 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by Arwon |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 185/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Ziff, I think it was one of your dictionary links that broke the tables. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 186/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Yes, but in every country except the US it's associated in some way with classical liberalism - free markets, individual liberties, etc etc etc. The exact interpretation, and the faction in ascendence, varies (our Liberals are quite hardline at the moment, social conservatives and economic rationalists) but it's only in America where people can say "socialist liberals" without their heads imploding from the contradiction. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 187/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by Tarale It came back and they finished its run, give or take a half dozen episodes, earlier this year. Matters not, though, as I have all 4 volumes on DVD. Eeeeeeee. The commentaries are excellent. Taryn, you should be able to find them in good pop-culture-media stores (BORDERS?) or off their websites. Try HMV for example. I got mine variously in Targets and K-Marts. Elmo: We actually got the Futurama DVDs releases here BEFORE America got them. Some weird legal snafu I think - Europe and Australia got them first. Plus she couldn't import them anyway due to region and TV format differences. Also: Futurama is one of the greatest cartoons ever produces. Works on so many levels. (edited by Arwon on 10-25-04 10:41 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 188/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| I liked it quite thoroughly. Orwell's a great writer, I have a book compiling stuff he wrote all through his life - he was more than just dystopian fables. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 189/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Can I make a protest vote against Talking Heads losing? ): |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 190/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| No that's not good. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 191/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| The Good Doctor sounds off on Campaign 04 "War is an option whose time has passed. Peace is the only option for the future. At present we occupy a treacherous no-man's-land between peace and war, a time of growing fear that our military might has expanded beyond our capacity to control it and our political differences widened beyond our ability to bridge them. . . . Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war. --RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983) Richard Nixon looks like a flaming liberal today, compared to a golem like George Bush. Indeed. Where is Richard Nixon now that we finally need him? If Nixon were running for president today, he would be seen as a "liberal" candidate, and he would probably win. He was a crook and a bungler, but what the hell? Nixon was a barrel of laughs compared to this gang of thugs from the Halliburton petroleum organization who are running the White House today -- and who will be running it this time next year, if we (the once-proud, once-loved and widely respected "American people") don't rise up like wounded warriors and whack those lying petroleum pimps out of the White House on November 2nd. Nixon hated running for president during football season, but he did it anyway. Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for -- but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him. You bet. Richard Nixon would be my Man. He was a crook and a creep and a gin-sot, but on some nights, when he would get hammered and wander around in the streets, he was fun to hang out with. He would wear a silk sweat suit and pull a stocking down over his face so nobody could recognize him. Then we would get in a cab and cruise down to the Watergate Hotel, just for laughs." I realise it's a week and a half old but I just saw it and felt like sharing, being a huge fan of the Good Doctor and all that. Interesting how he, a man whose arch-nemesis was Nixon, a man upon whose death wrote a scathing obituary called "He Was A Crook" almost views him favourably compared to the current scene: From "Kingdom of Loathing" 2 years ago: "To say that this goofy child president is looking more and more like Richard Nixon in the summer of 1974 would be a flagrant insult to Nixon. Whoops! Did I say that? Is it even vaguely possible that some New Age Republican whore-beast of a false president could actually make Richard Nixon look like a Liberal? The capacity of these vicious assholes we elected to be in charge of our lives for four years to commit terminal damage to our lives and our souls and our loved ones is far beyond Nixon's . . . The prevailing quality of life in America |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 192/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| The Kerouac era of romantic wanderings is dead. Read Douglas Coupland's Miss Wyoming and stay indoors! (edited by Arwon on 10-30-04 01:03 PM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 193/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| When people talk about "free trade", they mostly are talking about tarrif reduction, trade liberalisation, removal of subsidies, and stuff like that. It is argued that this is all beneficial, will benefit everyone, "raise all boats" and so forth. Unfortunately, even the most zealous free-trade advocates seem to have trouble making the leap from freeing up the movement of capital, finance, investment and trade, to freeing up movement of the OTHER major component of economics. LABOR. People. They have no problem saying that countries should uproot their entire economic structure and let the markets do their thing, but suggesting that borders and passports that prohibit movement across borders are far more significant barriers than tarrifs and competition-undercutting subsidies is a far sketchier proposition. The present structure of the economy of this planet, with a couple of isolationist (North Korea and Cuba, also Burma) exceptions, is of areas of great wealth and power living at least partly off the poorer areas of the planet. That much is indisputable. To some extent we all live off the cheap labor and lack of human rights in other parts of the planet. Conventional wisdom has it that global capital flows and financial investment will be enough to improve conditions in these regions, but so far it just isn't really working. To me it seems that the biggest thing missing is the FREE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE. People seem to not really connect the structure of the global economy with issues of immigration and border security but it seems like the two are intimately and