On 11/10/2012 1:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:43:11 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> It seem that those Americans seem to think that only the extremes are
>> possible: Either Chinese-style totalitarian communism/socialism, or
>> completely unrestricted capitalism. There's no middle ground.
>
> The use the "slippery slope" argument (or maybe I should say 'misuse')
> that if we start down that road, there's no turning back.
>
> Which is complete BS.
>
> Jim
>
Yep. But, as to why.. Well..

1. We, literally, have been known to let out mental patients, to make 
room for people with small time drug busts, to.. that might be "one" 
explanation. lol

2. Otherwise, the simple reality is that the US is the only place, other 
then the Middle East, where being fanatical is a status symbol for 
politicians, not an embarrassment. And, when everyone from the TV, to 
the political parties, look for "controversy", instead of, "reality", 
when making decisions about how to win viewers/supporters.. rational 
solutions are somewhat lacking.

Finally, 3. There is the overtone window. We have spent 30 year being 
told, without successful refutation, that the delusional "trickle down 
economics" is actually an economic model, not a pyramid scheme on 
governmental scale, and like 70 years, having the super-Christians, who 
got pushed into the US out of Europe, and really only have places like 
Africa, to retreat to now (and with all those black people there... No, 
I am serious, this is almost certainly on huge reason they don't 
leave.), spread around everything from anti-gay, to anti-nonchristian, 
to anti-you name it, as "truth". Our side, has, regrettably, actually 
suffered one of those "slippery slope" things, by trying to find allies 
everyplace, even among those that where enemies, in an attempt to get 
the truth out. It works about as well when apposing pseudoscience, 
theocracy, and economic bullshit, as has the foreign policy it echos, 
i.e., "We will support this dictator because he promises to keep this 
other one in check, then help that one, in trade for oil, and so he can 
fight a war with a third one, so that some fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. 
nut will be weakened/give us something/not side with someone else, etc.

This is completely nuts of course, but... its pretty much exactly what 
certain people suggest be done to appose extreme religion. Side with 
group A, because they appose group B on some issue, but B, when its 
about something C causes problems with, etc. I am no math expert, but.. 
seems to me you have three outcomes from that kind of BS: 1. The net 
result is positive. 2. The net result is negative. 3. All the sums 
cancel, and you don't get anywhere at all (with the understanding that 
some subsets can still go really really negative, as long as someone 
else goes really really positive, producing no net gains or losses).

In other words, a damn stupid way to solve a serious problem with, for 
example, science understanding.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/10/2012 10:35 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
>> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
>> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
>> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.
>
> Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?
>
>
Yes, and not all of them. He was definitely, for example, a major 
misogynist, and like Ayn Rand, his books can appeal to people that a) 
haven't grown up enough to really think about everything he said, or b) 
don't bother growing up at all. Some of his ideas are not bad, others.. 
not so great (unlike Rand, who well...).

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Yep, or those who scream "government needs to keep its hands off my 
> Medicare" (a government-run program).

> Or those who threaten to leave for Cuba, or Italy, or .... without 
> actually knowing that their target country is more like the thing they 
> hate about where the US is going.

I believe that it has been quite clearly shown that the Europan-style
healthcare system is actually *cheaper* (ie. requires less money from the
citizens) than the American system, yet it's much more efficient because
basically all citizens get good healthcare (basically for free.)

Some Americans argue that such a healthcare system would lower its
*quality*. This is based purely on preconceptions, because in most
European countries medical practice is top-of-the-world quality. I don't
think it loses much (if anything) to the quality of the best medical
practice in the US.

And it's not like European-style healthcare forbids private practice.
If you are rich and want to go to a private doctor, nothing stops you.
(There can actually be benefits from doing that. Most prominently that
waiting times are much shorter due to lower demand.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-11-09 14:24, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>> 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.
>
> It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of
> the world thinks about your country...

There are other countries?

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>> It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of
>> the world thinks about your country...
>
> Not really, when I see some of what goes on in yours. ;)

Yeah, there are moments when I certainly do *not* feel proud to be 
British... :-(

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:50:23 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of
>>> the world thinks about your country...
>>
>> Not really, when I see some of what goes on in yours. ;)
> 
> Yeah, there are moments when I certainly do *not* feel proud to be
> British... :-(

All I need to say is "Phone Hacking" to get most of my British friends to 
cringe.  Or "Jeremy Hunt". ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:34:42 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Yep, or those who scream "government needs to keep its hands off my
>> Medicare" (a government-run program).
> 
>> Or those who threaten to leave for Cuba, or Italy, or .... without
>> actually knowing that their target country is more like the thing they
>> hate about where the US is going.
> 
> I believe that it has been quite clearly shown that the Europan-style
> healthcare system is actually *cheaper* (ie. requires less money from
> the citizens) than the American system, yet it's much more efficient
> because basically all citizens get good healthcare (basically for free.)
> 
> Some Americans argue that such a healthcare system would lower its
> *quality*. This is based purely on preconceptions, because in most
> European countries medical practice is top-of-the-world quality. I don't
> think it loses much (if anything) to the quality of the best medical
> practice in the US.
> 
> And it's not like European-style healthcare forbids private practice.
> If you are rich and want to go to a private doctor, nothing stops you.
> (There can actually be benefits from doing that. Most prominently that
> waiting times are much shorter due to lower demand.)

Oh, yes, I agree - but there are those here in the US who believe that 
European-style healthcare is inferior and more expensive.

We had a presidential candidate who (as mentioned previously) thinks 
there's nothing wrong with letting people go to the emergency room when 
things get bad enough if they don't have health insurance - that that's 
somehow magically cheaper than preventative care.

