<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sisyphus @ Mar 22 2009, 09:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Bingo!Quote:
4. GET BACK TO YOUR REAL JOB
Somewhere along the way holding office became the ends rather than the means...[/b]
Printable View
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sisyphus @ Mar 22 2009, 09:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Bingo!Quote:
4. GET BACK TO YOUR REAL JOB
Somewhere along the way holding office became the ends rather than the means...[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pjorourke @ Mar 22 2009, 06:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Wouldn't single term or x term legislators with political newbies make things worse in some ways? You'd have unknown people running for office, and the winner would be who spends the most money on ads, political consultants, etc. The winner would be:Quote:
Term limits are an attempt by the populace to take the elections back from the political class, who consider safe districts their god given right. A better idea is geographically contiguous congressional districts (preferably set by courts) that follow natural terrain or existing political boundaries. These 90+% safe red/blue districts are the primary reason that the House is such a clown act (the Senate is only marginally better) where there is no need for compromise or looking at issues from a broader perspective.[/b]
1) A guy with lots of money to start with.
2) A guy who sold out to others with lots of money. or
3) The guy chosen by the political power brokers in the party who can get out the money and other political support to elect the next unknown.
Actually sounds a lot like the current system, but at least the voters get a chance to kick the scoundrels out after their first term and keep the better guys.
Apparently, the people in Massachusetts like Barney Frank. They keep electing him. Wouldn't they be likely to elect someone just as bad if we had term limits?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gneissguy @ Mar 22 2009, 10:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>That seems hard to conceiveQuote:
Apparently, the people in Massachusetts like Barney Frank. They keep electing him. Wouldn't they be likely to elect someone just as bad if we had term limits?[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camille @ Mar 22 2009, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>I certainly think that's the case in the social sciences... it's way of coping and BEGINNING to develop some understanding of complex systems...Quote:
I agree that economic theory (actually most academic theory) is not the be all and end all.
I'm not sure that they (theories that is) are even an attempt to explain things.[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camille @ Mar 22 2009, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>I would agree. Because the systems & behaviors attempted to be explained are complex & changing, so are the theories.Quote:
The higher the level I studied at, the more I became convinced that theory is just a starting point. It's a starting place to focus and from which to digress or build upon. That makes academic theory important..because any journey you take, has to have a beginning.[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camille @ Mar 22 2009, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>And therein lies the rub.... where's the line between a hypothesis to be tested & a pre-conceived notion to be supported. Are the researchers developing a theory that explains the data; or, cherry-picking data to support the theory?Quote:
The problem is that people tend to want to be pro or anti theory...and that is rarely the intention of an academic.
The theory is there to stimulate you and make you think and be passionate about your beliefs and find the ability to arm yourself with evidence to support your ideas.[/b]
Not sure what's happening in the UK these days, but among our other challenges is the increasing politicization of higher learning...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camille @ Mar 22 2009, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>I opted for an eclectic approach... where I could synthesize pieces of varying theories w/o resulting in conflicting assumptions or premises, I did so. Where I could not, I discounted the efficacy of a given theory as a particularly good "fit"... at least under certain circumstances.Quote:
There were very few models, concepts, theories in either my undergrad or masters that I embraced wholeheartedly...and it certainly wasn't because I thought I had the answers...it was because I knew if it was that black and white it would be implemented efficiently and effectively.[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camille @ Mar 22 2009, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Nothing to trash... marketing ourselves to the rest of the world has proved difficult throughout our history. Just ask anybody who has worked at USAID; or the Marines in Ramadi.Quote:
As a marketing gal, I always used to joke that the hardest thing to market would be America.
Now before you all jump on me and thrash me....it's because this country is a complex market of consumers.[/b]
We were founded on "freedom"... yet we owned slaves and denied significant segments of our population the right to vote. We were founded on "pursuit of happiness"... yet we operated in what was effectively a closed society for a very long time. We oscillate between free market & trade on one hand AND protectionism & government intervention as it suit our purpose. We've found it difficult to articulate "why we fight" for every conflict we've been in since WW2.
