I don't know about that. "Experience" doesn't necessarily add up to anything when we talk about government. As much as we like to draw comparisons and seek out historical patterns, most of the problems governments face are different enough from each other to need different solutions, what "experience" tells people to do is diagnose and treat problems in the same way as they have in the past, which is fine if you're a mechanic, but society is actually a very fluid and dynamic machine that requires new solutions to new problems, regardless of familiarity.
There's a reason, I think, why neither Thatcher nor Blair, who were both elected Prime Minister 3 times each, managed to serve out a full third term. If every problem had a textbook solution, we'd be living in a perfect world.
You make an excellent point. After thinking on it a bit that there is almost a perverse sense of pleasure in the idea that Clinton could be getting back in office, however indirectly. That alone is not reason enough to want them in there. There actually could be a distinct downside to having someone who held the reigns getting in the way. Wanting someone else in there and "fixing" things quickly is certainly a knee jerk response to the current administration.Undoing eight years of stupidity is certainly not going to happen overnight.
We are economically and socially on the brink as government becomes more corrupt and big business becomes more autocratic. I sometimes wonder if a nice collapse would shake us out of our complacency?
Maybe not, as the only people who would be hurt would be the poor and middle classes. ("There ya go, bringing class into it again!" ) I can only hope that the average voter actually takes some time to do some research before voting. I'm starting to ramble and am about to tell you how I walked 5 miles to school uphill, and ate dirt and was thankful
so I'll end my little tirade now.
"Listen, man. Sleep gives you cancer. Everyone knows that."
Per this talk about 'experience', please check this out.
"Obama the inexperienced" is a popular notion, but (just like "Hillary the inevitable" was), it's based on a media narrative, not facts.
The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on my
skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their breath
and disappeared, my heart went cold, and only hollow
rhythms resounded from within.
If it means anything, I'd like to say that I think it's more important that Obama's innovative rather than "experienced". The guy's been in Politics and government for years, that's all the "experience" he needs; he needs to know the system through which his decisions will be implemented, but in a world that's constantly changing, I don't think that 8 years of watching your spouse do it is going to help.
I'd also like to say that I really hate it when I hear someone say "We need to go back to..." at the start of a suggested answer to a problem; if there wasn't something wrong with the old way of doing things, we never would have changed it in the first place.
"The way to a girls bed is through her parents. Have sex with them and you're in."
-- Zapp Brannigan
I'd like to say that I think it's more important that Obama's innovative rather than "experienced".
I agree.
Tell me, is there a prevailing opinion on the American candidates for president over in your neck of the woods? Am I correct in assuming that Obama is the favorite in Europe (or, at least, the UK)? Europeans aren't shy about how they feel regarding Chimpy (or what the States has been up to over the last 7 years), so I figure there must be some interest in who's gonna be the next US president.
The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on my
skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their breath
and disappeared, my heart went cold, and only hollow
rhythms resounded from within.
Am I correct in assuming that Obama is the favorite in Europe (or, at least, the UK)?
We care more about what goes on in American politics than Americans do about ours, but honestly, the public won't really have much of an opinion about the presidential candidates until after the primaries - we don't care that much . Sim and I are both more interested in global politics than the majority of EU citizens. In November we'll all be hoping a democrat wins, though.
I should point out that our news outlets have had pretty solid coverage of the Iowa caucuses, in depth we wouldn't see for any other country, including others in the EU, which illustrates just how important the US is to the rest of the world.
"The way to a girls bed is through her parents. Have sex with them and you're in."
-- Zapp Brannigan
It's like Rich said: There is a certain coverage in the news here about the primaries in the US, but I think most Europeans don't really care until the nominations are over.
I guess politically interested Europeans have a certain idea about the candidates -- especially Clinton is known, since her time as First Lady at least, and to a lower degree, politically interested Europeans will likely be able to tell you a few sentences on Obama, McCain, Giuliani and possibly Edwards. But although I consider myself more interested in politics than average, the names Huckabee and Romney were unknown to me until recently, and so would be Paul, if it hadn't been for SpaceGoat and Merlinus mentioning him on Trekweb.
