prev <-> next
[2010-01-26 10:29:45] - 3. sometimes the reporters "repeat" their jokes when the audience is really loud. now i know this is because it's really hard for the audience to hear the show over laughter/cheering. i was in the front row and i sometimes had to strain to hear what people were saying. ~a
[2010-01-26 10:27:32] - i was surprised by a lot of things. 1. they do almost no editing on the show. the show the audience sees is pretty much the same as what gets aired minus the bleeps. 2. all the graphics and video are ready for taping so they really don't have to do any work besides the minor editing to get ready for air. i guess they only have a few hours after taping anyways. ~a
[2010-01-26 10:24:22] - it was pretty sweet! they had a comedian come on before the show to get us riled up. he was hilarious. also stewart told a few jokes before the show started. i'm surprised they're able to do that every night. well . . . almost every night. ~a
[2010-01-26 09:41:05] - bah, enter key fail. extremely cool that you were in the audience. what was it like? - pierce
[2010-01-26 09:40:46] - just messing with you, it's extremely cool that you were in the audience
[2010-01-26 09:40:25] - a: I would have, but I suddenly had this overwhelming premonition that it was going to be an extremely dorky episode.
- pierce[2010-01-26 09:15:13] - did anyone catch the daily show last night? ~a
[2010-01-26 09:13:22] - Xpovos: Ha! I especially like the part where he talks about how they are all too big to fail.
Not sure why I posted that article, I don't recognize a lot of stocks there that I ever ended up buying. -Paul[2010-01-26 08:54:36] - Index Funds for the win! -Daniel
[2010-01-26 08:45:01] - Paul: The sub-post article that you mentioned as finding interesting recommended buying these stocks: Ford, General Motors, Fannie Mae as three of the ten. Now, if you'd bought in Jan 2006 and only held for one year, that may not have been terrible, but ow, those are some bad long-term picks. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-25 15:15:18] - Kein Mehrheit Für Die Mitleid
[2010-01-25 14:45:13] - Keine Revolution für Pierce! - Stephen
[2010-01-25 13:32:53] - stephen: the proletarian us are sick of our subjugation at the hands of the royal you. ¡Viva la revolución! - pierce
[2010-01-25 13:30:08] - Rage against the Anonymous Machine - Eponymous
[2010-01-25 13:29:26] - ANONYMOUS OUTRAGE - its the best kind.
[2010-01-25 12:43:24] - blank: The royal we are not amused by your anonymous posts. - Stephen
[2010-01-25 12:23:45] - xpovos: we are not fooled by your phony outrage
[2010-01-25 11:55:28] - mig: http://www.cnbc.com//id/35059638 Looks like Bernanke is going to get a second term after all. -Paul
[2010-01-25 11:07:44] - Augh! The Channel! We had a deal, France. We had a deal! -- Xpovos
[2010-01-25 11:04:40] - OK, ok. I'm toggling. Stupid Channel. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-25 10:56:23] - yeah my opinion of obama just keeps dropping further and further. I think he's dropped the ball on almost all his promises so far. I guess we may still get a health care system, who knows what it will look like at this point - vinnie
[2010-01-25 10:35:55] - Just need Xpovos to toggle in 2010-2 to process the turn.
[2010-01-22 14:34:53] - Mig: Certainly a reason why Congress would be hesitant to vote for another term for him. I still would be surprised if he wasn't re-appointed, though. -Paul
[2010-01-22 14:28:46] - paul: also his arrogant resistance to attempting to bring more transparency to the Federal Reserve's actions has not endeared him to either side of the political spectrum either. - mig
[2010-01-22 14:25:58] - a: There are many people who think he could've done more to prevent the financial problems the country had and that the actions he has taken have made matters worse or could lead to more problems down the line. -Paul
[2010-01-22 14:24:24] - Nina: Normally, I would, but I'm going to be hanging out with Dave on Sunday. We might watch parts of the games, but sadly all my teams have been eliminated so I don't care too much who moves on. -Paul
[2010-01-22 13:24:56] - Does anyone have any plans to watch the NFC and AFC Championship games this weekend? -nina
[2010-01-22 12:53:31] - a: I'm sure you'd fit right in. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-22 12:46:40] - paul: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100122/ts_afp/financeeconomyusbank - mig
[2010-01-22 12:44:25] - sweet, i like life. maybe i should join in. ~a
[2010-01-22 12:28:14] - a: 37th March for Life. It's bound to make traffic a mess. I imagine 14th St, the Mall area, and Union Station will be the worst hit. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-22 12:23:42] - what did bernanke do wrong? ~a
[2010-01-22 12:18:43] - why what happens in dc today? ~a
[2010-01-22 12:17:12] - paul: that's why I added maybe, though he isn't exactly universally loved on the liberal side. - mig
[2010-01-22 12:16:54] - Anyone driving into D.C. today? -- Xpovos
[2010-01-22 12:04:24] - Mig: I would be pretty surprised if Bernanke didn't get re-appointed and even if he didn't I don't know if his replacement is going to be any better. Besides, I'm going to guess Pierce sees Bernanke more as a savior than a problem (although I could easily see myself being wrong here). -Paul