About the only thing we've consistently "stood for"... at least until recently... is pragmatism of thought & opportunity for most through adaptation & absorption. That can be difficult for other cultures to understand. I'm not sure most of us understand ourselves.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camille @ Mar 22 2009, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>The great melting pot of the World has been our history or at least our history according to the American Myth. It's NOT our birthright NOR is by necessity our future... that's sort of what concerns me. I now need to prepare myself to be jumped by all those whose view is that is SOLELY the fault of the "new type" of immigrants. That's ok... it's my karmic burden & I'll bear it. I'll bear it gladly because I don't think it's an argument entirely w/o merit. There ARE a group of folks coming here now that DON'T seem to be as interested in "fitting in" as we've been schooled to believe previous generations of immigrants were.Quote:
America is the great melting pot of the World. State policy differs, cultures differ, ideals differ and probably more so in this country than anywhere else in the World due to the sheer number of people here and the differences from state to state. Gaining a strong majoraty for anything in this country is fraught with complications for all those reasons. America is a collective of very different states that join to form one country...sort of like the intent of the Euopean Union. The EU struggles like hell to make any agreeable decisions and they are supposed to be aligned socially, politically and economically. It's bullshit trying to combine the cultural pathways (many of which are steeped in deep tradtion and values) to form a union...and to some extent I do feel that same struggle here. I think (and just my opinion) that having state laws and federal laws fragment this country rather than unify it. I don't see a greater purpose in doing this. It seems to create small communities (states) that have little connection with other communities (states)...how can that be good for anyone? I don't have any answers and I dont even see a best fit....I'm guessing I'm just sharing thoughts which are probably irrelevent anyway....
C[/b]
Maybe that's true. Maybe they ARE just here for what they can get and want to get it while giving as little as possible. Can't imagine where they would have gotten an idea like THAT from????
Or, maybe what we've been taught is part of the American Myth. Perhaps the assimilation of previous generations of immigrants was more fraught with discrimination & difficulties than we remember or were taught.
Then again... maybe they're not as interested in trying to fit because we're not as interested as we used to be in remaining true to our ideals; or, at least in perpetuating the Myth. Who knows??? That's a whole other discussion.
I find your comparison of the American experience to the EU to be interesting. While it is certainly true that the countries who make up the EU have a much deeper set of historical & cultural barriers to union than the colonies did... we weren't without ours as well. It should be noted that we didn't get it "right" straight out of the gate. The Articles of Confederation was a disaster. Even so, it was "nip & tuck" as to whether the Constitution would even be adopted. It took the first great act of "lobbying" & "spin control" (aka, The Federalist Papers) to carry the day. It has taken another bloody civil war & a fair amount of tinkering to hold it together since.
AND THAT was coming off a vicious & costly war against a common enemy. Namely....um...er...well, you!!! :P
So, I wouldn't throw in the towel on the EU just yet. I do think it's an idea whose time has come. All you guys need is a common enemy. Namely...um...er...well, US! :P
Ok, ok...the Chinese!!!!! :D
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pjorourke @ Mar 22 2009, 11:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>You think that's hard to believe, try wrapping your head around the fact that MY home district just loves, loves, LOVES... Stenny Hoyer!!!Quote:
That seems hard to conceive[/b]
Personally (and I have personal knowledge of which I speak), I think of him much as Truman thought of Nixon. To wit:
"He's a Godamn shifty-eyed liar!!"
But we keep sending him back. It's like staying in a loveless marriage...
It sucks... until you consider the alternative...
What would become of the children?????
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sisyphus @ Mar 22 2009, 08:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Double Bingo.Quote:
I think that's part of it. I would also like to see a return to the time when the legislative session - and the compensation for serving - were more commensurate with legislator being a PART TIME job... not a professional career.
It's a pipe dream, I know... But I really would like to see Congressmen function the way they were intended to function.
1. Go to Washington
2. Pass the bills.
3. Go HOME
4. GET BACK TO YOUR REAL JOB
Somewhere along the way holding office became the ends rather than the means...[/b]
Like most of the military, Foundations, charitable organizations...these were set up to be "service" positions. These were not the "be all to end all". When someone takes on a position of service...as opposed to a position of reward...they tend to have a more virtuous attitude towards their role. I think our forefathers called it "enlightened self interest".