I didn't find any recent polls about the preferences of Europeans regarding the different candidates, but whenever there were polls in the past, the Democratic candidates would win landslides in the major European countries (Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain) against Republicans and especially Bush:
In 2004, there was a poll Bush vs. Kerry in Europe, and Kerry would beat Bush 80% to 8% (in Germany) and 74% to 16% (in France) IIRC, and the numbers were similar in Britain and Spain, if I remember correctly.
The major European countries are structurally much more similar to the US "blue states", a religious right is virtually non-existent in the highly secular Europe, neither is there a pro-gun lobby and the "pro-life" movement is much weaker here too, while "socialism" (the idea of redistributing wealth by the state) is a strong force in European politics. So Republicans addressing the religious right are politically incompatible with Europe and will likely alienate many people here.
At least that's the case in the major European countries such as Britain, Germany, France, Spain and to a lesser degree Italy; highly catholic countries such as Poland or Ireland may be an exception here.
"In earlier religions the spirit of the time was expressed through the individual and confirmed by miracles. In modern religions the spirit is expressed through the many and confirmed by reason."
- Heinrich Heine (1797-1856)
Geezus. I wish we had some of what you got over there, dude.
The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on my
skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their breath
and disappeared, my heart went cold, and only hollow
rhythms resounded from within.
In Germany, France and Spain, Bush's approval rate was down to between 6% and 8% in December 2006, in Britain to 10% and Italy to 21%.
I also tried to dig up that poll I mentioned above, but the search feature on Trekweb is even more broken than ever before, and my google search didn't yield results either.
"In earlier religions the spirit of the time was expressed through the individual and confirmed by miracles. In modern religions the spirit is expressed through the many and confirmed by reason."
- Heinrich Heine (1797-1856)
Are Americans willing to vote someone who is not a white male into office?
Well you apparently would, Tober. Are you all that different from most other Americans?
I don't know - in some ways no and in other ways yes. When it comes to politics in general, a lie right in the middle of the road...I don't affiliate myself with either party and find things I like and don't like in each. I voted for Gore in 2000, but voted for the Republican candidate for governor in MD in both of the past elections here (he lost last time and that's a real shame for the state because O'Malley is running the place into the ground). I also find my particular morals and beliefs are at odds with many that I meet....Sid Vicious in an Armani suit is how one person once described me.
I concede that while there are people in the U.S. that are so racist they wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black, most of those people are from an aging generation that's had their way for far too long; and (as Obama's victory last night demonstrated) the rest of us--and we got the numbers--have had enough.
I would like to believe that racism is part of the "old guard" but I don't. I've seen this attitude not just here but all over the country during my travels...we're not as enlightened as a culture as some of us like to think we are.
If we all convinced ourselves, out of some play-it-safe attitude, that Obama cant be president because he's black (and thus voted for a white man so racist voters would help us put him in the white house), then we are directly perpetuating racism; and, as a result, being racist ourselves.
True. But when it comes right down to it...does the Dem party want to take the risk or maximize their own chances of getting their guy in the driver's seat. Remember - neither party cares what is the "right" thing to do...or what is best for the country...that comes second to their own, personal power and wealth.
Furthermore, last night, it was young voters (who came out in numbers not seen since freaking Bobby Kennedy), as well as republicans and independents that put Obama over Edwards and Clinton. We're talking about Iowa here, not Massachusetts or Vermont. If Obama has the support of not just white liberals, but white republicans and independents in a moderately conservative midwestern state, then he's going to win the democratic primary.
Time will tell. But it was voting limited to registered Democrats and I think part of the reason for the large turnout is we are seeing a concerted efforts by the Dems to get their people fired up for this election in order to get the GOP out of the White House. And as for young voters well...younger people tend to be a little more idealistic than realistic so, in the grand scheme of things, that may not mean much in the end.
> Knowledge is power...power corrupts...study hard...be evil <
SpiritOne wrote:
This country is full of rednecks, retards and baptists.
Tupperfan wrote:
Well, gotta put this thread back on track!
Even though I can't vote, my situation as a human and a neighbour makes me concerned and interested in US politics:
Dean, just read the speech and it just confirms the high esteem I have for Obama and his incredible oratory talents. The guy's a great American. Would be an even greater President.
And Jer, I must agree with you, cynism is passé. Optimism is the new black!
Science Bless America. (A nod to South Park)
I can understand why you're concerned...sooner or later there won't be any countries left in the mideast and some numbnuts in the White House may decide that we need more space and invade Canada Either that or we'll piss someone off to the point where they shoot a few missiles at us and, if their math is off well...bye bye Eton Center.