[2010-01-22 12:02:16] - well, bernake is probably going to get ousted as the chairman of the federal reserve. His term is up on 1/31 and the senate doesn't appear to have the votes to reconfirm him. Maybe that's good news for progressives? At least I see it as some good news anyways. - mig
[2010-01-22 11:57:47] - a: I'm not so sure about that. it sounded to me like Dave was making excuses for him just like Vinnie was. -Paul
[2010-01-22 11:47:31] - anyways, what are you quoting there? it seems like a number of people (like dave) were agreeing with you. ~a
[2010-01-22 11:43:34] - wow it's even colored green. ~a
[2010-01-22 11:42:59] - paul.w.aporter.org! hehehe. ~a
[2010-01-22 11:37:29] - http://paul.w.aporter.org/msg/?action=prev&prev=94500#94539 Ah, there it is. -Paul
[2010-01-22 11:36:03] - Nina: Yeah, I would say that this week's "we can detain some people indefinitely, just fewer than Bush did" proclamation was a blow to progressive politics. - Stephen
[2010-01-22 11:36:03] - Nina: Ah, excellent catch. I didn't realize that he had finally officially broken his promise. Now where is that previous debate I had on the message board about that...? -Paul
[2010-01-22 11:22:50] - It's new in the sense that he promised to close it down in a year, and this week, he officially broke that promise -nina
[2010-01-22 11:17:37] - nina: But hardly something new in the past week. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-22 11:05:13] - air america was still around? I thought they were out of business years ago. - mig
[2010-01-22 11:00:45] - Paul: I think the fact that Guantanamo is still around after Obama promised to close it is another blow to progressive politics. -nina
[2010-01-22 09:47:05] - Oh, I guess Air America is finally shutting down. -Paul
[2010-01-22 09:12:20] - Pierce: Am I missing anything beyond the election of Brown and the Citizens United vs FEC ruling? -Paul
[2010-01-22 08:34:16] - Stephen: i was listening to NPR this morning and they were talking about the courts being forced to legislate from the bench because the legislature never bothered to define "enemy combatant". i think i have a better understanding of what you're were talking about over dinner the other night now. -nina
[2010-01-22 01:33:21] - pierce: bitter. ~a
[2010-01-22 01:07:50] - but maybe I'm just bitter about what has been a super-shitty week for progressive politics. - pierce
[2010-01-22 01:07:16] - most of the u.s. seems to have accepted the narrative that (1) civil rights are for law-abiding americans, (2) even then it's not as important as national security as defined by those who would be the ones violating those rights, and (3) miranda rights in particular are kind of a grey area, instituted by them activimist judges. - pierce
[2010-01-21 18:05:07] - but he is an enemy combatant. he's not a regular criminal. right? ~a
[2010-01-21 17:47:29] - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31825.html treating a person who committed a crime as a criminal? outrageous! - mig
[2010-01-21 17:46:51] - actually, i don't know if anyone at all cares about george bush at this point. - mig
[2010-01-21 17:46:25] - a: michael steele probably does. - mig
[2010-01-21 17:25:33] - i wonder, do black people care about george bush? ~a
[2010-01-21 16:45:20] - http://www.digitalspy.com/showbiz/news/a198282/kanye-west-snubbed-for-haiti-telethon.html This is a damned shame, I would've loved to have seen how he could've topped "George Bush doesn't care about black people". -Paul
[2010-01-21 16:24:41] - a: I like green and blue but those seem to be taken already. -Daniel
[2010-01-21 16:21:36] - a: Boo. At least things are moving in the right direction. iPhone will likely be on Verizon before 4Q, possibly before 3Q. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-21 16:15:39] - daniel, what is your favorite color? ~a
[2010-01-21 15:17:40] - xpovos: i know! i have to wait until the second quarter of 2010 for it to be on CDMA though. ~a
[2010-01-21 14:27:28] - Daniel: S'ok. I doubt I would've read everything I wrote either. Most of it seemed pretty balls. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-21 12:59:43] - a: do you mean the color of my name? i have no idea what i want that to be. -Daniel
[2010-01-21 12:59:10] - xpovos: I was just skimming through all the stuff because a lot had been written since I last checked so I missed the facetious part but thats my bad for skimming.
-Daniel[2010-01-21 12:58:18] - aaron: I think I would agree with the existance of a better voter as laid by you. I'm not sure when Xpovos was arguing for a 'good' voter thats what he meant. If thats all he meant then ok but in my mind he was talking about a different distinction.
[2010-01-21 12:39:27] - paul: right, well, i meant the name of the senator that was elected but i guess if you know the name of the other one that's bonus points on your VATs - aaron
[2010-01-21 12:37:49] - http://twitter.com/shitmydadsays - aaron
[2010-01-21 12:28:02] - Aaron: We actually have two, unless you are referring to the state senate.
