| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 22:50:28
He tells it like it is.
And finally, New Rule: America must stop bragging that it's the greatest country on earth and start acting like it. Now, I know � I know this is uncomfortable for the faith-over-facts crowd, but the greatness of a country can, to a large degree, be measured. Here are some numbers: Infant mortality rate, America ranks 48th in the world; overall health, 72nd; freedom of the press, 44; literacy, 55th. Do you realize there are 12-year-old kids in this country who can't spell the name of the teacher they're having sex with?
Now, America, I will admit, has done many great things: making the New World democratic comes to mind, the Marshall Plan, curing polio, beating Hitler, the deep-fried Twinkie. But what have we done for us lately? We're not the freest country. That would be Holland, where you can smoke hash in church, and Janet Jackson's nipple is on their flag.
And, sadly, we're no longer a country that can get things done, either. Not big things, like building a tunnel under Boston or running a war with competence. We had six years to fix the voting machines. Couldn't get that done. The FBI is just now getting email!
Prop 87 out here in California is about lessening our dependence on oil by using alternative fuels, and Bill Clinton comes on at the end of the ad and says, "If Brazil can do it, America can, too." Excuse me, since when did America have to buck itself up by saying we could catch up to Brazil?! We invented the airplane and the lightbulb. They invented the bikini wax, and now they're ahead?!
In most of the industrialized world, nearly everyone has health care. And hardly anyone doubts evolution. And, yes, having to live amid so many superstitious dimwits is also something that affects quality of life. It's why America isn't going to be the country that gets the inevitable patents in stem cell cures, because Jesus thinks it's too close to cloning!
Oh, and did I mention we owe China a trillion dollars? We owe everybody money. America is a debtor nation to Mexico! We're not on a bridge to the 21st century. We're on a bus to Atlantic City with a roll of quarters.
And this is why it bugs me that so many people talk like it's 1955 and we're still number one in everything. We're not. And I take no glee in saying this, because I love my country, and I wish we were. But when you're number 55 in this category and number 92 in that one, you look a little silly waving the big foam "Number One" finger.
As long as we believe being the greatest country in the world is a birthright, we'll keep coasting on the achievements of earlier generations and we'll keep losing the moral high ground. Because we may not be the biggest or the healthiest or the best educated. But we always did have one thing no other place did. We knew soccer was bulls***.
And...and we also had a little thing called the Bill of Rights. A great nation doesn't torture people or make them disappear without a trial. Bush keeps saying the terrorists hate us for our freedom. And he's working damn hard to see that pretty soon that won't be a problem.
So true. Sad, but true.
EM :) |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 06:11:53
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by duh
Something else about Bill Maher.
I get this error with that link:-
Server Error in '/' Application.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resource cannot be found.
Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly.
Requested Url: / c0vto2r00pkvzg45ectann45 /collection.aspx
Try /(c0vto2r00pkvzg45ectann45)/collection.aspx
|
| Sean |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 22:41:10
quote:
Originally posted by duh
Something else about Bill Maher.
I get this error with that link:-
Server Error in '/' Application.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resource cannot be found.
Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly.
Requested Url: / c0vto2r00pkvzg45ectann45 /collection.aspx
|
| duh |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 12:09:17
EDITED TO FIX LINK:
Something else about Bill Maher:
http://www.amiannoying.com/(c0vto2r00pkvzg45ectann45)/collection.aspx?collection=1223
Copy and paste the entire url.
Spoiler in nearly-invisotext:
Bill is in the "Big Dicks" collection.
|
| Catuli |
Posted - 11/14/2006 : 21:56:58
My quick take on the initial issue of Bill Maher. He's a sharp, witty, clever, amusing, intellectually stimulating guy, but I suspect that if you had close dealings with him on a regular basis you'd soon regard him as uppercase multi-exclamation point %^*$)@. Just an observation.
|
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 19:54:40
Your flag looks a bit sad Em.
quote:
Originally posted by 7urrell
The Electoral College protects the rights of small state voters. If you could win the election based on a simple majority, candidates would predominantly target large cities only in their run to office.
In Australia the Senate was designed to provide that balance with equal representation from each state regardless of population. These days it runs more along party lines but as I mentioned earlier, a number of smaller parties get to influence legislation.
Currently the government has an outright majority (very rare) and when that happened there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth over the power going to their head. If it does they'll get punished next year in the election.
Hey it's not a perfect system (that would be me ruling as a benevolent dictator  ) but I think it works pretty well overall. |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 15:16:58
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
The only major disappointment for us Democrats was the defeat of Harold Ford in Tennessee
I completely agree. I saw him on Bill Maher. He is a very smart guy and Tennessee should have seen that. Too bad! For them and for our country.
EM :) |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 15:06:35
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Enlightened
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
I don't think the Republicans and their privately owned Diebold and other tallying machines will let that happen -- possibly never again.
You might need more faith in your system from the early results.
I don't think Em will be eating her words just yet. She'll be too busy partying! 
Whoooooooooo! Hooooooooooooo!
I have never been so happy to be wrong in my life!!!
 
Let the healing begin.
