In case anyone thought racism in America was dead . . .

[dkinley]

And the monarchy in the UK has endured for how long............

England was a monarchy for the entirety of its political existence since its creation about 927 up to the 1707 Act of Union, except for the eleven years of English Interregnum (1649 to 1660) that followed the English Civil War.

Well your system's not exactly doing well at the the minute is it

I don't think it is doing to poorly compared to some. If it was so bad, we would already be in bread lines right after any bad announcement. The fact that it wreaks havoc on other countries' economies shows that it must be a pretty strong economy for the rest to depend on it ... no matter what Pelosi or any other party wants to say about it.

-dk

 

[georgedwilkinson]

And the monarchy in the UK has endured for how long............

But, I thought that the Monarchy was a separate form of government than (from?) Socialism. Further, I thought that the Monarchy had recently (last 100 years or less) been weakened in favor of a representative form of government. I'm so confused?

You'll have to help me out here since I learned a good deal about US/Florida government in school but absolutely nothing about UK government (sorta the opposite of you, right?).

Well your system's not exactly doing well at the the minute is it

It seems that way at times (outside of the checks and balances laws), though I was unaware that it was a competition. I certainly hope that your government does well by its people.

And just for fun: Go Palin/McCain!!!

 

[pbaldy]

Good point dk, one that's not commonly realized. I recently read an interesting commentary, one point of which was that the civil war is mis-named. A civil war is one where 2 parties fight for control of a single area. The writer's point was that the south no more wanted control of the US than George Washington wanted control over London. The civil war might more properly be called a war of independence that failed.

It could also be argued that while the US was founded as a republic, it was changed to a democracy, to our continuing detriment. In my view, this is a result of the 17th amendment, which changed the method of election of senators, and paved the way for the growth of the federal government.

 

[ColinEssex]

You'll have to help me out here since I learned a good deal about US/Florida government in school but absolutely nothing about UK government

Is that why Americans know bugger-all about what goes on outside their borders?

Are you aware that there are other countries in the world apart from the USA? (exclude the world series as that involves Canada but no-one else in the world)

Col

 

[dkinley]

Is that why Americans know bugger-all about what goes on outside their borders?

Are you aware that there are other countries in the world apart from the USA? (exclude the world series as that involves Canada but no-one else in the world)

Col

lol

We know only what our fine and integrity-laden press tells us. The dark secret is that we know bugger-all about other Americans much less about anything outside the borders. Well, except for what is written on blogs because that comes from a real person and not media; therefore must be true.

I like to think in terms of Douglas Adams that goes something like 'You seem to think what you say is true though you only heard it ... My universe is my own eyes and ears and anything else is hearsay.'

-dK

 

[dkinley]

I recently read an interesting commentary ...

Interesting. I like the writer just because their first critique was from being a stickler over the name. Any chance of an electronic version of it?

-dK

 

[georgedwilkinson]

It could also be argued that while the US was founded as a republic, it was changed to a democracy, to our continuing detriment. In my view, this is a result of the 17th amendment, which changed the method of election of senators, and paved the way for the growth of the federal government.

I tried reading it but am unable to make the connection. How did the 17th amendment change things?

 

[Rich]

But, I thought that the Monarchy was a separate form of government than (from?) Socialism. Further, I thought that the Monarchy had recently (last 100 years or less) been weakened in favor of a representative form of government. I'm so confused?

The monarchy has only been a figurehead centuries

 

[georgedwilkinson]

The monarchy has only been a figurehead centuries

OK, so why did you say that the Monarchy has endured for longer than 200 years when that clearly is not your form of government? I'm just trying to get at what you were saying.

You seemed to be saying that you have a Socialist form of government which is superior to the Republic that the US has had for over 200 years. When I asked how you knew, since this "socialist" form of government is quite new, you said that the Monarchy was much older.

So, back to my question: how do you know that your new Socialist government (according to you, not me) is going to endure? The evidence we have in the world to date seems to indicate that Socialism does not last for any longer than 70 years.

Further, I suggested that I thought the UK had a representative form of government, not a socialist form. You kinda glossed over that.

Please give the details as to why you believe like you do.

 

[pbaldy]

Interesting. I like the writer just because their first critique was from being a stickler over the name. Any chance of an electronic version of it?