-Paul[2010-01-21 12:26:53] - daniel: and i think i am, by definition, a "better voter" than Zack's two-week-old baby, because I am capable of voting for the same person twice (even if the ballot were rearranged) - aaron
[2010-01-21 12:25:26] - daniel: for example, i think xpovos and paul are by definition "better voters" than me. they probably know the names of two candidates in the previous senatorial election. as a matter of fact they probably know the name of our senator
- aaron[2010-01-21 12:23:59] - daniel: well, i'm saying someone who fails those two very basic criteria is obviously a bad voter, and maybe someone who fails those other 7-8 criteria is a bad voter too. but my point is that, it can be measured, and can (up to a point) be an absolute definition. I don't think it's like "oooh maybe he's a good voter and maybe he's not" - aaron
[2010-01-21 12:07:43] - The Nexus One (aka Google Phone) has a 1GHz processor. Wow. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-21 11:38:02] - Everyone would have everything they want, except those who don't deserve it. I could go on. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-21 11:36:06] - a: My country would be a glorious utopia where everyone will eat milk and honey and cream and strawberries, unless they don't like those foods. All of the children will be above average, no one will be poor, there will be no violence, and all conflict, which is impossible, would be solved by me immediately. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-21 11:32:07] - a: It's possible, but unclear. And the joke misplaced, if so, in my opinion, as I didn't find it funny. But my sense of humor isn't always in line with the majority, so I'll accept it if that were the case. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-21 10:29:50] - xpovos: maybe daniel was being facetious.
i think you should tell us how you plan on running your country. ~a[2010-01-21 10:24:10] - daniel, what do you want your color to be? ~a
[2010-01-21 10:18:51] - Daniel: I twice in the same post indicated that the answer of me as a dictator as the ideal government was facetious. I don't think I can do more than that. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-21 09:56:27] - educated voter. -Daniel
[2010-01-21 09:56:21] - From the way it was being discussed earlier it sounded to me like someone who understood and would actively vote every time to elect Hitler would be deemed a 'bad' voter. However if this voter fully understood the choice and was actively picking Hitler then he would be 'good' by your definition. If I am mistaken then it seems Xpovos is arguing for a politically...
[2010-01-21 09:50:22] - but the distinction is meaningless; the point is that there is such a thing as a "good/competent" voter and a "bad/incompetent" voter - aaron
[2010-01-21 09:48:21] - or taking it further than that, do they understand the long-term ramifications of the candidate's policies? have they read up on case studies where similar polices were enacted? have they served in politics themselves? supposedly somewhere between the beginning of this list, and the end of this list, you are talking about "good" and not about "competent" - aaron
[2010-01-21 09:46:04] - daniel: i think that distinction is very blurry. does a person know which person they want to vote for? how about which party? do they know anything about that person or party? do they know more than one issue? do they know more than ten issues? do they know that candidate's voting record or political history? - aaron
[2010-01-21 09:37:24] - Aaron: I might describe that voter more as competent than good or bad. -Daniel
[2010-01-21 09:35:35] - successfully over time and not just for one lifespan. -Daniel
[2010-01-21 09:35:19] - Xpovos: "Yes. Me. As a dictator" - what happens when you die? does your form of government have any plans for continuity? Is there a way to account for the next dictator being terrible? Or is your plan for good government only extending to your life time. However countries (hopefully) last longer than one generation so the goverment should have some plan to...
[2010-01-21 09:35:19] - i think that's setting the bar ridiculously low but, i agree with the basic premise of disallowing 'bad voters' from voting - aaron
[2010-01-21 09:34:43] - and a 'good voter' should also probably be able to distinguish real candidates and real political parties from made up ones. so if the ballot lists 'Dr Fregorious Xaply of the Freedomites' and you vote for him, you are a bad voter - aaron
[2010-01-21 09:33:30] - like a 'good' voter should be capable of entering the same vote twice. if the ballot comes up twice listing the candidates in a different order, and you pick a different candidate each time, you are obviously a bad voter - aaron
[2010-01-21 09:32:53] - that's not true, at a minimum you can easily establish a 'bad' voter, and then just define a 'good' voter to be the opposite - aaron
[2010-01-21 09:32:21] - That was all written by Daniel. I forget you have to sign things here sometimes. -Daniel
[2010-01-21 09:32:03] - and easily identifiable as having a 'good' choice and a 'bad' choice so forming a class of voters that only picks the 'good' choice would seem impossible to me if we can't identify the 'good' way to vote.
[2010-01-21 09:31:12] - I'm not sure I buy the basic premise of there being such a thing as a 'good' voter. For there to be a 'good' voter you would have to establish the 'good' way for them to vote. I'm not sure you could do that in a lot of cases. I don't know everyone's politics here but in general issues have tradeoffs and pro's and con's on both sides. Few issues are black and white...
[2010-01-20 18:56:46] - a: I blame the vain. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 17:41:59] - xpovos: i blame comcast. ~a
[2010-01-20 17:26:32] - Pierce: To continue, you acknowledged my hypothetical test below, and then immediately said that it was bound to be flawed. One or the other. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 17:19:40] - Augh! I killed the message board! I'm sorry! -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 14:00:36] - xpovos: what political environment? one where there's a flawed test for selflessness used as the basis for voting? no, I wouldn't be content with that. no, I don't think that's sustainable. - pierce
[2010-01-20 14:00:36] - Paul: Yes. Me. As a dictator.
. Seriously, though, probably not--not that I couldn't describe it, but certainly not in a single post. But I would be a benevolent dictator. -- Xpovos[2010-01-20 13:58:44] - this of course, assumes for the sake of argument that selflessness is a sufficient sole criterion to measure a "good" voter. in practice there are probably lots of perfectly nice and selfless people who would selflessly vote for idiotic things. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:58:14] - Xpovos: Fair enough, can you describe what form of government you think would be best in the space of a single message board post?