EM :) |
| randall |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 12:04:29
The House has turned, and control of the Senate will depend on recounts in Virginia and Montana's very close races. The only major disappointment for us Democrats was the defeat of Harold Ford in Tennessee, after one of the nastiest race-baiting TV ads ever. Evidently it worked -- but only in Tennessee.
It was clear that the American public did not care for the President's policies, particularly in Iraq. What was not clear was whether this would show up in election returns.
And Dan Rather appeared with Jon Stewart on THE DAILY SHOW. What a night... |
| Sean |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 11:31:35
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Enlightened
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
I don't think the Republicans and their privately owned Diebold and other tallying machines will let that happen -- possibly never again.
You might need more faith in your system from the early results.
I don't think Em will be eating her words just yet. She'll be too busy partying! |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 10:28:22
quote:
Originally posted by 7urrell
[br ... a parliamentary system which similiarly elects Prime Minister based on the majority of seats in the legislature.
Point of clarification:
In the UK the Prime Minister isn't elected by the electorate. The Prime Minister is the head of whichever party is elected. UK elections decide which party will govern and it's the party machine which chooses its own leader. That's why when Blair goes, Brown or whoever the party endorses, will automatically take the role of PM without the wider electorate's vote. The UK equivalent to the US President as head of state is the queen, an unelected post. That's why the founding fathers wanted an elected position, and why it's possible to have a Congress reflecting one party while the head of state is from another. What's confusing is that over the years the head of state has taken on some of the role of a Prime or First Minister. And what's annoying many Brits is that the Prime Minister role has increasingly become more Presidential.
|
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 08:23:06
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
I don't think the Republicans and their privately owned Diebold and other tallying machines will let that happen -- possibly never again.
You might need more faith in your system from the early results.
quote:
Perhaps the USA has outgrown the two-party system and they should think about revamping the whole thing, top to bottom. Or perhaps they should just find a way for another party or two to get inside, for a change.
I think CL might have a good point here. The more I look at the US system of electing government the more I shake my head. Imagine the difficulties of having a president whose party can't run the government.
The Aussie system has the leader of the majority in the House of Reps as the Prime Minister. If his party loses faith in him and wishes to replace him with an internal vote, it does. If the voters cause his party to lose its majority, he becomes leader of the opposition and we have a new PM.
The Senate is a bit trickier as half come up for re-election at every 3 years (6 year terms) which means the government may have to govern without controlling the Senate. This obviously requires a fair amount of horse trading and compromise but is a part of our checks and balances. Since we have 6 senators from each state and 2 per territory (76 in all) many minor parties which don't get a look into the H of Reps can have a big impact in the upper house.
I couldn't imagine having to deal with just 2 parties with such a broad range of issues.
I have voted right in one house and left in the other to try and maintain a balance. 
I love teaching this topic to 11 & 12 y-o kids and in 12 days we're heading off to Canberra for the Grade 6 camp. We'll visit our Parliament (when our local member is in the capital she takes us on a tour of the back offices - often including the leader of the opposition. She was at our school on Monday and spent an hour chatting to our kids - they really enjoyed it.)
I love being in a country that gives this sort of access to its citizens. |
| randall |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 22:00:19
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Chocky, the Israeli voting system sounds similar to the NZ system. I've never heard anyone here suggest it was anything less than scrupulously honest. I don't have any doubt that election results here are correct.
It's kind of worrying that there are people in the USA even thinking about the possibility of foul play. 
That's what worries me as well. What's more, I was kind of surprised that after the 2000 election people didn't try to get rid of the Electoral Collage system.
Nope, the Electoral Collage ran full steam in the mid-terms. |
| randall |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 21:59:15
quote:
Originally posted by 7urrell
The Electoral College protects the rights of small state voters. I think it gets a bad rap because a) its more complicated and b) its seems elitist because the people don't directly elect their president.
I would think more of the EC if electors were legally pledged to cast their votes for the candidates who elected them. At any rate, the popular vote is a number easily known. What might change the electoral map -- and get more attention from "safely red" or "safely blue" areas of the country -- would be if the EC produced proportional electors; i.e. do away with winner-takes-all-electoral votes. |
| turrell |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 21:18:35
The Electoral College protects the rights of small state voters. If you could win the election based on a simple majority, candidates would predominantly target large cities only in their run to office. The way it is now, all states have some say and while California has the most population and thus the largest # of electoral votes, you simply need to receive a majority to take all these votes - as such when California (a largely liberal state) is soundly in the hands of one candidate, the candidates focus more on other states that are toss-ups. In some ways this makes sense, because it forces candidates to better define issues where there is the most indecision.
The electoral college is in some ways a compromise between pure democracy (or simple majority for all voters) and a parliamentary system which similiarly elects Prime Minister based on the majority of seats in the legislature. It is far more direct than parliamentary process, because it separates legislative voting from executive voting, but preserves the importance of smaller states such as Iowa, Montana, Arkansas, Tennesee, etc. that have been close in recent years and could have reversed the result. I think it gets a bad rap because a) its more complicated and b) its seems elitist because the people don't directly elect their president. |
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 19:42:21
You sure you don't want to return to a constitutional monarchy? |
|
|
