begin oe_protect.scr
Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> > [H]omer wrote:
>> >> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> > The real decisions are made early in the primary process. George W
>> > Bush had huge financial backing, over $30 million, before the primaries
>> > even started, and he was able to win so many primaries so early on,
>> > that the opposition simply withdrew before half the races were decided.
>> > Bush made it clear, even before he was nominated, that he thought
>> > "companies should have a right to innovate, and profit from their
>> > innovations". This made it very clear that Microsoft was backing him,
>> > and if he was elected, he would be backing Microsoft in the DOJ
>> > settlement.
>>
>> This is the point at which your government looks 100% corrupt from here.
>
> Actually, yes, it's very corrupt. In the state where I grew up,
> candidates would make it a point to declare "I'm a better crook than my
> opponent". It was about which candidate could the most money from
> congress from a state which paid relatively little in taxes.
Well, that's kind of what politicians are all about, isn't it :-)
>
>> Even third-world countries would struggle to do this and be so open
>> about it. Of course, if you didn't have a president, then there
>> wouldn't by any such figure so powerful as an individual (this is bound
>> to lead to corruption, and thus does).
>
> Actually, the power of the president is extremely limited, by design.
> He can't spend money on anything that isn't approved by congress, he
> can't withhold money that has been designated to be spent by the
> congress. He can make any deal with any other country unless it's
> ratified by the senate. He can't appoint anybody to the cabinet unless
> they are approved by the senate. He get's blamed for everything that
> goes wrong, and if everything is going right, the opposition will go
> after his personal life. He obviously has no privacy, and he has to
> make the final decision on hundreds of policies he knows will hurt
> somebody.
It's a good theory.
>
> That's why Bill Gates would rather hire some idiot to do the job. :D
>
>> I think it a major flaw, seeming
>> to draw inspiration from the Roman Caesars in having an absolute ruler.
>
> As noted before, his power is anything but absolute. Essentially, he
> is a figurehead.
Um, not really, I think. We have a figurehead... and we have a Prime
Minister who heads a cabinet, which is the core of a government.
> His primary duty is to enforce the laws and policies
> enacted by congress. He can make suggestions, but if his party doesn't
> control a majority of both houses, he has no chance of getting most of
> what he wants, and even if his party does control both houses, the
> moderates in the party will limit his authority.
It's still far too much power in one person. I think this runs so
deeply that I suspect most Americans cannot see just how broken it
really is.
>
>> Unfortunately, I can't see the situation changing, at least, not until
>> the US invades one country too many.
>
> Keep in mind that even those in his own party are upset about that.
> Most wanted to give Bush the big stick as negotiating leverage. When
> Bush immediately went for the invasion, without further negotiations or
> efforts to get a broader base of support, most people from both parties
> quietly distanced themselves from him on that matter.
Okay, but this is hardly a recent trend...
>
> Moderate Republicans like Arlen Specter are constantly threatening to
> throw in with the democrats or to allow filibusters or even to just
> stonewall things in committee.
In order to stop the excesses of your President, which is rather my
point in the first place. The only real control is the threat from his
/own party/ to talk measures out of time, this is hardly a democratic
control, it looks a lot like a supremely powerful person on top to me.
>
>> Limits to election funding are looked at all the time here, of course,
>> the parties try to get around them, but in the end, they get stopped.
>>
> The big problem in our country is that everyone has the right to free
> speech, and the media will sell time to anyone who wants to buy it.
> It's like a big trifalger square. Instead of advocates standing on
> boxes, it's "Swift boat veterans for peace" in 30 second spots.
Well, yes and no - your TV stations are owned by politically motivated
organisations, so television coverage is unbelievably biassed... Our
newspapers are much the same, but it's considered that they do not have
the influence of the tv & radio - I'm not so sure that's true, but the
papers are a lot older than the broadcasters, and seem to have avoided
controls that way.
>
> Of course, the best way to rig the outcome is to make sure that there
> is only one voting booth per 10,000 voters in urban areas (which are
> mostly democrat), and make sure there is at least one voting booth per
> 1,000 voters in upper class suburban (Republican) neighborhoods. In
> Ohio, the suburban wait to vote was 15 minutes. In the urban areas it
> was 7 hours.