-Paul[2010-01-20 13:57:47] - pierce: And would you be content in such a political environment? -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:56:36] - but unpaid service is not a test of selflessness when its ultimate reward -- the ability to vote -- can be used selfishly. and if you say it won't be used selfishly because only selfless people gained the ability to use it then you are making a circular argument. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:56:12] - Paul: I can't answer that question because the word democracy is ill-defined. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:55:15] - xpovos: I "demanded" a hypothetical test because you seemed to be assuming you didn't need to suggest one. I don't think a test exists to objectively measure selflessness in voting. if you come up with one, then you've done what your long-term political scientists couldn't and I'll tip my hat to you. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:54:54] - piere: OK, then as it is merely an analogy, and implied attack it offers against my thesis is without merit. Your accusation that my premise is tautological is based on this and crafy wording. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:51:24] - Xpovos: I have zero interest in inserting myself into the lovely little debate you and Pierce have going on, but I am curious about one thing. Do you think the best government, in general, for people is a democracy? -Paul
[2010-01-20 13:51:07] - xpovos: it's an analogy, not a correlation. I'm not drawing a link between violence and good voting for the purposes of this argument. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:51:05] - However, voting is usually rational, and certainly good voting is, whereas most violence is irrational (emotional). Though obviously among the worst violence is rational. You can test for rational, you can't test for emotional. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:49:51] - pierce: Now we're making progress. I should've gone this route first. The next step seems to be debate over effective tests for good voting vs. violence. You argue that the two are the same, and so an inability to accurately test for violence (granted) implies an inability to test for good voting. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:48:17] - in other news, feeding hungry people will end hunger, having smarter kids be taught better will increase the quality of education etc etc etc. amazing how easy it is to solve the world's problems if you just let "long-term political science" deal with applying those solutions in the real world. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:43:46] - xpovos: so yes, if you take for granted a way to implement it, good voters voting for good things is good. and if you take for granted a way to implement it, stopping violent people from being violent will stop violence. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:42:18] - xpovos: maybe that's where the disconnect is, here. I think you cannot argue exclusion in general and handwave about core parts of its implementation. to do so will inevitably boil down to "wouldn't things be better if only good voters voted for good things?" which is almost tautological and not a worthwhile debate if it can't be applied. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:38:43] - pierce: it's not the question at hand. You demanded a hypothetical example to attack, I presented one that might suit a populace. It doesn't suit you, I'm not surprised. The form of the exclusion is the debate for long-term political science. I'm trying to debate exlcusion in general, since I'm in favor of it, and I can't pin you down to argue on that. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:37:33] - xpovos: your assumptions are incomplete, inaccurate, impractical, and don't answer the question. baffled am I. taking a break. feel free to clarify, I'll try to understand the point you're making later. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:36:58] - Do you acknowledge that while we perceive quality on a subjective scale, the results of the qualitative decisions are objective? -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:36:15] - xpovos: yes, lots. you're assuming voters have perfect understanding of the interest of the state and their own self-interest. assumption 2 tries to shoehorn good voters' self-interest as a subset of state interest. most directly, you still have not shown how low-quality voters are excluded via your unpaid service criterion, which is the question at hand. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:31:58] - xpovos: "quality" is subjective, yet you continue to use it as a variable in your "equation"? that's like saying x+5 = x+8 because x is subjective, then asserting that your equation has proved that 5=8. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:29:56] - Assumption 3: Low quality voters will vote when they have an opportunity to vote for their own interest, and will not vote if they cannot benefit themselves. I'm done with assumptions. Any argument with them? -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:28:53] - Assumption 1: Define High quality as the voters who will vote in the best interest of a state (group of people) rather than their own. Assumption 2: High quality voters will always vote because it is always in their best interest--a strong society is a benefit to everyone includind themselves. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:26:51] - For each additional potential voter, the quality of the voting pool either increases or decreases, with 'quality' subjective, so let's not go there. As the potential voter pool heads towards infinity the overall quality is sujbect to bounded limits. It can be no more good than the best, and no worse than the worst. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:24:03] - pierce: And that you don't see that the self-interest portion is beaten out of any one who tries is baffling, but we digress. I'll sum it up in a mathematical equation which gets back to my initial point. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:23:47] - maybe you think it would be offset by an increase in selflessness from the service experience or whatever. whatever you do think would offset that trend is not something you've established as a fact in any capacity. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:22:26] - xpovos: I can say the psychology will change. fewer voters means each vote is more significant, which means it has an increased ability to be leveraged for self-interest, which means it would be materially more likely to be used for self-interest. the fact that you don't see that as an obvious consequence of reducing the number of voters is baffling. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:18:55] - t past your point now, for a second time, because it adds nothing to a debate. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:18:43] - xpovos: in order for your unpaid service period to be even theoretically applicable as a test for a vote, the vote itself can not be something people might want for their own self-interest. at all. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:18:21] - pierce: It would be idiocy for me to deny any possibility of an unexpected change in psychology of voting based on a monumental change in the nature of voting, but the effort I'm making is to keep voting the same, but limit who has it. The psychology shouldn't change, but it could. But as much as I can't say it won't, you can't say it will, so I'm just moving righ