irrevocably related. The reason people are trying to get into Australia, Europe, America, is in crude economic terms, because there is high "demand" for those places. What's the point of a globalised economy where goods can move freely anywhere in the world, if the PEOPLE in that economy are trapped in certain areas through the random chances of birth? It's like promoting free trade within the US but having rules people in Alabama can't emigrate to Maine and can't even visit without passports and visas. Look at the EU. It's a perfect case study here. Sure, it's a beaurocratic nightmare, quite protectionist, full of social-democratic countries that free-trade-proponent rhetoric holds are inherently dysfunctional. Yet, I bet that the new members - the Eastern European countires that are quite a long way behind the Western European ones - will vastly benefit from the free trade promoted WITHIN the EU. The free movement not just of capital, finance, investment, etc... but also of PEOPLE. Yes, there'll probably be teething problems, but the benefits for these places of the lowering of movement barriers to people will in the end show the way. The results of the EU will show that the free movement of PEOPLE is the most important factor in beneficial free trade. Many people see this as a question of allowing "those people" in. Border security, floods of poor immigrants, etc etc. It's an old story. Tijuana being a perfect example. What better illustration is there of the problems of a closed-border, people-restrictive set-up with a global economy? Capital, finance, investment, etc, can happily and wasily flow across borders between the US and Mexico, but if any people try to follow that path, it's a whole another story. It's not just a matter of allowing "those people" in, it's a matter of letting the benefits of our societies out. Which, after all, is the goal of the free-trade advocates. I'd wager that if you tore down the border between the two countries, as has happened in Europe, in the short term you'd get a large influx of Mexicans moving north, but after a while things would balance out, the trappings of US prosperity would filter south with business owners, educated Mexicans, and so forth. Cheap housing down south would suddenly look a lot more desirable, Mexico would seem a place of untapped opportunities, property owners in Mexico would see their land values rise, and from there I think you'd see a largescale evening out of economic conditions in the two halves of California. Another perfect example would seem to be the reunification of Germany. The introduction of large numbers of East Germans into a larger west germany that was far ahead in material and economic terms has had a great deal of benefit for East Germans, with minimal problems for West Germany. Yes there's teething problems, but nothing so apocalyptic as to make reunification, free movement, free trade within Germany, a bad idea. All this just with a unified politial structure - where goods, capital, finance, investment, but also PEOPLE could move freely as their whims and ambitions took them. I'd wager even the North-South Korea divide could be bridged by unification... or at least through totally open borders and trade, should that ever happen. The lack of connection between global economics, and immigration/borders seems like a pretty big issue no-one wants to touch just yet. They're closely related issues but no-one seems to want to point this out. Maybe as the EU's expansion proves this argument further the right people will begin to take note. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 194/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| The problem with the presidential election though, drj, is that no matter how you slice the vote, there can only be one winner. Someone will be president, someone else won't. It's a very all-or-nothing situation however you do it. Preferential voting can still work - it does in Ireland - but in the end you're still going to only have 2 or 3 realistic presidential candidates. That's one of the big flaws in the "strong president" republic model the US and Latin America (also the Philipines) uses. Because the president is the head of state and govt, it's a lot harder to have comprimise, coalitions,and so forth. Whereas in a more parliament/diet/congress/duma centred model, where the president is more beholden to the legislature and might even be just a ceremonial figurehead (Ireland, India, Germany) coalition govt is easier, since the main action happens in a legislature with lots of seats for people of all different stripes. The president is still an "all or nothing" post but it's less central to the running of the country. --------------- I think a lot of people are confusing congressional racing and the presidential race together. NSNick speaks of "gerrymandering" then talks of people registering in a different state. That's not gerrymandering, gerrymandering has nothing to do with the presidential election. --------------- The electoral college is kind of weird as far as republic models go, but given the US's status as a federation of 50 nominally independant states it kind of makes sense. A good contrast though is Brazil where they have lots of states but the president is elected by popular vote. I guess the difference though is Brazil started out as a single entity whereas the US didn't. It's a historical curiosity and a bit odd, but the electoral college isn't really the thing that will fix things in America. That said: State Population per Electoral Vote Wyoming 167,081 DC 187,795 Vermont 206,369 North Dakota 211,279 Alaska 216,273 South Dakota 254,770 Rhode Island 269,041 Delaware 272,497 Montana 305,874 Hawaii 314,402 ... Ohio 571,790 New Jersey 575,893 Georgia 578,981 Pennsylvania 588,831 Michigan 592,940 Illinois 602,550 New York 619,036 Florida 630,336 California 645,172 Texas 650,544 ----------- Finally, I think a much more interesting reform would be proportional election of the senate, rather than "2 per state". (edited by Arwon on 10-31-04 12:15 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 195/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Well the equivalent role to Prime Minister in your government is the Majority House leader, so they're by their nature different roles. Plenty of countries (Ireland, France, Germany except they call the PM a chancellor, India) have both a president and a PM, where the president is head of state and may or may not wield some degree of day-to-day power, but the PM is head of the day-to-day government. A PM can have a great deal of power, our PM's 2-party coalition controls both houses at the moment, but it's a more ephermeral and shifting sort of power... he is also more answerable to things like no confidence motions, losing the support of his own party, dismissal by a president or governor general, and prime ministers are also a lot more exposed