 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Past statements that come back...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Past staements that come back... From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Apr 10 - 11:54 AM From a post in 2004... From: Bobert - PM Date: 11 Sep 04 - 08:25 AM ... Divide and conquer... Ya' gotta keep 'um seperated... As long as we have a winner take all system and horrible redisticking we will have partisanship and bullying by the fraternity in power. And when I say power, that's exactly what it is. Brute power. The problem with power is that it in itself is corrupting. If you have it then there's certainly no point in compromising... Without compromise, partisanship can only get worse and worse and government be less about *governing* and more about *ruling*. No one likes to be ruled and thus: bitterness and partisanship... My own opinion is that the current fraternity is the worst I've seen in my life time in taking no-compromise, we-won-so-kiss-our-asses partisanship to the highest levels imaginative which, of course,just brings on deeper partisanship... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 10 - 12:32 PM You wanta expand on why that's relevant to anything, Bruce? We poor liberals often don't 'get' the nuances implied in your scatter-shot references. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 10 - 12:35 PM ...and where in those paragraphs are any quotation mark? Who said what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Apr 10 - 12:42 PM This is what girlfriends and wives do when they're in a shitty mood about something.... (grin) They dredge up some fuckin' thing you said umpteen years ago that no one else would ever remember and they harass you about it endlessly. (You could do the same thing back to them, of course, because they've contradicted themselves at least 85,000 times over the past 20 years, but you're not that petty and you can't really be bothered anyway, because it's not worth the hassle...) So, Bobert. What exactly is the nature of this online relationship you have with Bearded Bruce??? ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: Amos Date: 27 Apr 10 - 12:55 PM In 2004, Bobert's observations were right on the mark. Thank God we threw those bums out. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Apr 10 - 01:14 PM BillD, "From: Bobert - PM Date: 11 Sep 04 - 08:25 AM " Amos, I think that his remarks were, AND REMAIN, right on the mark. His assessment of how the Party In Power acts is a valid statement of human behaviour. You are applying the double standard again- unless you mean to imply we should throw the PRESENT bums out, since THEY are now the party in power. THAT is what I think will happen, but your posts did not lead me to think you wanted it as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: Amos Date: 27 Apr 10 - 01:36 PM My own feeling, which you obviously do not share, Bruce, is that Obama has a personal fortitude that gives him a certain resistance to the kind of corruption that Bush fell into whole-heartedly. You go on and on about me having a double standard, but it comes back to the same thing every time--comparing two things that are different and calling the differences. Obama wrestles with nicotine, while Bush was a dry drunk. Obama was a constitutional scholar while W was a failed businessman. Obama was Harvard Law with excellent academic records, while W was a "C" student more given to frat parties than study. The differences between them go on and on, and they are more than sufficient to justify different judgments. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Apr 10 - 01:41 PM Amos, Amos, Amos... I was referring to the PARTY in power- not the present figurehead. The double standard ( here) is to insist that the Democrats are not human beings, and do not act the same AS A GROUP as any other group in power. Is that what you are trying to imply??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Apr 10 - 01:43 PM BillD, I'm beginning to worry about you... FROM THE OP: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a post in 2004... From: Bobert - PM Date: 11 Sep 04 - 08:25 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: Amos Date: 27 Apr 10 - 01:50 PM Bruce: I think it belabors the obvious to assert that Democrats are human beings, and just as heir to the foibles of human nature as anyone else. In general, they seem to do a better job of resisting those foibles and temptations, but there are plenty who do not in both camps. They're not a different species, after all!! But they do seem in general, at present, to be more motivated by conscience, compassion and a sense of justice, speaking in very broad terms of course. Don't tell Sawz I said so, though, as he will start dredging up examples from 1958 to the contrary. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Apr 10 - 02:03 PM Maybe if bruce actually wrote out what he is meaning to say, rather than relying on readers to deduce it from extracts from previous posts, together with comments, with no use of quote marks to indicate which are his bits and which aren't... it might be a bit clearer. Is the suggestion that there is some inconsistency between wanting to chuck out a particular administration and not wanting to chuck out another? As for the criticism of Bush as unwilling to copmpromise, if anything Obvama is open to a different criticism, of trying too hard to compromise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: gnu Date: 27 Apr 10 - 02:14 PM I don't care to see his bits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: Wolfgang Date: 27 Apr 10 - 02:31 PM BB, where's the Atomic War you had predicted for last summer. Not that I miss it, just curious. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Apr 10 - 02:38 PM I had stated I was wrong in my prediction last September, since I had indicated I thought it would be last August or earlier. He still has time to start one, though- re Iran et al. Still waiting for those binding sanctions- as is the rest of the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 10 - 03:04 PM Ok, Bruce... I did the search and found the original thread. You did NOT clarify that the whole thing was Bobert's quote. If you had, MY comment would have been...so what?. Once again, your basic argument form is: "Everything you accuse the Repubs of, *I* can find, or claim, an example of the Dems doing the same thing." Problem is, it is NEVER exactly the same thing, either in quantity, substance or relevance. You act as if any halfway aware reader would immediately intuit the profound truths suggested by your copy&paste gems and see how blind and short-sighted we have been. Sorry, but the situation is not the same as in 2004. Obama and his administration are not following the 'same' paths or making the same mistakes that Bush and his Obama is trying to actually get serious stuff done, and the Republicans are 1)acting as if 41 out of 100 is a majority, 2)refusing to cooperate in ANY important legislation, 3) then, arguing that Obama has 'failed' to accomplish anything, when it is Republicans playing the 60 vote rule and using the filibuster who have derailed progress! So...as far as the 'past coming back to haunt you', don't I remember Bush using signing statements and reconciliation to ram stuff through when they THEY couldn't get 60 votes? Sauce for the goose? Now, for Pete's sake, since you "worry about me", explain exactly what you intend to argue next time....I'm getting older & slower, and it takes me a little longer to unravel the tangled reasoning in your attempts to defend all Republican actions with some strange assertion that 'Democrats do the same...or are about to'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past staements that come back... From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM Surely the principal lack of success of the current Democrat adminstration is not that they are smashing the Republicans to a pulp by exercise of their majorities but more that they are not in fact doing so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 10 - 04:52 PM They can't really 'smash' an opposition that has all the complex weapons of the congressional procedures, and is willing to employ ALL of them at stupefying slow pace to defeat 'almost' any attempt to pass legislation. The health care bill, even weakened, took months to get by all the votes and committees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Apr 10 - 05:55 PM I have previously stated elsewhere that the core of BBs first post here makes sense. If you have a 2 party first past the post election system, only individuals with enormous strength who are able to 'sneak up the chain' to get to the top will be able to rein it in, for any period, if at all. Both parties will always band together in mutual self interest to preserve their power to exclude any other entrant. That even happened in Australia with the massively popular rise of One Nation (sorta like The Tea Party!), but the proportional system meant that people's votes for One Nation drove Howard to the extreme Right to get those votes back. The Tea Party will be infiltrated and undermined to end up just serving BOTH existing majors, and thus neutralised. In Australia, the proportional representation system (the compulsory voting also helps a lot too!) prevents any single party, or pair of parties being able to retain absolute power over extended periods of time. Why? Because with the US system you need to need to get inside the various parties and reform from the inside. With the proportional system, piss off the electorate, and those parties out of touch just wither and die: Viz DLP, Democrats, One Nation, etc. The US is heading down an irreversible path towards a Big Brother society, as Orwell foresaw. Only a 'Catastrophe' that totally disrupts the US Political System and utterly removes the 2 fossilised entities will change that in the end. not in my lifetime. The same sort of 'prophecy' as John noted in Revelations, but that's another time, another story. Of course, the process will just start again... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 10 - 06:25 PM Fooles...I don't agree about that irreversible path analysis. There are many problems inherent in a democracy where, if one is clever AND devoid of scruples, it is possible to gain, at least temporarily, power by lies, deception and money. It is said that the most efficient government would be a 'benevolent dictatorship', but hey...that 'benevolent' part is hard to define and find. I'll take a form of democracy and look for people like former senator William Proxmire to keep tabs on it. The reason I cast my lot with the Democratic party is that many more of them seem to have the interests of the country, instead of some special interest or corporate sponsorship, as their guiding principle. Yeah, I realize that just 'getting re-elected' causes many on BOTH sides to choose expediency over reason in many decisions, but that's what elections are for.... to rein in bad guesses. We seriously need campaign finance reform to allow people of PRINCIPLE to run for office, instead of just those who can raise money. Proxmire made it work for awhile, but it ain't easy. (yes, there have been others who really meant well and often DID well). I'd hope anyone who thinks like you, that "Only a 'Catastrophe' that... utterly removes the 2 fossilised entities will change that in the end." can suggest a better way to go....we gotta have something to replace 'fossilised entities'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Ed T Date: 27 Apr 10 - 06:39 PM "When the fight was over, nothing was solved, but nothing mattered. We all felt saved". "it's like the little scratch on the roof of your mouth that would heal if only you could stop tonguing it, but you can't". "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero" Quotes, Fight Club |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: wysiwyg Date: 27 Apr 10 - 06:42 PM Like any other human bean I know, Bobert-speak-minus-context is just not the way to know Bobert. And there is still no substitute for actually getting to know another human being, which, IMO, is far preferable to THINKING we can/do know them with only-online impressions, anyway! This thread, for instance, just looks like One More Pissing Contest, altho I know a couple of you to be fine conversationalists and frontier-type thinkers. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 10 - 07:20 PM (*grin*...hi, Susan) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Ed T Date: 27 Apr 10 - 07:28 PM Pissing contest: Term most famously used by President Lyndon B. Johnson, perhaps the most foul-mouthed senior politician in the history of the USA, who famously instructedm,"not to get into a pissing contest with a polecat." Unfortunately, Johnson failed to take his own advice and embroiled American troops in Vietnam. (Urban dictionary) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: kendall Date: 27 Apr 10 - 07:46 PM From where I sit it looks like the repubs don't want to be included, but would rather just complain and hope they can poison enough minds to regain power in 2012. That is all they really want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Apr 10 - 08:03 PM "can suggest a better way to go" I thought I just had... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 10 - 08:34 PM infiltrate? pretty s-l-o-w.....and hard to pretend after awhile. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Bobert Date: 27 Apr 10 - 08:56 PM Hey, first of all, ya' gotta love this joint... Second of all, yeah, given that the year was 2004 I reckon I did kinda hit the nail on head... But, of course, as bruce is implying, tables turn and now it's the Repubs feeling left out and bullied... I don't see it that way myself 'cause I see Obama as alot more accepting tghan Bush was in '04... The problem is that when Obama holds his hand out to Repubs the Repubs ignore him... It wasn't like that with Bush... Bush was not a uniter, he was a divider from Day One... But what the hell do I know... I'm tired... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Rowan Date: 27 Apr 10 - 09:33 PM infiltrate? pretty s-l-o-w.....and hard to pretend after awhile. I try to keep out of commenting on other countries' politics as I regard it as rude for outsiders to comment on my country's. However, I suggest to Bill that Foolestroupe did suggest more alternative than just infiltration (difficult to successfully achieve, as Bill notes); Foolestroupe also outlined the mechanisms by which the two dominant parties can be made more attentive to those they Those mechanisms rely largely on the system of preferential voting that operates at all levels of govt in Oz. In posts on other threads (dealing with such mechanisms) I've attempted to explain them to northern hemisphere people who are unfamiliar with the concept, so I won't repeat them here. But, although there have been occasions when US voters have raised the concept to those with influence, the attempts universally failed; it seems "First past the post" is the only system that US voters can be brought to understand. Not many US voters know much about Oz so it's no surprise that they'll be unfamiliar with many of our eccentricities but, with the possibility of a 'hung Parliament' in Britain in a week or two, the possible introduction of preferential voting to the electorate(s) there may get more of an airing of the idea and its operation, with a consequent increase in understanding 'across the pond'. Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Apr 10 - 09:47 PM Yep Rowan, and didn't our Little fascist Johnny wet his pants when "Our Girl Pauline" walked out of her little Fish & Chip shop... :-0 She's just made the news again - she's selling her house to move to England (What! To join the BNP!!!!!!? - after all, she IS experienced in the ways of being elected to Parliament! Haha!) and has stated that she will refuse to sell her house to Muslims & other such 'terrorists'... sigh.... Now SHE is one who only got elected due to our preferential voting system, but haha! she didn't STAY in there long - once again due to our preferential voting system :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 10 - 10:28 PM Ok...I can see I need to research more about "Preferential voting" and 'proportional representation'. I have posted here before that our (the US) 2 party system can never accurately reflect the actual scale of opinions and affiliations of the electorate. The only system I have read much about is Israel's, where many parties form alliances, but many have seats in the Knesset. It would require quite a major restructuring for us, and I wouldn't take bets on either current party being willing to change, since both would lose 'some' influence that way. A brief reading tells me that Preferential voting would be easier to add, rather than changing the entire setup of Congress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: mousethief Date: 27 Apr 10 - 11:15 PM Ed T sez: Unfortunately, Johnson failed to take his own advice and embroiled American troops in Vietnam. We were in Vietnam before Johnson. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Rowan Date: 28 Apr 10 - 12:26 AM Ok...I can see I need to research more about "Preferential voting" and 'proportional representation'. Here's a start, Bill, cobbled together from some of my past posts and the instructions I included in the constitution of the local bushfire brigade we formed. It's a bit long but it's pretty complete and relatively simple to follow. In Oz, Preferential voting is used for lower house seats and Proportional representation with a Preferential distribution of votes is used for upper house seats; Tasmania uses it for its lower house seats as well. PREFERENTIAL VOTING SYSTEM VOTING PROCEDURE Each voter shall indicate their decreasing order of preference for candidates on the ballot paper by placing the number 1 against the name of the candidate of their first choice, the number 2 against the name of the candidate of their second choice, and so on until every candidate has a preference number against their name. Each ballot paper so completed is a formal vote: ballot papers not conforming to this description are declared informal and invalid by the Returning Officer. COUNTING PROCEDURE The Returning Officer shall sort the ballot papers into piles; one pile for each candidate given a formal vote and one pile for informal votes. The Returning Officer shall then count the number of papers in each pile to ensure that the total number adds up to the number of votes cast. Ballot papers containing informal votes play no further part in the election. Any candidate who has received more than half the first preferred choices is declared elected. Where no candidate receives more than half the first preferred choices the candidate with the lowest number of first preferred choices is eliminated and that candidate's ballot papers are distributed among the other candidates according to the second preferred choice on each ballot paper. Where this procedure gives any candidate more than half the total formal votes cast, that candidate is declared elected. Where no candidate receives more than half the total formal votes cast, the candidate with the next lowest number of first preferred choices is eliminated and that candidate's ballot papers are distributed among the other candidates according to the next preferred choice shown on each ballot paper. This redistribution of ballot papers is continued until a candidate's pile has more than half of the total formal votes cast; that candidate is declared elected. There is also, in some states, the Optional Preferential system of casting ballots. The Ballot paper is divided (usually by a horizontal line near the top) into two sections. "Above the line" there is only the full list of parties standing. The boxes are given numbered preferences by the voter (following the rules outlined above) and the distribution of preferences between them is conducted by the Returning Officer according to formal deals arranged between the parties and registered with the Returning Officer before Voting Day. "Below the line" there is the full list of candidates. If you wish to cast your vote here the procedure outlined above is followed for both casting and counting. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION This is used in the Senate and all State Upper Houses (Queensland has no upper house) and for each of the five electorates in Tasmania's Lower House, where it is known as the Hore-Clark System. At each Commonwealth election (where, usually, half the Senate is up for election; 6 seats for each State) a quota (required for a candidate's success) is 1/6th of the vote for that State. When a candidate has achieved enough primary votes to complete a quota, they are declared elected (after all challenges to counting have been resolved) and their excess primary votes distributed to the second ranking candidate in their party. In a situation where there are two dominant parties, this will usually ensure that each gets their top two candidates elected. Minor parties are more easily able to collect a quota in such elections because all they have to accrue is 1/6th of the voters for that state. It's after this that the fun starts. Those candidates whose primaries don't add up to a complete quota have their ballot papers redistributed according to the Preferential System outlined above until all quotas have been allocated. Once again, where there is Optional Preferential voting, you have "Above the line" and "Below the line" options to cast your vote. In Commonwealth elections when there has been a Double Dissolution (triggered by a situation where the Senate has twice rejected the same Bill passed to it by the House of Reps, forming a "trigger" that allows the Prime Minister to call such an election), the whole Senate (12 seats for each State) is up for election and a quota is 1/12th of the vote for that State. It is rare for candidates from minor parties to get up for a seat in the lower house (even with distribution of preferences) but minor parties have more success in the Senate, especially if it's a Double Dissolution. Immediately after the election following a Double Dissolution, the Senate sits with the House of Reps and the rejected Bill(s) is/are put to the combined mob, ensuring a political resolution to a what otherwise would be seen as a Constitutional quandary. The advantage of both Preferential voting and proportional representation is that they more easily allow minor parties to "get up" than does "first past the post" voting. The disadvantage is that there will usually be a few seats in the lower house that cannot be decided by the close of counting in the late evening of Voting Day; seats where the count is very close between candidates can be determined by the arrival of the post. In SA a few years ago, the deciding votes for the seat that gave control of the Legislative Assembly (the name for all the State Lower Houses) were said to be "coming down the dog fence in the saddle bags of a boundary rider". The more complex possibilities in the Senate mean the final Declaration of the Poll may take a couple of weeks; in a close election that keeps everyone on their seats, especially if a maverick gets up in the last remaining quota for one or more states as happened in Victoria recently. COMPULSORY VOTING My own preference is for compulsory voting, as it forces everyone to take some level of responsibility for the consequences. I realise that many duck any notion of responsibility in this matter and can even express it on the ballot papers. If you just number them in consecutive order down the list, it's counted as valid but is called a "donkey vote"; their proportion of the total is mulled over by psephologists. If you mark any part of the ballot paper outside the boxes (by writing derisive insults, for example) or use comments in the boxes, the ballot paper is classified "Invalid" and not counted to any candidate; the proportion of these in the total is described as "the protest vote" and is also mulled over by psephologists. Many of my American friends who thought compulsory voting was a generally good idea were not so sure when I told them that this meant that Australians were required to inform the Australian Electoral Commission (an arm of the Commonwealth Govt also used by State and Municipal Govts) of any change of address. The independence of the AEC ensured no nonsenses of the types we heard about a couple of years ago but they had to have a record (in the public domain) of where to mail the notification if you were to be fined. I'm not sure compulsory voting, compared with noncompulsory voting, would give a great difference in the results but I think it would certainly change the tactics used by both politicians and voters. I regard myself as unwilling to allow any arm of govt to arrogate to itself any responsibility I think I should exercise. I want to vote and I construct my tactics accordingly and then go and vote, even when I have to list 163 candidates in descending order of preference on a ballot paper the size of a decent tablecloth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Apr 10 - 12:33 AM "they had to have a record (in the public domain) of where to mail the notification if you were to be fined." Also this is "The Electoral Roll", which has your name and address, against which your names are marked off as you vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Apr 10 - 12:40 AM YA' know Bruce, its so damn easy to get bored with the lack of anything happening around here that a few trolls here and there are a welcome thing to at least break the boredom. THe other day I pissed on Joni Mitchell just for the hell of it and really enjoyed the results. I was even compared to Gargoyle! Your problem here is that you play the same "One Trick Pony" all the damn time and there's such a general lack of interest that even Bill is bored to tears. Got something new? Like the other night.......I watched Susan Eisenhower talking about the lack of moderate Republicans and the discussion turned to just how much things have changed. The group put forth the idea that her grandfather would be to the left of Obama today or at least right there with him. Now that was an interesting subject. Go for something different instead of the same old claptrap. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Apr 10 - 12:44 AM BTW, I forgot to add that in the best Mudcat tradition, thei thread has turned from crappo;a into something pretty educational (at least to me) and interesting. Good going OzLads! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Apr 10 - 02:34 AM Thanks you! of course we Aussies are much smarter than the average Yank! :-P When I was on the Uni of Qld Student Union, I helped count some votes for some casual vacancies. They used the Hore-Clark system. After the first one, it's pretty easy to shuffle the piles of paper. just to demonstrate WHY we Aussies... :-P |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Rowan Date: 28 Apr 10 - 02:39 AM Thanks for the compliment, Spaw. Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Apr 10 - 02:43 AM Actually, I do agree with BBs comments about 'brute power'.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: olddude Date: 28 Apr 10 - 08:06 AM Well a couple of things, My mom always taught me as a kid that if ya want to keep friends, stay away from politics and religion ... both of which we do no heed here and many of which have lost friends. Gotta be something more entertaining to discuss once in a while. Now as fer Bobster, 1) He is one of the nicest people on the planet. He also fights and has been in the line of fire for Civil Rights from day one. He is always looking out for the less fortunate in society. 2) One of the finest musicians on the forum, no one plays blues like Bob 3) Aside from his Hillybilly image that he likes to portray, Bob has a slew of advanced degrees, two of them in fine art, yes Bob is a master of fine art. They don't give that away believe me. He is the first to help you with any music, any research pretty much anything you need. You know how I know this ... cause I don't just talk about politics. It is much better trying to get to know someone other than just labelling them or thumping them on their politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Ebbie Date: 28 Apr 10 - 11:08 AM Hear, hear! We could use more people like Bobert. This country would not survive without its Boberts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Bill D Date: 28 Apr 10 - 11:54 AM wow...what a seemingly complex set of rules and ballot procedures. We have this 'modern' notion that election results ought to be available about 30 minutes after the polls close.(At least enough to know the winners) One thing I would worry about if even floating the IDEA of Aussie voting arrangements in this country is that we have so many more people and such widely varied demographics, both cultural and ethnic, that everyone would demand it all be tailored just to suit their personal ideas of 'fairness'. Add to that the almost vitriolic resistance to "having the government tell me what to do" in some areas, and I'm not sure any change would be accepted. Maybe at a state or county level...*shrug*. I suppose if we convinced them that it would be one way of getting some of their own offbeat ideas at least 'represented' in Congress, there might be some support, but then the current 2 parties would back off...I'll re-read all that after this hectic week and weekend.(gonna be out of town for 3 days) It is my general observation that Oz 'feels' a lot of national unity on major issues....I don't hear of NSW inherently distrusting the West, or of Melbourne hating Queensland on general principle...??? Do you have any thing like **Texas** there with a "we should damn well secede" attitude? (I'll be seeing Danny Spooner next week... I should pick his brain about it all.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Bobert Date: 28 Apr 10 - 12:45 PM Sheet fire, oldster... Lemme correct a few things so that folks don't thinkin' that I'm some kinda friggin' Boy Scout... First of all, I ain't got no advanced degrees... Yeah, okay, I got two degrees but they are both bachelors degrees and, yes, one is in "fine arts"... But no advanced ones that I remember... Great blues player??? Well, sheet fire, part 2... It the blues, gol danged it... It ain't rocket surgery!!! What else??? Oh yeah, research... Let's see what my fields of expertise are??? Ahhhhh, growin' my own weed... Knowin' where to get good moonshine... Hmmmmmmmm??? Can't think of much else of value unless it involves information on fixing yer old air-cooled VW or getting yer lawnmower to run... Yep, that about covers it... But thankee, none the less, oldster... Yer a fine feller fir saying them nice things about me but we're gonna have to ask you to... ...pee in this little plastic cup... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: olddude Date: 28 Apr 10 - 01:30 PM LOL, yas has forgotten more of blues history than I will ever learn ... and your knowledge of fine shine is beyond reproach ... and you know fine art ... you sly old mountain devil you .... ... and hey no one else ever taught me that you gotta shake the shine to see the bubbles or else don't drink it ... I could be playing the blues blind if it were not for that one ...LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Apr 10 - 07:29 PM QUOTE It is my general observation that Oz 'feels' a lot of national unity on major issues....I don't hear of NSW inherently distrusting the West, or of Melbourne hating Queensland on general principle...??? Do you have any thing like **Texas** there with a "we should damn well secede" attitude? UNQUOTE ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Haha! Oh Rowan, I'm laughing too hard, you wanna do this one? ;-) "I don't hear of" - ok, I will not play the "another damned ignorant Yank" card.. :-) "East Vs West - seceding" Well, have you heard of 'Hutt River Province" - Google... :-) It ACTUALLY seceded from Australia... produces great wine and postage stamps btw... pays no Australian taxes too... WA constantly carps that it wants to form its own COUNTRY - well then it would be ruled by a real C... (I'm a Queenslander!) "North vs South - hatred" Erm... that's what the followings of Thugball or Thugby, or the various other variations are based on! "Melboure vs the rest of Australia" Well actually, both Melbourne AND South Australia think they are the elitist places.... Apart from a much smaller population spread out more over pretty much the same land area as the Continental US, the fewer number of states just means that there are far fewer groups here trying to play the 'nationalist/statist' card against all the others, so I suppose we SEEM more united... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Apr 10 - 07:30 PM "pee in this little plastic cup..." Oh great! A busker who doesn't want money! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Rowan Date: 28 Apr 10 - 09:06 PM One thing I would worry about if even floating the IDEA of Aussie voting arrangements in this country is that we have so many more people and such widely varied demographics, both cultural and ethnic, that everyone would demand it all be tailored just to suit their personal ideas of 'fairness'. I suspect you've hit the nail on the head, Bill. We only got the preferential system in (at first, only in Commonwealth elections) in the 1970s, when there was a campaign for it that seemed to address long-standing disappointment with the inability to shake the dominance of the two major parties; the background is a bit complicated and really of interest only to historians, these days. On top of that, we have only about 1/15th of the US population, divided into six states instead of 50 (leading to fewer possibilities of state-based fracturing, although several of the larger states might have regions with particular views of themselves) and much less of entrenched "isolationists" (however real or perceived). My impression is that most in the US would describe themselves, if one asked them, as "Americans" first and foremost, and then get into the details of which part of the US they thought they "belonged" to, whereas I suspect many more (as a proportion) Australians might say (depending on context) which state they came from. Another potential difference, I suspect is that US citizens at a very fundamental level are encouraged to see themselves as the ultimate "individual", with extensions into notions of "community" developing outwards from that central view of themselves. At that same fundamental level I suspect Australians have always had a dialogue between notions of individuality and notion of communality, partly developed historically in the convict era and then encouraged by dealing with the tough vagaries of climate in the bush during development and now celebrated as "mateship" with images of ANZAC and similar evocations. But I don't see the same politicisation of regions (eg "Texans" vs the rest) except where Western Australians might see themselves as "a bit special and different from" the "easterners"; even then, I don't see it as extreme as in identifying US states as "red" or "blue" states. There are so few of us and we're so far away from the "real" centres of power that we probably stick together more than most northern hemisphere people feel is required of themselves. Vive la difference! Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: Bill D Date: 28 Apr 10 - 09:53 PM Ok, Fooles... 'Hutt River Province" ...nope, I had not heard of it. I guess I have missed a lot... I'll go read. I expect that your last line.."there are far fewer groups here trying to play the 'nationalist/statist' card against all the others, so I suppose we SEEM more united..." makes a lot of sense. Thanks,Rowan...that analysis helps a lot, and even with the ..umm... 