[2010-01-20 13:15:01] - "If they want money, they can achieve it better outside the realm of politics, if they want power, they can achieve it better outside as well, this is just a single vote." again you're taking assumptions from our current system at face value even though those assumptions would be obviously affected by changing the number and nature of voters. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:14:21] - So maybe it's just some kind of 'pre-requisite' for running, so they can vote for themselves, and show their fellow voters they're worthy? Kind of like law school now? Only, it doesn't work that way even now. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:12:38] - If they want money, they can achieve it better outside the realm of politics, if they want power, they can achieve it better outside as well, this is just a single vote. They'd be better off running for the offices if they wanted the power. And I haven't necessarily excluded non-franchised individuals from running for office. They just can't vote. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:12:01] - xpovos: "Having a vote is something that most people do not value at all" in the current system where you think there are too many voters. you can't copy-and-paste current voter behavior into a hypothetical scenario in which you've revamped the entire voting system. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:11:09] - Clearly, there's some reason to believe that based on the state of our politics. Politicians go to great lengths to secure their own self-interest because of the power that they weild at that level. But there's one crucial flaw in this psychology. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:09:59] - you say aha, anyone who does do this is clearly only interested in the ability to vote at the end--and hence is going to use that vote for his own self interest, rather than society's. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:08:56] - pierce: I disagree, obviously. Having a vote is something that most people do not value at all, whereas having time in their life to do as they please is something everyone values very highly. Add in that most people benefit from an improved government without going through the effort themselves, and most people will elect to avoid the process; so-- (cont'd) -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:06:53] - xpovos: your argument is circular. if people know they will come out of that service with the ability to vote then they are not necessarily putting the state's interest ahead of their own. they may easily be putting their own interest in having a vote (which they can then use to benefit their own self-interest in other ways) ahead of the state. - pierce
[2010-01-20 13:02:39] - If so, congratulations. If not, unsurprising, join the crowd. The question is only, are those terms too strict, too lenient, or just right. That's where the argument is. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 13:01:30] - pierce: Are you willing to put yourself into indentured servitude to the government--and to be clear, let me define, this is work for no wages with a defined end-point--for a period of four years, knowing that when you come out of it you will not have any additional money, less lifespan, possibly some relevent experience, and a franchise? -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 12:58:30] - xpovos: it's like if I advocated that the solution for world peace was to just not give guns to violent people. that's not a solution to anything because I'm leaving the core implementation of the "solution" completely undefined. I can't just say "well yes it's a hard problem to figure out who is violent" and wash my hands of having to address that. - pierce
[2010-01-20 12:55:28] - xpovos: apologies, you've said before that you weren't an anarcho-capitalist but a "rational anarchist". so that point aside, I have to ask what makes you believe that voting rights should be restricted if you can't even come up with a clear way to enact those restrictions in theory? I don't see how your point is defensible without defining those terms. - pierce
[2010-01-20 12:46:29] - Aaron: You realize that by pointing out those words I immediately zoomed in on them. I am sad now
- Stephen[2010-01-20 12:45:26] - On an academic level, I appreciate the idea of restricting voting to those people who have actually demonstrated they understand how our political system works. Practically, though, there's no way to come up with a good, bias-free metric for that. - Stephen
[2010-01-20 12:43:43] - hey if we're going to limit voting rights to people, we should just go back to giving it only to white landowning males, but to be progressive we can give black guys a 3/5ths vote. -nina
[2010-01-20 12:36:19] - Vinnie: It's a good idea, but how do you compel them to serve, then? There's still the determination problem, too. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 12:21:15] - I think each elected position should be given to the person who wants it least. truly, they will be the least self-serving - vinnie
[2010-01-20 11:54:12] - you can ignore the last couple words of the second paragraph because they will make you sad - aaron
[2010-01-20 11:53:39] - http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/mutts/blog/2010/01/its_the_end_of_the_line_for_be.html apparently there was a cat who would wait in line at a bus stop every day, and get on a city bus and ride it around town - aaron