Obama is a great speaker...its passionate and it hits all the right buttons...but it still sounds like so much rhetoric to me.
Optimism is wonderful...but actions speak louder than ideals. Although my heart and soul are as black as the clothes I wear so maybe I just need to lighten up.
> Knowledge is power...power corrupts...study hard...be evil <
SpiritOne wrote:
This country is full of rednecks, retards and baptists.
I don't know about that. "Experience" doesn't necessarily add up to anything when we talk about government. As much as we like to draw comparisons and seek out historical patterns, most of the problems governments face are different enough from each other to need different solutions, what "experience" tells people to do is diagnose and treat problems in the same way as they have in the past, which is fine if you're a mechanic, but society is actually a very fluid and dynamic machine that requires new solutions to new problems, regardless of familiarity.
True - but at the same time you have such an entrenched system in place that almost guarantees that something too new or different will not succeed. You need someone who is able to introduce new solutions but, at the same time, has proposals that are not so radically different that they alienate all of those whose cooperation they will need to put those solutions into place.
> Knowledge is power...power corrupts...study hard...be evil <
SpiritOne wrote:
This country is full of rednecks, retards and baptists.
The major European countries are structurally much more similar to the US "blue states", a religious right is virtually non-existent in the highly secular Europe, neither is there a pro-gun lobby and the "pro-life" movement is much weaker here too, while "socialism" (the idea of redistributing wealth by the state) is a strong force in European politics. So Republicans addressing the religious right are politically incompatible with Europe and will likely alienate many people here.
I find that statement interesting, especially in light of the fact that many conservatives tend to equate liberals with socialism, while many on the left in this country tend to disavow the term.
> Knowledge is power...power corrupts...study hard...be evil <
SpiritOne wrote:
This country is full of rednecks, retards and baptists.
Tober138 wrote:I find that statement interesting, especially in light of the fact that many conservatives tend to equate liberals with socialism, while many on the left in this country tend to disavow the term.
That's why I put the term in speeck marks ... much of what is called "socialism" by certain people in America is merely social democratism or social liberalism, but far from actual socialism or even communism.
Unlike in America, "socialism" is not such a villified term in Europe. At least not to the same degree. In many European countries, the major left wing party is even called "Socialist Party" and there are "Communist" Parties (i.e. in France, Italy, Spain), although they are not really socialist anymore, but social democratic or social liberal. In most cases, they are not even much different from, say, the left wing of the Democrats anymore. But they keep their names for traditional reasons.
At any rate, the idea the state should redistribute wealth in order to support the unfortunate, and to minimize inequality is very vivid in Europe ... to a lesser degree in Britain, but very much so in France, Scandinavia and Italy; Germany and Spain are somewhere in the middle.
"In earlier religions the spirit of the time was expressed through the individual and confirmed by miracles. In modern religions the spirit is expressed through the many and confirmed by reason."
- Heinrich Heine (1797-1856)
Erm...since when? Britain has universal healthcare, state pensions, unemployment benefit is high enough for plenty of people to live comfortably enough not to want to go back to work, finance for education is available to anyone, plenty of disability benefit, kids get fed two meals for free by schools, and on top of that there are dozens of different "get back to work" programs that'll buy people cars, suits, equipment - whatever they need to get working and support their families in the interim.
I think the UK spends plenty of money on the welfare state, and that the biggest problems we have are administrative and cultural.
"The way to a girls bed is through her parents. Have sex with them and you're in."
-- Zapp Brannigan
I'm sure the idea of redistribution and welfare state are still stronger in Britain than in the US. But you had Thatcherism, and thanks to that a major streamlining of the welfare state. Because of that, your state quota and welfare systems are much smaller than in most other Western European countries (not considering the formerly communist new EU members in the east, which may be hardly comparable).
And your conservatives run on comparatively market-radical platforms that would probably push them below 10% in other European countries, and even Labour has become a social liberal party, which is hyper neo-liberal compared to the Socialist or Social Democratic Parties in France, Italy and Scandinavia.
In Germany and France, the left will occasionally point to Britain as a horrifying example, condemn the horrible state of health care ("you can determine the income of a Briton by looking at the state of his teeth, because poor people have no way anymore to pay a dentist" ) and, especially, the complete chaos since the privatization of the railroad system.