to the press and public through "question time" and such, than a president in a system where he's the head of state and government. Also, the need to continually please 70 or 80 MPs and 40-odd senators does tend to keep things fairly moderate. In a president-centric system, however, it's harder to remove an implacable leader even if he's unpopular. Impeachment is hard and difficult, and if push comes to shove the president commands the military. It's a much more "all-or-nothing" system. Bear in mind, the stability and continual democracy of the US is the exception, not the rule, to the "strong president" model. There's an entire continent of Latin American counter-examples as well as a couple of other places (the Philipines, Liberia) that underscore the problems with having such a strong unaccountable head of government. These countries have a much worse record with maintaining democracy than parliamentary systems - where a burgeoning tyrant usually first changes the system to make it more president-centred and less parliamentary. (edited by Arwon on 10-31-04 12:52 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 196/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Well, see the thing is, a surprisingly small number of people want to move to America. America tends to overestimate it's attraction, I think, and this spoken by someone who would like to live there again someday. Morevoer, if America became a hell-hole wouldn't lots of people leave there, thus evening things out? The whole point is that according to free trade and economic orthodoxy, people go where the opportunities are. Yes you'd get a flood of people into America and Australia and such, but at the same time you'd get a substantial backwash of people bringing economic prosperity, education, and such, BACK to other parts of the world, hence the "evening out" idea over a longer term. I also don't think it'd be that huge a problem. No bigger than the problems the EU will have with the new, poorer countries it's integrated. "to many convicts would jump countries continously and no one could stop them. It wouldn't be helpful to have everyone be able to move freely and it would only cause difficulties. Well, part of the whole integration thing would obviously have to be extradition agreements and such. I couldn't see it being a substantially bigger deal than the problems of people going to one state or another, or one country to another in the EU. (edited by Arwon on 10-31-04 01:04 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 197/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| So is France a "PM system" or a "presidential" system? they have both. When I say "presidential system" I'm not referring simply to any system where there is a president - India has a president, Ireland has a president, but they're both very parliamentary systems with PMs - I'm talking about systems where the president is very powerful and wields significant day-to-day authority as the executive. Systems where the president and the legislature have pretty equal mandates and it's easy for them to end up at loggerheads with no constitutional way to solve it. The president can be removed - impeached - for misconduct, but there's usually no other mechanism to replace him before his term is up. Look at the history of a country like Ecuador for example, whose constant conflicts between the legislature and executive in the 70s and 80s bordered on the absurd. This is the usual reality of systems with a powerful unaccountable president. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 198/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Well, there was Reagan and the Congress. Reagan wanted to cut taxes, Democratic senate wanted to push a budget with new social programs in it. They comprimised... and did both! Creating a massive deficit. Britain's a wierd example because of the House of Lords and its status as a constitutional monarchy running almost purely on convention. Britain's system of government wouldn't work anywhere but in Britain. The HoL basically doesn't do anything, so there's much less opposing the PM than, say, France, where the president is an active counterbalance to the PM, or in places like Ireland or here (until this year at least) where a strong senate has a "review" role over the government. A more orthodox example of a parliamentary system would be Ireland or India, where the president has an almost purely ceremonial role, merely exercising a few reserve powers in emergencies. "And are you implying that removing a popularly-elected President would be a legitimate thing to do if there was too much friction between him and Congress?" No, what I'm saying is that in the event of significant friction there's no constituional recourse. Just about anything could concievably happen. Congress can't oust an unpopular president, the president can't move against congress. There is a very strong temptation to use extra-constitutional means - which in many countries using a US-type model means the army - to solve the impasse. Just to steer this back on topic: What do we think would happen if the Electoral vote tally ended up at 269-269? |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 199/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Flat taxation is not "fair". Simply applying the same numerical percentage to everyone does not mean you have equal impact on everyone. This is because every dollar of income is NOT equal. The first dollar of income is more important and vital than the 100 000th dollar (this principle is called the "principle of diminishing marginal utility" - so the two aren't equal, and flat taxation is not "fair" or equal just because you're taking the same percentage. The key is the idea of equal and fair IMPACT, which is a different matter to merely measuring what percentage is taken. Different people and situations are, after all, different. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 200/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| I set my clocks forward instead. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 201/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| What Rydain said, since she beat me to it. It rarely happens, it's called "dilation and extraction" not "partial birth abortion" and is being used by abortion opponents to emotionally blackmail people. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 202/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Well? | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 203/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Nepal's in open civil war I believe, Burundi is mostly done with its most recent war - and that one was external. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 204/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| No love for the Burundians? Feh. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by Arwon |
