Pangloss

Hey guys, I just wanted to mention that I haven't abandoned you, I'm just totally overwhelmed right now with schoolwork and other projects. I've at least scanned over most of the threads in the Politics board, and you guys are having some great discussions in there and I wish I had time to jump in. As always the level of discussion that takes place here is just outstanding. Soon as things level off here I promise I'll be back in the fray.

No, it doesn't do that at all, any more than the right-wingers can say that that web site shows us that nearly half of the population of this country is "stupid". No, it doesn't do that either. This discussion board does that. That web site does not. Sounds like my kind of folks.

My review: Strictly partisan, far-left fare. Not for reasonable minds, except as entertainment value. It is kinda funny, but it's a one-joke deal.

Nicely argued. An interesting example of how you can start running into trouble if you stray from the purpose of funding the government into dealing with social injustice.

That's just.... sad. A radical-left friend of mine sent me an email this morning saying they were renting a billboard along I-95 to show the Iraqi war dead totals and other statistics. I'm reminded of that Tyler Durden line in Fight Club, "How's that working out for you?"

To quote Dennis Miller, "sounds like somebody's forgotten he's the head of a puppet regime!" (grin)

One of the Sunday morning pundits (I think on Meet the Press) suggested that the president appoint Tom Daschle as co-head of a bipartisan investigation into reforming the election process nation-wide. Sounded like a good idea to me.

This is a twist on the standard county-level electoral map, done by a professor at Princeton. The problem with those "sea of red" maps is that they convey the idea that the "red states" are 100% pro-Bush, when in fact that's just an artifact of the electoral college system (nor are the "blue states" typically 100% pro-Kerry). We all know this intuitively, but there wasn't a really good graphic that showed it. Well, no longer. This map actually conveys the county-by-county vote using shades, from blue to red, indicating percentages. http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/ It sure gives a much different perspective, doesn't it?

hehe

No, again, this is a common misperception. Republicans had their portenting victories, but Democrats continued to dominate southern politics right up to the 1980s. I've cited sources above.

I've been amazed at what I can get off Napster for a ridiculously cheap monthly subscription. Stealing is out of the question for me. I did a little piracy when I was a poor, broke college student, but I figure I have no excuses now. Those musicians have a right to be paid. But the high price of CDs is ridiculous -- THIS is the future of music. It's an imperfect picture, to be sure. DRM is a fascinating area of development, and still very much in need of work. I've bought books and then had to deal with the frustration of not being able to read them again because I reloaded the operating system. Quite frustrating. But the potential for dealing with these problems is there, it's just a matter of getting the work done. By the way, that's a good comparison right there. I reloaded Windows on my main PC over the last couple of days. Adobe F'ed me over and I lost my electronic copy of Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack", which I downloaded back when it first came out. On the other hand, all of my Napster music (the stuff I got for "free" with the monthly fee) was fine -- I could play it again right after signing in with the Napster software. That's perfect. (Another thing I like about Napster is that they have a decent collection of classical and opera. I can throw on a complete opera and get the value of my monthly payment back almost immediately.)

Quite interesting, thanks.

Ophiolite: Just to make sure I understand, are you basically suggesting that Blair might win the election, but Labour win the majority of seats, and then replace Blair via parliamentary methods? (Or is my understanding of how that works completely off?)

No worries, I meant it in an friendly way. I happen to like popular catch-phrases and witty slogans, as I'm sure many here will (painfully) attest. I sympathize with your disappointment in this thread. I'm afraid you just have the bad luck of hitting a smart crowd with a familiar argument. If you have anything else to add in defense of anarchy I'm sure we'll be happy to listen. It's a pretty receptive group here, or so it seems to me. They've certainly heard me climb on the soapbox a few times.

I don't know that I'd go around quoting Plato as a proponent of anarchy. He was opposed to democracy. There is a difference. Just to give an obvious example, he said, "Laws are partly formed for the sake of good men, in order to instruct them how they may live on friendly terms with one another, and partly for the sake of those who refuse to be instructed, whose spirit cannot be subdued, or softened, or hindered from plunging into evil." I'm afraid you're going to have to better than popular catch-phrases and witty slogans with this crowd.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6407893/ I think that sums it up nicely.

Yeah. I mean, you could try "PROGRESSIVE!", but it just doesn't have the same ring to it, and it might lead your friends to try and locate a second rope.

...

... they go and get all strange! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3983847.stm (hehe)

The Wikipedia has some good stuff on this. Try these articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism The last article may be the most pertinent to the term as it applies to the most recent election. It's fairly logical to lump most of these issues into one big boat and call it "liberal": Fairly well-accepted "mainstream" liberal positions (often accepted by people on the right, just not as commonly): - Abortion choice should be "yes" - Gun control is a good thing; more gun control is a better thing - We don't do enough to help people in need - Bigger government, smaller businesses (obviously I'm painting in very broad strokes here) To the farther left (rarely accepted by the right), we reach positions like these: - Jobs are a right, not a priviledge; never mind what makes them, government owes us - Everyone should be given at least a "living wage"; doesn't matter if they're earning it or not, if you pay them more then it's good for everyone automatically - Tax the rich to feed the poor -- income should be actively redistributed - Pretty much anything that would cause Ayn Rand to turn in her grave

The wha....? English currency has always been a source of (respectful) amusement to me, ever since I went to England as a youngster. I believe I was 12, because I'm pretty sure it was 1977, as a lot of the double-decker busses were painted silver for the Queen's 25th anniversary (if my memory hasn't failed me). I believe you guys had just switched over from the old system, which apparently had all sorts of strange rules about shillings and whatnot, into a more metric-like system with 100 pennies to the pound. (Totally talking off the cuff here, by all means correct me if I'm wrong.) At any rate I just remember finding the whole thing endlessly fascinating. Neil Stephenson has an amusing scene early in "Quicksilver" that takes place between Isaac Newton and a lens grinder at Stourbridge Fair in 1665, just before the plague and great fire. The scene basically consists of Newton negotiating the purchase of some lenses for experimentation, and it more or less builds on the familiar territory of complicated English currency and by showing how endlessly MORE complex it must have been at that time. "Black currency", "pieces of eight", people chopping bits off coins, etc. Really great stuff. (If anybody wants to hunt that down, it's around page 84 of the hardcover edition. Great way to pass a few minutes over a cup of coffee at the bookstore.)

Ophiolite, I don't mean to sound so aggressive. I understand where you're coming from there and I don't blame you for having that opinion. All I'm saying is that polarization is a two-way street.

Is a quid a pound? Just curious.

I often bemoan the awareness of US political issues overseas. Then they go and prove me wrong. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11296126%255E25377,00.html This fellow seems to have an excellent grasp -- more so than a lot of Democrats, I must say. Democrats keep picking northern liberals, and they keep losing. You'd think they'd have learned that lesson with Clinton, but apparently they needed to learn it again. This author doesn't touch on the subject of early primaries, but that's the reason why, and if Democrats are smart they'll find a new way to pick their candidate in 2008. Anyway, the article above has some excellent insights and is worth reading. Here are a couple of excerpts I found particularly interesting: (chuckle) The author obviously has a sense of humor, which always makes things interesting. Anyway, check it out, it's a good (and short) read.