Le 06/11/2012 13:04, clipka a écrit :
> Am 06.11.2012 11:12, schrieb scott:
>>> 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.
> 
> A "wisdom test" seems to me closer to the mark. While stupid people are
> dangerous, some highly intelligent ones aren't any better.
> 


Some "common sense" tests, as well as a reality check of current price
should also be mandatory.

Some of our politics are so disconnected from normal life they would be
ready to say the price of bread, butter, local transportation ticket or
meat is ten or more time the actual price. Or the opposite direction (if
they got a life, twenty years ago). They now only bother to check before
the election, as long as they do not mix their notes...

And for countries that have minimal wages, politics should be paid only
that amount. (the argument about corruption is void and demonstrated so
by their predecessors: no amount of salary for the politics is to
protect against the lobbies, so no point in big money any more: you want
the power while pretending to serve the community, we do not pay more
than a minimal full-time job. In fact, the surface-cleaning people in
charge of the toilet might get paid better than the president... oh dreams)

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.

Post a reply to this message

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?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue 06/11/12 13:45, 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?

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

> 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

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

>>> 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

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

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

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