Re: Re: A better way to vote

From: 7visions <7visions_at_prodigy.net_at_hypermail.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:36:08 -0800

Real late, so I will be brief

> We The People have a lot more in common than most of us want to
> believe. The problem is We The People have pretended to be lots of
> different groups, and in order to have a sense of Us vs Them we have
> to make sure that any Non-Overlap is exaggerated while our
> similarities are ignored or brushed aside.
>
> "Yeah, we disagree on ______, but we can still work together to get
> ____ done because it's something we both agree on." What ever
> happened to THAT mentality?

I would love to see that happen, I guess I have almost lost faith that it
can. Like for example, the whole Red State/Blue State thing. If Sean Penn
can go to Iraq, he can probably go to Topeka. Similarly, we have to sideline
the extremists on both sides;: it is getting worse
>
>
> > >
> Never said foreign aid was horrible.

I know. I was just citing a statistic that keeps coming up. Even when people
are shown the objective data that foreign aid is way down the list, they
STILL insist that it is the biggest thing in the budget. Cognitive
Dissonance

 I meant our vast bureaucracy is
> disorganized and wasteful, and they much prefer giving a little
> something back to those who *ahem* gave them a little "help" along the
> way. The point was, let the elected leaders know what we think is
> important, whether that's foreign aid, fighting terrorism, the
> abortion issue, health care, education, whatever. That little section
> on the tax form would be a huge survey of the entire nation. What is
> it we REALLY want?

It is a good idea theoretically. The only problem is that there would be a
vast gulf of opinion in what we "really want". That is what I mean by there
being no such thing as "We the People" . The differences may be exaggerated,
but they are real nonetheless.
>
> >>
>
> Pandering to their votes, maybe, but not to the people's needs.

In other words, people seldom vote their needs? That is not giving them much
credit :)

How
> much was spent in electioneering and advertising over the last year?
> What if that went into the budget instead? No more deficit.

I agree with you that "electioneering and advertising" can be annoying and a
big waste. But I am afraid that the numbers don't begin to add up here. The
total spending by BOTH Bush and Kerry was something like 70 million. The
deficit is about half a TRILLION
>
>
> It> Fine. I see no problem with wanting something (for instance, a
> certain type of government or a certain law) that someone else doesn't
> want. Talk about it. Calmly. Logically. Together. Hold the
> accusations. "What can we do with/about _____?" "What are the long
> term effects?" I'm totally sick of the "us vs them" mentality.

That would be nice. But it just may not always be the nature of things.
Remember that when you have issues like war, ( where someone's loved one may
be in harm's way) abortion, gay rights, and even the environment, people are
bound to be passionate. It is nasty and possibly even counterproductive, but
it is what makes us human.

( Incidentially, that is just why I think that it is so dangerous to mix
politics and religion. Talk about passion!)
>
>
> > > "Our Glorious Government Workers"
> >
> > Old hackneyed stereotyped scapegoat, That thinking is beneath you.
>
> My apologies for the seeming insult. Really. I wasn't talking about
> *government-paid* workers who really do work hard and try their best.
> I was referring to our Gloriously Elected "workers" who seem to put
> more effort into getting (re-)elected than making difficult decisions
> which might not be popular because it could lose their precious voter
> base. (Or worse - loss of funding from special interests.) No one
> takes a long-term visew of things when they have to constantly worry
> about whether or not they will be popular in 2 - 4 years. Campaign
> funding. War chests. Conventions, political ads, bumper stickers.
> Gah!

Then you were talking about politicians, not civil servants. Well you may
call me cynical ( and I am not in general. but on this I am) . I think that
the politicians pander because the people seem to LIKE TO BE PANDERED TO.
They would never put it that way, and the people would deny it. But not many
are willing to listen to a statesman who will tell them much of what they
don't want to hear. Especially if it means attacking the deficit.

If people are soooo upset with their politicians, why do 99% of
Congresspeople get reelected? Maybe you were right when you suggested that
they did not vote their needs. And who is that "voter base" anyway??? It is
the "people" . Why aren't THEY wise enough to take the "long-term" view.
Then the politicians, opportunists that they are, would follow

The "people" and the "politicians" are in a mutually abusive relationship.
The "politicians" are opportunists and careerists, and the "people" are
willfully ignorant.

Sorry if I sound cynical. But for the things in life that REALLY matter, I
am a dewy eyed idealist.

>
>
> >
>
> What's a classified employee? Are they the non-teachers (ie,
> janitors, office staff, etc)?

Pretty much

I wouldn't exactly call them a
> backbone, but I also agree that it would be damn hard to run a school
> of any size without them. More like the knees of the system. Yeah,
> you could still get around without them. But it would be damn
> difficult.

Knees would be accurate.

Actually, the true backbone are the kids
>
L>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on 2004-11-24 00:37:28