[2010-01-20 10:59:00] - a: No, it's definitely doable. Just require it to be demonstrated, with something severe enough that most people won't want to do it. Voting should not be by everyone, or even a majority of everyone. That's personal opinion, there, but it helps in deciding the severity of the 'test' of demonstration. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 10:57:37] - Daniel: I think you'll find pretty broad support for term limits, except among the career politicians. And although I say that with cynicism there are times when career politicians are a good thing. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 10:56:44] - Though Starship Troopers did make clear that there were other paths to citizenship besides the military, they just don't make for nearly as interesting a story. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 10:55:48] - Daniel: No, I think serving the in the military is for most people a job they take to pay the bills, not something done as a service. Combat veterans are one thing, but there are 90 support staff for each combat. Also, I'm not in favor of advocating combat, so I think that model falls off. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 10:52:30] - Maybe for Congress... that might be just as good. Randomly picked to serve for 2 years or whatever then you are done. Maybe more than 2 years /shrug. No reelection pressure. Just do what you think you should. I'm sure there are problems but it would be interesting to watch -Daniel
[2010-01-20 10:23:30] - why bother with all the silliness of voting? just decide government positions by lottery. - mig
[2010-01-20 10:06:14] - starship troopers style? you can only vote after you've served in the military? -Daniel
[2010-01-20 09:53:22] - so you think in practice it can't be done? you can't reliably determine who has the best interest of the state in mind? ~a
[2010-01-20 07:20:47] - pierce: I'm very far from anarchocapitalist. The invisible hand is good for the market (and even that has some room for argument) the market is not necessarily the best place for politics. Plutocracies run into the self-service issues just as much. You wouldn't think that rich people would need to vote in their own interest, but practically, they do. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-20 07:18:57] - a: Determining that accurately is the hardest question in the future of political science. But a fundamental aspect has to be a demonstrated ability to put the need of the states ahead of their own, so (from my perspective at least) that unfortunately enacts a de facto minimum age as well. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-19 21:53:41] - mig: I don't begrudge MA voters their right to send a message to the national Democratic party, but if the entire progressive legislative agenda is shut down due to filibuster threats for the forseeable future then I definitely think they'll have cut off their nose to spite their face. - pierce
[2010-01-19 21:51:12] - mig: add that to general tone-deafness on the parts of both Coakley and the national Democratic party, and the corresponding mishandling of the campaign, and we have a Brown win. - pierce
[2010-01-19 21:50:24] - mig: yeah, saw that. it was an interesting race, since it was somewhat divorced from the prominent partisan debate of the moment -- health care reform -- due to MA's existing state health care plan. Brown got to run on stymying the federal plan, but Coakley couldn't run on supporting it. - pierce
[2010-01-19 21:46:38] - xpovos: I also think it's interesting that you don't think self-interest voting is a long-term solution. isn't aggregate self-interest ("the free hand of the market") considered a core tenet of anarchocapitalism? - pierce
[2010-01-19 21:44:48] - xpovos: going to second a's question, and augment it a bit. in addition to specifying the criteria that make one an acceptable voter in your view, what practical means of measuring that criteria would you suggest and (if applicable) how would you hedge against manipulation and abuse of those criteria for the purposes of disenfranchising "good" voters? - pierce
[2010-01-19 21:32:28] - for those who care, brown won in MA. - mig
[2010-01-19 20:26:28] - how would you determine who has the best interest of the state in mind? ~a
[2010-01-19 20:23:54] - a: Those who have the best interest of the state in mind, as opposed to those who have their own best interest. If people vote in their own best interest, they thrive at the state's expense. That is not a long-term solution. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-19 18:53:42] - who should be allowed to vote? ~a
[2010-01-19 18:32:44] - Voting rights can and should be restricted, but that restriction is not well defined in these characteristics. Therefore, since these people were restricted from voting because of those factors, the amendments were good, but because all people with those characteristics may now vote (save felons) they are bad. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-19 18:31:14] - a: I think I did a bad job last week, probably because I was typing on my phone. Let me try again. Removing discrimination to vote based solely on sex, race, age, etc. are not bad amendments. Neither are they good amendments because they seem to imply to people that there should be no reason to discriminate the priviledge of voting. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-19 17:51:19] - aaron: yea there is a fair amount of pie left! I just took a piece... ~gurkie
[2010-01-19 16:49:13] - 7/22 * pi * r * r * pie? ~a
[2010-01-19 16:47:37] - http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/201001191529DOWJONESDJONLINE000420_FORTUNE5.htm IMPORTANT UPATE!!!!! - mig
[2010-01-19 15:41:00] - Paul: Seriously? I think it was 7/22nds. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-19 15:19:49] - Aaron: I believe there was a lot of leftover pie (approximately 3/4ths of it was left). -Paul
[2010-01-19 13:52:18] - a: I want pie, too
- Stephen[2010-01-19 13:28:43] - pie? ~a
[2010-01-19 13:27:44] - gurkie: were there any leftovers from the pie? if so i'll take em home to eat - aaron
[2010-01-18 02:05:19] - i would have replied there except facebook has some weird "friends of friends" kinds of rules, where like - you can't comment on pictures of vinnie/amy, if those pictures were taken by people you don't know - aaron
[2010-01-18 02:04:48] - a: oh heh, i don't know how to describe the band exactly, you know, loud, masculine, lots of yelling and guitar/bass, very talented except yeah the drummer was dropping rhythm here and there. i saw a reference to it on a facebook comment - aaron
[2010-01-17 18:35:59] - aaron: i didn't watch the set after flickerfall. so, uhhh, what are you talking about? ~a
[2010-01-17 14:15:06] - at first i thought he was just dropping tempo now and then like - stylistically, like it was how the music was supposed to go - but it was just really really loose - aaron
[2010-01-17 14:14:40] - oh, wow, i'm not the only one who noticed the drummer for that band that followed flickerfall? i couldn't tell what was going on there - aaron
[2010-01-15 20:46:49] - never ever put beer over ice. unless you really want beer now and you forgot to put it in the fridge.
