of hours of scientific experimentation and testing, hundreds
of extensive clinical trials involving thousands of people, all performed
by diverse scientists from around the world, from different countries,
backgrounds and cultures (and who can't possible *all* of them have the
same agenda and be part of the same conspiracy.)

There is, in fact, a psychological phenomenon behind all this. I wrote an
article about that very subject here:

http://grindedgear.blogspot.fi/2012/10/people-are-really-bad-at-grasping.html

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/11/2012 4:49 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 08:27:49 +0000, scott wrote:
>
>> There's nothing to stop the above people working for your company on the
>> minimum wage deciding to go into politics.
>
> Other than, perhaps, their sense of dignity.
>


LOL +1

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:34:38 -0500, Warp wrote:

> It's curious how the word of a few laymen, with no education nor
> experience in the required fields of science, completely trump the
> thousands and thousands of hours of scientific experimentation and
> testing, hundreds of extensive clinical trials involving thousands of
> people, all performed by diverse scientists from around the world, from
> different countries, backgrounds and cultures (and who can't possible
> *all* of them have the same agenda and be part of the same conspiracy.)

You'd think so, but many people seem to think that their belief and 
ignorance trumps actual knowledge.

xkcd yesterday/today summed it up pretty well, I thought.

Jim

Post a reply to this message