Text 6789, 99 rader
Skriven 2006-08-23 13:16:00 av Robert E Starr JR (7286.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
* * * This message was from Vorlonagent to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <o6ednXK79cOfNnHZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<1155541553.581894.307270@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com><0001HW.C105E6BD0053FA6EF0284530@news.verizon.net><MPG.1f4b2f2e98


<gabiks@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:1156310081.560709.145990@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

> i guess i'm really musing about cause and effect.  is the movement
> toward 'extremism' within the parties an organic process driven by the
> wants and needs of the voting public, or an artificial construct
> powered by sound bits and a need to tell people how to vote by
> providing a, ah,..... 'political compass' by which they might easily
> identify themselves as one thing or the other.

One factor you may be missing is success.  We're a very successful country. 
Nationally speaking we're up a level or two on Maslow's pyrimid.  We can 
afford to be at each other's throats over non-survival issues.

It's definitrly an artificial construct.  It may be powered by sound bites, 
but it's driven by money.  How a politician gets it and how his actions 
impact the way a company earns it.


> lately i'm wondering what all the fuss is about.  in so many ways i
> think our political system is completely broken.  not so much because
> of party in-fighting but because of a basic inability to think beyond a
> 2 year time frame.  never mind the out of the box thing.
>
> some friends and i were discussing our nations 'energy crisis.'  with
> conservation (i'm sorry i can't remember where i heard/read these
> numbers) we can stretch our current supply (reserves and what's
> available world wide) out for about 100 years, give or take.
>
> why?  from my point of view all this accomplishes is to allow car
> manufactures to limp along 'innovating' as little as possible for the
> least amount of retooling dollars.  it also conveniently dumps the
> problem in the lap of our grandchildren.
>
> we concluded it might serve us better as a nation (and a planet) to
> completely remove fossil fuel from the energy equation.  we proposed
> subsidizing gas down to 35 cents a gallon and offering huge tax
> incentives (as in a 100% deduction on price, insurance and mileage) on
> new car purshases; thus promoting everyone in the country to run out
> and buy the biggest, most gas guzzling suv on the market. we figured
> with a good "just fill up and go" ad campaign we could run out the
> entire world supply of gas in a week and a half. :^)

There are secondary considerations.  To those who believe in human-caused 
global warming, this would result in the scalding of the planet. 
Subsidizing gas to that tune would mean not only removing the taxes placed 
on gas but adding subsidies.  We're talking serious cash here.  Where does 
the money come from?  What other government projects get cut to free up the 
money?

How do you cleam up the mess when your idea succeeds and the entire world 
economy collapses?  If you're looking for humanity to commit racial suicide 
for the good of the planet, this sounds like a good start.


> which brings me back to....is pulling to the center really necessary?
> perhaps it would serve us better to let that go.  i understand that
> within the confines of a two party system the inability to offer up a
> much compromise, vote getting candidate is problematic.  but if there
> where 3 or possibly 4 parties?  if the lefting and righting of the
> parties is an 'organic' outcome of people voting on issues they relate
> to, why not invite an owl and a ferret to the convention?

Perhaps I used the wrong term.  I would define "pulling to the center" and 
realigning more toward the aggregate viewpoint of the american rank and 
file.  Parties can run to the fringes because there's where they get their 
money and comitted people-support from.

The US system is optimized for two parties.  More than two would create 
headaches.  Besides, two parties force a certain anoutn of cooperation and 
compromise on parties.  Strong third parties serve notice of evolutionary 
pressures to change or die.

-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones
                
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)