[2010-01-15 19:42:48] - a: I don't think they're necessarily bad amendments. Paul asked which were my least favorite, those are among them, with 18 being the worst, 17 probably second, and 16th probably third. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 19:26:41] - nina: ummmm . . . what was the plan tonight? ~a
[2010-01-15 19:21:39] - i don't think i understand. please dumb it down for me.
you think sex/race isn't a good test of whether you should vote or not, but somehow the 19th amendment is bad? that seems contradictory to me. ~a[2010-01-15 19:02:31] - Though the poll tax is closer, depending on how much. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 18:51:17] - But sex, race, and to a lesser extent age and land ownership aren't good tests. Neither is the ability to pay a poll tax. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 18:49:52] - a: more voters isn't the issue. The reason they're not bad is that as written, they simply ensure previous exclusions for the wrong reasons aren't enacted. But that doesn't mean universal suffrage is a good thing. Some test of vote rationality needs to exist. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 17:30:22] - how does it miss the point? ~a
[2010-01-15 17:15:10] - Paul: I'd say 16-19 are among my least favorite, though you can through in 24 and similar as well. Basicallly any of the amendments w/r/t voting rights misses the point. But Prohibition is the bottom. That might be the only one I consistantly rank lower. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 16:25:35] - Xpovos: Really? The 17th is one of your least favorite? How many would you say are above (below?) it in terms of less favorable? -Paul
[2010-01-15 15:32:45] - aaron: the answer to your question lies here http://dustinland.com/archives/archives404.html -nina
[2010-01-15 15:24:27] - aaron: Cast it from thy sievelike books of memory, Sir Donald; thou art out of thy element.
[2010-01-15 15:23:02] - wait so i get why republicans would be against DC as a state, but why don't democrats push for it? - aaron
[2010-01-15 15:10:00] - mig: Must not have been me.
-- xpovos[2010-01-15 15:09:45] - So, here's the solution: redraw the District to the National Mall. All other D.C. territory is returned to MD. WV is returned to VA with special elections to determine the Senator survivors. It's Byrd vs. Webb! Then annex Mexico and get back to 50. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 15:08:48] - xpovos: i tried once explaining to someone why the 17th amendment was so problematic. the discussion ended up being not very productive... - mig
[2010-01-15 15:05:21] - yeah the imbalance is the whole reason the senate exists in the first place. The smaller states would never agree to just having the HOR and its population based representation. - mig
[2010-01-15 15:04:23] - Stephen: Of course, and they have laws enacted unilaterally by the congress of the 50 states, no matter what Norton really wants. That's straight forward. But we're talking about votes. Not laws or the Constitution. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 15:03:07] - The no sub-division rule is critically important w/r/t the Senate, otherwise say we have a Democratic majority and they approve California splitting in two. Now we have two more Democratic Senators, and splitting California again is trivial. Repeat ad inifinitum until you have a dictatorship of California. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 15:02:01] - Xpovos: But DC doesn't need statehood. It's already understood that the Constitution applies to DC, even though the Constitution just refers to "States" - Stephen
[2010-01-15 15:01:54] - new states (see WV) and the District's territory is only ex-Maryland now, so the district might have to re-annex Arlington and part of Alexandria, or some other weird stuff, depending on judges. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 15:00:49] - a: In order to become a state you need congressional approval (obviously, and probably the easiest to obtain, assuming each of the other 50 states and 100 senators feels generous in reucing their significance 1% or so), but also requires approval from the state legislature of the states joining new territory into a state, so MD and VA. And no state can be subdivided into
[2010-01-15 14:59:09] - is reasonable assuming they are granted statehood by the process described. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 14:58:32] - Stephen: That was the goal of the Senate: to give the states each a voice. That's been subverted by the 17th amendment, probably one of my least favorite, but the size of the state or the population doesn't matter there in the delibrative house. What matters is the property of statehood. To that extend, two senators for the district [...] -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 14:55:23] - which constitutional problem? they don't say anything in that text about making the district a state (or not). ~a
[2010-01-15 14:55:06] - well d.c.'s population is more than half of the entire state of Rhode Island. Honestly I don't think as far as "balance" goes that it would be a big deal. - mig
[2010-01-15 14:53:54] - Daniel: But the entire Senate is unbalanced. I mean, it's not a good idea for a prairie populated entirely by oil wells and bison to have two Senators, but Wyoming has them. - Stephen
[2010-01-15 14:51:35] - It doesn't seem like a good idea to me to give a city two senators. It seems unbalancing to me. -Daniel
[2010-01-15 14:50:12] - a: there's the constitutional problems that andrew and stephen brought up. - mig
[2010-01-15 14:47:30] - a: Republicans don't want them to be a state b/c it would basically guarantee 2 extra Democratic Senators. They would need to split another highly Republican state in half (like an Alaska) to balance out the power structure. -nina
[2010-01-15 14:39:28] - why don't you think they should have senators? why can't they just be a state? am i missing something? ~a
[2010-01-15 14:01:10] - As for DC it would super hard (to the point of impossiblity) but becoming part of MD sounds reasonable from an objective point of view. I'm not sure there are many other solutions I could support since I think they should pay taxes but not have senators and don't know how to resolve those two things. -Daniel
[2010-01-15 13:59:53] - Nature can be pretty and cool but also try to kill you at the same time. Most of the stuff humans made was an effort to improve upon nature. Beds inside my ac'ed bedroom > hamock outside for large chunks of the year. -Daniel
[2010-01-15 13:57:08] - a: City boy.