"In earlier religions the spirit of the time was expressed through the individual and confirmed by miracles. In modern religions the spirit is expressed through the many and confirmed by reason."
- Heinrich Heine (1797-1856)
As I said, the biggest problems Britain has are administrative and cultural.
And your conservatives run on comparatively market-radical platforms that would probably push them below 10% in other European countries,
Like what? I haven't heard a leading Conservative say anything radical in years, the only ones calling for large scale backwardness are backbenchers.
Labour has become a social liberal party, which is hyper neo-liberal compared to the Socialist or Social Democratic Parties in France, Italy and Scandinavia.
Labour changed their position a long time ago - trying to compare them to Social Democratic parties now is just ridiculous, and I don't really see what it accomplishes.
In Germany and France, the left will occasionally point to Britain as a horrifying example, condemn the horrible state of health care ("you can determine the income of a Briton by looking at the state of his teeth, because poor people have no way anymore to pay a dentist" )
LOL, how "enlightened" of them. They have a lot of Asian doctors in the NHS, they should bust 'em on that one too. "You can tell you're in a British Hospital because the Doctor will try and sell you a watch", hilarious.
and, especially, the complete chaos since the privatization of the railroad system.
That was a mistake, but to be fair, the privatisation of utilities has worked out for the most part - and isn't a far cry from the rest of Europe, but this has nothing to do with the topic of poverty anyway.
Most of what you blame on the lack of concern for, or spending on the poor, is actually the result of neither. It has a lot more to do with the incredibly poor way this country's tax money is administered.
"The way to a girls bed is through her parents. Have sex with them and you're in."
-- Zapp Brannigan
Rich wrote:
Like what? I haven't heard a leading Conservative say anything radical in years, the only ones calling for large scale backwardness are backbenchers.
Well ok, I didn't pay much attention to their recent development ... but I think someone like Thatcher would have real problems in the conservative parties of other European countries and could hardly get through such a radical reform plan, because people's belief in social democratism in these countries is too strong.
Labour changed their position a long time ago - trying to compare them to Social Democratic parties now is just ridiculous, and I don't really see what it accomplishes.
That's exactly my point. You don't have any "social democratic" or even "socialist" party in Britain anymore. There is no left in Britain anymore, unlike in France, Germany, Scandinavia, Italy and so on. Labour has become a liberal party, or at very least a social liberal one.
"In earlier religions the spirit of the time was expressed through the individual and confirmed by miracles. In modern religions the spirit is expressed through the many and confirmed by reason."
- Heinrich Heine (1797-1856)
Rich wrote:
Like what? I haven't heard a leading Conservative say anything radical in years, the only ones calling for large scale backwardness are backbenchers.
Well ok, I didn't pay much attention to their recent development ... but I think someone like Thatcher would have real problems in the conservative parties of other European countries and could hardly get through such a radical reform plan, because people's belief in social democratism in these countries is too strong.
Thatcher's reforms barely did get through - there was a huge amount of resistance to them even within her own party. Had the Economy and the general feeling in the country not been in the state it was at the time, it would never have happened, as it was massively controversial. What Thatcher did was put an end to 35 years of what is known as the "Post War Consensus", where neither of the major parties expressed any desire to interfere with the welfare state Clement Atlee created in the years immediately after the war. The success of Thatcher's measures is the only reason why they've mostly gone untouched since and why Labour's had to change so much.
There is no left in Britain anymore, unlike in France, Germany, Scandinavia, Italy and so on. Labour has become a liberal party, or at very least a social liberal one.
I don't know what Labour has become, but it's certainly not 'liberal', not with their Civil Rights abuses.
As far as I'm concerned, "left" means people who want to raise taxes for the benefit of the poor - in which case you're talking about the Liberal Democrats (which is a party born out of a marriage between the Liberals and the Social Democrats Party), as well as a large portion of the Labour Party. It remains to be seen what will happen to Labour now that Tony Blair is out and Gordon Brown - a man known to be more of a traditional Labour party member - is in. Considering that it's looking like we're going to get another recession soon and that Labour has fallen out of favour with the public, it'll be interesting to see how this works out. One thing's for certain though - part of the reason that the Conservatives are ahead in the polls is that David Cameron has made his support for welfare state institutions well known.