'differences' that fooles mentions, I suspect it is pretty accurate. We DO have those who identify their regional or state...or even city identity as primary and they have this notion that the 'states rights' bit in the Constitution was somehow ordained by God to relieve them of any obligation to obey national rules....it's an interesting attitude. I often wonder if there's not some gene that tells some folks to proclaim "I don't like being told what to do!!"... so they interpret all laws in that light. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Past statements that come back... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Apr 10 - 10:47 PM Actually a fairly new Aussie site at the National Library of Australia that has been worked on for some years and just recently went live http://trove.nla.gov.au/ This could be handy for Folk researchers - e.g. see on Banjo Paterson "337 books, journals, magazines and articles; 145 pictures and photos; 193 music, sound, and video results; 4474 mentions in Australian newspapers; 487 archived Web sites; 18 diaries, letters, and archives results; and 49 biographical results." a review at http://apcmag.com/trove-mapping-australias-culture-where-google-fears-to-tread.htm Trove: mapping Australia's culture where Google fears to tread David Braue29 April 2010, 12:00 PM It takes guts to claim you're doing search better than Google, but the National Library of Australia reckons it's got a contender in its Trove search engine What do you get when you combine an open-source search engine, five dedicated software engineers, and the combined artistic resources of over 1000 libraries, museums, and other cultural institutions? In this case, you get Trove – a National Library of Australia (NLA) initiative whose creators are calling it the Google of cultural heritage institutions. Three years in the making, Trove is an offshoot of the Australian Newspapers Digitisation Program, a massive effort that has digitised and made available online 17 million historical articles from Australian newspapers between 1831 and 1954 since it began in March 2007. That program is set to catalogue 40 million articles by next year. Trove, developed by many of the same staff, manages metadata on over 90 million historically significant items including pictures, unpublished manuscripts, books, oral histories, music, videos, research papers, diaries, letters, maps, archived Web sites and newspapers from 1803 to 1954. "In the same way that Google would harvest Web sites, we've set up harvesting across cultural heritage institutions," explains Trove project manager Rose Holley. "The technology behind the scenes is similar to Google, but we've achieved a single search and Google isn't quite there yet." A search for Banjo Paterson, for example, turned up 337 books, journals, magazines and articles; 145 pictures and photos; 193 music, sound, and video results; 4474 mentions in Australian newspapers; 487 archived Web sites; 18 diaries, letters, and archives results; and 49 biographical results. Gallipoli was even better represented (see the search results in image below), with over 38,000 newspaper entries and 8000 images among the treasures indexed in the site. Trove isn't archiving the content itself, but manages metadata about indexed content. Thanks to a complex array of back-end connections with participating institutions – as well as with online databases like Amazon, Flickr, Google Books, and the Australian National Bibliographic Database – new content added to those institutions' collections is automatically referenced in Trove. Users wanting to access the actual items will be taken directly to their location online, and the NLA has also effected agreements with a range of booksellers to help users source certain available materials. "There should be no dead-ends," says Holley. Trove is based on the open-source Apache Lucene search engine, an offshoot of the Apache Web server project built from the ground up in Java. The NLA's implementation organises content into eight conceptual categories to help users narrow down their searches. "This is aimed at the general public of Australia and anyone who wants to find information on, by, or about Australians," Holley explains. "It has been quite challenging getting it to cope with someone like a schoolchild doing simple keyword searching. But we've had really, really positive feedback from the public." The site is only officially launching now, but has been in soft-launch status since December and is attracting about 500,000 unique visitors per month – reflecting both demand for the information it's providing, and acceptance of the site as it has evolved so far. But Trove is a moving feast, with new builds every two weeks "guided by the feedback we're getting from the public," says Holley. "Our big thrust with Trove is to get as much digital stuff as possible: we're on a drive for more activity from museums, archives, and art galleries in particular, and we're talking with the ABC about making its fantastic resources available through Trove." "Libraries and archives have been digitising letter, maps, diaries, newspapers and so on for a long time, and we know that public information-seeking happens. Many people just want to see what they can get – and Trove provides access to unique Australian resources on the deep Web that you wouldn't find elsewhere." |