-- Xpovos[2010-01-15 13:56:36] - xpovos: living with nature is pretty sweet. maybe not as cool as the movie makes it out, but i haven't seen the movie yet so i wouldn't know. ~a
[2010-01-15 13:52:30] - a: And mig's response as well. People who live in cities have a delusional fantasy about the natural world. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 13:49:49] - hmm? are you talking about gurkie's link? ~a
[2010-01-15 13:49:04] - Far be it from me to criticize anyone for their choice of neurological disorders, but have any of these people actually tried living with nature? That shit's trying to kill you! -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 13:43:01] - Paul: Yeah, the whole issue of WV is a constitutional nightmare. At a certain point everyone just threw up their hands and said, 'a pox on it, let us play at nine-pins'. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 13:38:59] - Paul: Yeah, I used to say one of the best things to happen to Virginia was West Virginia seceding. - Stephen
[2010-01-15 13:37:33] - Xpovos: "but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State" That worked well for Virginia (sarcasm) and West Virginia (not sarcasm). -Paul
[2010-01-15 13:32:34] - s of the Congress." So it doesn't appear to be impossible, just unlikely and requires support from the Maryland legislature, federal Congress, and maybe Virginia legislature, depending on lawyers and judges interpretations. Ugly. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 13:32:06] - there was one person there who was having trouble sleeping and talking about wondering how she gets through each day because she couldn't stop thinking about the horrible destruction that's happening to the environment. It was really freaky. - mig
[2010-01-15 13:31:24] - Lastly, the bit about territory ceded by the states to create the district would seem to flow nicely with Article IV, Section 3, "but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well a
[2010-01-15 13:30:46] - stephen: I can't imagine anyone in congress wanting it, D.C. is kind of a cash cow as far as taxes go, they'd have to let some of that money go to Maryland if that ever happened. - mig
[2010-01-15 13:29:22] - gurkie: that's messed up. i bet there were a bunch of Star Wars fans facing depression because they couldn't live with the Ewoks and LOTR fans who wanted to be hobbits. -nina
[2010-01-15 13:28:57] - Then the 23rd amendment gave them 3 electoral college votes for some reason, but the fact that had to be written in as an amendment shows that voting priveledge were assumed not to exist under the 'exclusive legislation in all cases' of the Congress selected by the States. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 13:28:48] - gurkie: that kind of reminds me of an episode of "Bullshit!" where they were talking about eco-guilt and were showing this "eco-therapist" who brought people to an AA-like session where they talk about how they were all clinically depressed because of the state of the environment. - mig
[2010-01-15 13:27:21] - Here's the line about the district in the constitution: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States" -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 13:26:14] - Daniel: Not that I'm aware of. Remember, D.C. would probably hate the idea. They want their own congresman and two senators. Not a share of Maryland's. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 13:26:05] - Daniel: Neither DC nor Maryland want it, so I don't think it's been tried by anyone, except maybe by some Republicans in Congress. - stephen
[2010-01-15 13:23:47] - http://www.ajc.com/news/avatar-leading-to-depression-275358.html?cxtype=rss_news_128746 ~gurkie
[2010-01-15 13:22:14] - That does seem to be a much better solution than other ones I've heard before. Has DC council or anything ever tried that before? -Daniel
[2010-01-15 13:17:29] - Yeah. You end up with somehting much closer to what was intended: a governmental district without voting rights and without a real population. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 13:16:37] - xpovos: ah yes, that was the next thing I was thinking of. - mig
[2010-01-15 13:16:25] - This is an ideal time to do it too, since Maryland is about to be re-censused (as are we all) and the added population would immediately show up in their House representatives. Current Marylanders are likely to dislike it because it dillutes their vote. D.C. residents dislike it because although it gives them a vote, it's not nearly as powerful as the one they want.
[2010-01-15 13:15:51] - Damn, Andrew beat me at explaining himself
- Stephen[2010-01-15 13:15:23] - mig: I think Andrew's saying retrocession is the simple solution. - Stephen
[2010-01-15 13:14:45] - Paul's closer than mig. IIRC D.C. is constitutionally prohibited from becoming a state, but that could very well just be my faulty memory. The 'simple' solution is that you redraw the 'district' to be the National Mall, and a handful of other truly governmental buildings, and Maryland re-annexes the remaining territory. -- Xpovos
[2010-01-15 13:13:16] - well i guess even simpler would be exempting dc residents from federal taxes, but there's no way congress would ever let that happen. - mig
[2010-01-15 13:11:35] - mig: Wipe DC off the map?
-Paul[2010-01-15 13:00:39] - i'm not sure if that's the solution andrew is talking about, but that is a simple solution. - mig
[2010-01-15 12:59:19] - daniel: i think the simple solution would probably be to just make DC a state. - mig
[2010-01-15 12:58:03] - Xpovos: I'm not sure if it short enough to write out here but I'm curious what the simple solution to DC voting rights is. -Daniel
[2010-01-15 12:57:12] - Nina: Sorry, I've got plans tonight. Maybe next time? -Paul
[2010-01-15 12:44:23] - nina: sorry, i'll probably stay home tonight - aaron
prev <-> next