But I'm not really sure what exactly you're getting at with this anyway. We've already established that the consensus that the state should look after the poor is very strong in Britain.
I honestly believe that most of the problems we have in Britain have more to do with flaws in the system of wealth distribution, rather than the lack of one. I find the way that a lot of our government organisations are administered very badly, with counter productive targets, incompetent, lazy and badly trained staff etc. Lots of people who are entitled to benefit don't claim what they're owed because they don't know they're entitled.
"The way to a girls bed is through her parents. Have sex with them and you're in."
-- Zapp Brannigan
Hey Rich, thanks for your insights in British politics!
Anyway, all I wanted to say is that in Britain, the welfare state is relatively small, compared to France and Scandinavia especially, but Germany and Italy as well. And I believe "liberal" small-state ideas fly better in Britain than in most of these continental European countries. And unlike in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia, there is no genuinely socialist party in Britain anymore (while such far-left parties score up to 15% here, and they even proudly use the label "socialist" ). Also, Thatcher broke the influence of the unions and they are only a shadow of their former selves now, while they remain very strong in Italy and especially France.
But of course, when you contrast Britain to the USA, it's still a socialist hellhole, so much is sure. It's just the most "free market-liberal" country in Western Europe, I'd say.
And for that you don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the bigger the welfare state is, the better. While I believe a solid welfare state is necessary to help those actually in need, I also believe enough incentives to take responsibility for the own life must remain, those actually in need must be targeted well and abuse minimized, and the way the welfare state is organized should hamper with market mechanisms as little as possible. That's why I believe the according reforms in Germany 2003/04 were a good step in the right direction (although bitterly opposed by the far-left), and France could use a thorough streamlining of their bloated state as well.
So I agree with you that those problems resulting from poor implementation of current systems are probably the most urgent problems to solve. Any welfare state, no matter how big, should be as efficient as possible.
"In earlier religions the spirit of the time was expressed through the individual and confirmed by miracles. In modern religions the spirit is expressed through the many and confirmed by reason."
- Heinrich Heine (1797-1856)
The term "Socialist" without a qualifier lost it's public appeal here during the Cold War, for obvious reasons.
there is no genuinely socialist party in Britain anymore (while such far-left parties score up to 15% here, and they even proudly use the label "socialist" ). Also, Thatcher broke the influence of the unions and they are only a shadow of their former selves now, while they remain very strong in Italy and especially France
It's a little more complicated than that. Britain has plenty of obscure far-left and far-right parties, but neither of them really gain much ground due to the way the electoral system works, and the public's voting mentality, which is either based on blind loyalty to one party or the desire to vote against one. The Conservatives and Labour remind me of two companies who continually bid against each other for a contract to do the same thing for the same amount of money - the idealism has left the public arena.
What I'm hoping for is that there's a hung parliament after the next election and that it results in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats before someone calls another election (which has historically resulted in even more pragmatic voting).
"The way to a girls bed is through her parents. Have sex with them and you're in."
-- Zapp Brannigan
Jeremy 01/17/2025 03:20:07 Heh...those were my favorite parts.
Sim 01/17/2025 03:17:08 compared to the version i posted on trekweb, i added a few details, in case you haven't noticed ... was too tempting throwing ann coulter and bill o'reilly into the mix
Jeremy 01/17/2025 03:11:52 Oh, they're not written yet. Gotta finish season 1 still.
Sim 01/17/2025 03:10:42 sounds very promising! i'll check out the mirror episodes soon!
Jeremy 01/17/2025 03:06:55 One of my heroes, actually.
Jeremy 01/17/2025 03:06:25 Hmm...Huey Newton, maybe.
Sim 01/17/2025 03:04:20 jer, i'm glad you like it! do you have a proposition for the role of CRN chairman? it was the one role i had the hardest time finding someone for ...
Jeremy 01/17/2025 02:57:01 If you wanted to check it out, the subject of alternate history is also addressed in the second from the top entry of the Essays section (For Now We See Through a Glass, Darkly).
Jeremy 01/17/2025 02:56:28 He really wasn't the radical people make him out to be. Otherwise, it was a very chillingly possible scenario.
More 
. Sim and I are both more interested in global politics than the majority of EU citizens. In November we'll all be hoping a democrat wins, though.
Guests Online: 1
v6.00.307 ? 2003-2025