Well, that's a good way too :-)
>
> And of course, there are the butterfly ballots, the buggy voting
> booths, and the boxes that get dropped and when the ballots are picked
> up, most are too mutilated to read...
>
> In the 1960s, it was "vote early and often".
>
>> > Sure nuf, as soon as he was elected, he took divestature off the table,
>> > taking away all of the negotiating leverage, then pretty much
>> > rubber-stamped a proposal so full of obvious weasel clauses that even
>> > the Judge was having a hard time accepting it.
>>
>> This is another issue I have with the US - the political appointment of
>> so many people in powerful positions who should, as a matter of course,
>> be apolitical in their roles. These include scientists, judges, medical
>> officers, administrators of most kinds. Were it not for this, we'd
>> likely have made much more progress on global warming than we've been
>> able to so far.
>
> Normally, the key roles, the cabinet positions, are political, but the
> deputy positions are career positions. The job of the cabinet member
> is to be the champion for the organization he represents.
That's the principle, but it doesn't really work that way, does it?
Legal appointments seem to come from the President, and scientific
advisers all appear to have been bought.
>
>> > At this point, the DOJ is extending only PARTS of the settlement,
>> > giving Microsoft free rein to go back to "business as usual" with the
>> > release of Vista.
>>
>> Of course; but then, I never really expected the same thing.
>
>> > Patents are the same gig. Bush wants to back the companies who backed
>> > him. If that means rewriting patent law so that Microsoft can patent
>> > emoticons and drop-down menues, so be it.
>>
>> I return to my start point - why is there /no opposition/ in the US?
>
> Ironically, the biggest champions for patents are not Microsoft, but
> the people who want to use patents as a defensive measure. If IBM had
> been able to patent all of the contributions it made, then contribute
> those patented items to Linux, there would have been no SCO filing
> lawsuits. Instead, SCO, Microsoft, and any two-bit consultant with a
> whiplash lawyer, can file a lawsuit and wear down the defendent with
> disclosure motions.
That argument only floats if you asssume a MAD situation, however, if
there're no software patents in the first place, then the point is moot
only.
>
> Normally, the big company with the deep pockets just decides it's
> cheaper to offer $2 million for a quick settlement, than to spend $200
> million to defend against a $3 billion lawsuit that the defendent can
> win, but cannot recover any legal fees from the now bankrupt plaintiff.
> This is why IBM is now asking the judge for disclosures related to the
> "deeper pockets" behind SCO's actions.
It's a jolly good question, although with the political appointment of
senior legal figures in the US, I would imagine the judge will be
squashed anyway.
>
> IBM files for thousands of patents every year, and with each one, they
> try to introduce as much prior art as they possibly can into each
> application, so that it will show up in patent searches later on.
This is smart defensive manoeuvring in an environment which has made the
patent office a business warzone.
>
>> Of course, our "left-wing" party now looks more right-wing than the
>> Conservatives in the Thatcher era were, so perhaps we'll be going the
>> same way soon...
>
> The big problem with the liberals is that they want to take up to 70%
> of the earnings from someone who studied hard, worked long hours, made
> personal sacrifices, lived a clean, sober, healthy lifestyle, and
> always obeys the law, to pay disability to people who blew up their
> hearts smoking crack cocaine, women who rent by the hour and just name
> all of the clients until the "lucky winner" shows up (even though he
> took precautions), and guys who smoked like chimneys, drank like fish,
> did so many drugs they were a toxic waste dump, and then want the
> government to pay them "disability" for life, while they work "off the
> books".
I suspect that's not what their manifesto says ;-)
>
> But the Liberals want to make sure that they get free health care, free
> housing, and intrest free loans (or just grants) for education.
>
Our grants for education have almost disappeared. These days, if you're
unlucky enough to be born to poorer parents, be prepared for a poor
education, poor health, low earnings and a shorter life than the
children of richer people.
The stupidity of this is that well educated, intelligent people get good
jobs, pay their taxes and then do the right thing. Poorly educated
intelligent people tend to become criminals, and end up costing the
state a fortune.
Not educating people properly because of their background is about the
most short-sighted idea I've ever seen...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Law of the Jungle:
He who hesitates is lunch.
|
|