Which shows just how out of touch people who have money are with the 
plight of those who have none.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:59:38 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Le 2012-11-09 14:24, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>>> 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.
>>
>> It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of
>> the world thinks about your country...
> 
> There are other countries?

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:35:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>> BTW I think that the talk in this thread (not you) where some people
>>> discuss just how intelligent/wise you should be before you should be
>>> allowed to vote, is marching to the sound of the Goose step.
>>
>> I don't think that's a "Godwin"-worthy comment to make.
> 
> I do.

Obviously, or you wouldn't have invoked it. ;)

>> and a measure of competence and understanding of the issues being voted
>> on would seem to be a reasonable expectation to set.
>>
>>
> Obviously it does to people who believe that.
> I see it as, if you are a person who is capable of deciding to vote then
> you should get a vote. If not where do you draw the line?
> If you deny the vote to people who are not competent then someone might
> decide that if you don’t want to vote for the “right” party then ipso
> facto you are not competent and have the right to vote removed.
> It is a slippery slope etc.

I don't always buy the "slippery slope" argument, but I see what you're 
saying.

It isn't about voting for the "right" party, though - inasmuch as a party 
doesn't put belief and ideology before demonstrable facts.  IOW, if 
there's a party that declares that the world is flat, people voting for 
those candidates are very clearly voting for someone who doesn't support 
reality as it is.

We expect our doctors to be competent when they provide us care.

We expect people driving cars on the road to demonstrate competence in 
manouvering several thousand pounds of mechanical equipment at high 
speeds.

We /should/ expect our politicans to have at least a rudimentary 
understanding of the things they're tasked with creating laws around.

And we /should/ expect those who vote for those politicians to understand 
that that minimally rudimentary understanding aren't denying the facts of 
the world around us.  That evolution is real, for example.  That climate 
change is happening.  That these things aren't "from the devil" but are 
in fact the way the world works, and that we have to actually /deal/ with 
those issues.

I agree that it should start with better vetting of candidates and 
weeding out those who deny reality in favor of some utopian idea based on 
an idea of what the '50s was like, when everything was perfect and 
sensible and no conflict existed anywhere (or some other rose coloured 
view of their past or childhood).

Reality sometimes sucks, and denying reality doesn't make it suck any 
less.  Sticking your head in the sand and saying "climate change isn't 
real" or mumbling some nonsense about 'hockey-stick graphs' as the reason 
for denying that the world is getting warmer and we /can/ do something 
about it if we /put our minds to it/ doesn't actually get the problems 
fixed, and that sometimes doing nothing is amongst the worst things you 
can do.

> I often wonder if picking politicians at random would be any worse than
> picking one who put themselves forward.

I'm with you on that.  Maybe something closer to the way the Greeks did 
it - election by lottery - would be a better solution.  At least then it 
wouldn't be a career path (which I think is one of the biggest problems 
in the US political system).

>> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
>> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
>> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
>> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.
> 
> Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?

I've read a little bit, but I understand some of his views.  There's a 
part of me that agrees with (for example) doing some sort of federal 
service as a precondition to voting.  Not entirely behind that, though, 
but it does seem that giving something to the country - some form of 
sacrifice - does make for better/more informed voters.  For example, many 
who see combat in the military are unlikely to send others into combat 
unless it's the last resort.  Those who haven't served don't always 
understand what it is they're asking of young soldiers going into combat.

That's not always the case, but those who have been in that situation are 
more likely to make a better-informed decision.

Which is not to say that military service is/should be the only path to 
eligibility to vote.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2012 4:12 AM, 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.

"The problem is not that certain classes are unfit to govern.  Every 
class is unfit to govern."

The notion that our political problems can be solved by granting power 
to the right people is inherently flawed.  Power always winds up in the 
hands of the least trustworthy because the most trustworthy have utterly 
no interest in power.

First of all, the basic desire for power--that is, the desire for the 
ability to compel others--is inherently anti-rational.  This places it 
in direct conflict with the rational virtues, such as honestly and 
self-control.  Hence politicans, of every party, will always come from 
the shallow end of the virtue pool.

Second, every worthy sentiment has avenues of expression outside of 
politics.  You can feed the poor, shelter the homeless, cure diseases, 
create beauty, make money, and/or save the world without garnering even 
one vote in an election, because the realm of human endeavor has scope 
for all of these activities in the private sector even more so than in 
the public sector.  Not so with power.  If you want power, real power, 
politics is the only game in town.  Therefore those who enter politics 
with a genuinely noble purpose have an outlet for their sentiments in 
private life, and will feel the call of that life, especially in the 
face of the slings and arrows of public office.  Those who enter 
politics for the power have no outlet.  They must win if they are to 
have what is most important to them.  Being more desperate to obtain or 
retain power, and less concerned with honor and honesty to start with, 
they are more than willing to lie, cheat and slander in order to 
prevail, and more willing to endure whatever lies, cheating and slander 
hinders them.

So not only are the rotters overrepresented among the political class, 
they are even more overrepresented among the victorious of any political 
campaign.

Third, holding power has a distinct negative effect on personal ethics. 
  Simply holding power--or even imagining oneself to have power--has 
been seen in behavioral testing to make a person more likely to lie, 
overestimate their abilities, and excuse their own wrongdoing, and less 
likely to tolerate wrongdoing in others or emphasize with other people.

In short, power attracts the worst among us, winds up in the hands of 
the worst who seek it, and makes anyone who gets it worse people than 
before.

The solution?  Limit the size and power of government.  It is the only 
thing that appears to limit the damage that corrupt politicians can do.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message