-dK

The 7/16 article (I like a lot of what he writes):

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams.html

George, prior to the 17th amendment senators were elected or appointed by the state legislature. Now they are directly elected by the people. My feeling is that the intent of the original method was that the senators would represent the interests of the states, thus preventing the federal power grab that has taken place. Though they supposedly represent the people directly now, in practice the people have little influence over them relative to the special interests and lobbyists.

 

[Banana]

Sometimes a picture is worth 1000 words....

 

[georgedwilkinson]

So, couldn't candidate Fishpalm just have easily paid for his appointment (or election) by the State Legislature by giving "fish" (favors) to the State Senators and/or Representatives? Wouldn't a Legislature elected Senator be just as corrupt as a people voted Senator? Wouldn't the candidate with the most fish to give away become the Senator?

 

[Banana]

So, couldn't candidate Fishpalm just have easily paid for his appointment (or election) by the State Legislature by giving "fish" (favors) to the State Senators and/or Representatives? Wouldn't a Legislature elected Senator be just as corrupt as a people voted Senator? Wouldn't the candidate with the most fish to give away become the Senator?

Erm, guess a bit more context was needed. I wasn't replying to the question about Senators being elected by their state's legislative body rather than by the state's general population directly but more to the question about uninformed voters and how they can be bought for just as easily as lobbyists can have a senator bought for and sold.

In that book, it proposes a voting tax, claiming that a vote that costs nothing is worth nothing. I'm not quite prepared to agree with the proposal, though I do agree with the author (Irwin Schiff) that there's entirely too much favor-seeking in the elections, and this has played a big part in power grabs, IMO.

The second panel is quite astute- would average Joe care to vote for a senator who voted against subsidy benefiting the same average Joe? Likely not. Hence, my siggy.

 

[dkinley]

I thought Plato's Republic was pretty detailed and broad sweeping about the character of a Senator. Even though I thought he brought up good points it has also been argued that several of his key points are wrong.

His Senator's have no fish to give out, they live in perpetual poverty. The problem is, the human elements, greed and subjectivity just to name two. Of course to remove this, we are never going to vote in any sort of electronic device because noone can trust the programmers to have a utilitarian heart - we won't even use an electronic voting machine.

Forget trying to get artificial intelligence to manage us even though if it wasn't for a blackberry or a manual date/calendar, most people couldn't get thru the day.

-dK

 

[Banana]

I really should pick me up a copy of Republic. I've heard of it being referenced but never actually read it. Should make for an interesting read, since it was all about city-state, which I personally think made more sense in terms of accommodating with the human nature to be provincial in daily affairs. He was proposing that senator should be unpaid and a volunteer, no?


Another system I've toyed in my head with is using random lottery to select a pool, provide a civil service examination to eliminate the village idiot who would do more harm than good, then draft them as candidates for various posts. Conveniently eliminate the need for a party system, need for campaigning, and force the voter to be informed about any given candidate. Would it work? I don't know. The problem would be the lobbyists who would be still around terms after terms and could quickly corrupt them.

 

[dkinley]

I am sure wiki has some excerpts to give a good gist, probably not as well rounded as a boiled down Cliff Notes version. I never read the original or direct translated, I read a quasi-reprint with commentary - can't recall by who or anything except the person was a modern philosopher. The commentary was basically to either clarify or point out an opposing viewpoint. I can ask a friend who might remember.

Your second paragraph is much in line with Plato. Plato had a prescription (or is it proscription?) about how Senators should and when be tested, how they are raised, how they are (un)paid, how they live, how they marry and what happens after retirement. If I remember correctly, the retirement bit was just as poor (to prevent a massive pay off from lobbyist types). The original might be dry reading - I don't know, what made it entertaining is the running commentary that I read.

-dK

 

[Alisa]

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.

Seriously?

 

[dkinley]

Let's see ... sounded like a broken record to me in acknowledgment who was right ....


LEHRER: Senator Obama?
OBAMA: (blubbers some answer that plays to the masses but of no substance)
McCAIN: "What Senator Obama doesn't understand ..." (and instructs on the inexperienced padawan)
OBAM: "Senator McCain is right ..." (and then blubbers out something else)

Now, I say, in terms of POTUS not a VP .... Seriously?

 

[dkinley]

Oh yeah ... here is for pandering to the masses ...

Barack Obama played the "me too" game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.

Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.​

 

[Rich]

Oh yeah ... here is for pandering to the masses ...

Yeah and here's another, Republican Bush sent thousands of innocent Americans to their deaths in a futile attempt to get control of Iraqs oil and condemmed hundreds of thousand innocent Iraqis to their deaths in the process