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (discreetgent @ Mar 20 2009, 03:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>If I could actually bring myself to believe that.... you'd be right! I just can't see either party going there. The decriminalization of pot has a bigger (more vocal perhaps) group of supporters than decriminalizing the oldest profession has and I don't hear any Dems trying to move on that one.Quote:
I can think of one way you might lean Democratic. Democrats are probably more likely to go along with decriminalizing the world of escorts than Republicans :P[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Edrienne Cole @ Mar 24 2009, 01:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Two in one day.....Yea! I think most Republican men lean in the decrim direction but are to scared of their women to say so. On the DEm side , I think most men are really glorified women and really believe that hooking is bad. Now there is not a ounce of science that went into my conclusion but I thought it noteworthy that we agreed twice! lolQuote:
If I could actually bring myself to believe that.... you'd be right! I just can't see either party going there. The decriminalization of pot has a bigger (more vocal perhaps) group of supporters than decriminalizing the oldest profession has and I don't hear any Dems trying to move on that one.[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WTF @ Mar 24 2009, 04:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Does that mean you will give Edrienne a discount on the 40K you charge for a weekend? LOL :PQuote:
Two in one day.....Yea! I think most Republican men lean in the decrim direction but are to scared of their women to say so. On the DEm side , I think most men are really glorified women and really believe that hooking is bad. Now there is not a ounce of science that went into my conclusion but I thought it noteworthy that we agreed twice! lol[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WTF @ Mar 24 2009, 03:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>EC, a little self-reflection might be in order. :DQuote:
I thought it noteworthy that we agreed twice! lol[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (discreetgent @ Mar 24 2009, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Quote:
Does that mean you will give Edrienne a discount on the 40K you charge for a weekend? LOL :P[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rudyard K @ Mar 24 2009, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Quote:
EC, a little self-reflection might be in order. :D[/b]
You two get a room :P
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rudyard K @ Mar 24 2009, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Geez, no kidding! Let me check.....Quote:
EC, a little self-reflection might be in order. :D[/b]
(insert Jeopardy theme music)
Ya know what? I'm still the same me. "Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony." (Mahatma Gandi) I'm quite the happy camper!
But I did run across an interesting tidbit in a book I was reading.... Theodore Millon uses a term "abrasive psychopath" to describe a person who, while sociopathic, lacks the sociopath's customary charm and finesse. Millon defines the abrasive psychopath as one who "acts in an overtly and directly contentious and quarrelsome way" and "everything and everyone is an object available for nagging and assualting". The abrasive psycopath's specific talent is to take the smallest, subtlest whisper of conflict and amplify it into a shouting match. They excel at the creation of hostility and bitterness where there was none before, and specializes in provoking people who are ordinarily gentle and peace-loving. In their universe, they are always right and take self-righteous pleasure in opposing and frustrating their opponents, who are seemingly everywhere and somehow always wrong. Their mission in life is to correct the world, a calling they heed without hesitation or conscience.
I thought this interesting so I decided to do a little experiment. WTF has dragged my name around assigning beliefs, qualities and viewpoints to me that are entirely false and without merit, through a variety of threads making reference to other totally unrelated threads, for no obvious purpose that I can fathom but to bait me. He has even addressed me several times in tones I find completely offensive and demeaning, and often with completely irrelevant content. I've ignored him. So what does Theodore Millon say happens when an abrasive psychopath doesn't succeed in drawing someone into their world of conflict? They attempt to seduce that person into an exchange so that they can then return to their normal mode of functioning.... being an abrasive ass (my terminology). Interesting, eh?
Having mulled that over a bit, I've decided to try to follow the recommendations of Martha Stout, PhD :
1) The first rule is to accept the bitter pill that some people literally have no conscience.
5) Suspect flattery.
6) If necessary, redefine your concept of respect.
7) Do not join the game.
8) The best way to protect yourself from a sociopath is to avoid him, to refuse any kind of contact or communication.
9) Question your tendency to pity too easily.
10) Do not try to redeem the unredeemable.
11) Never agree, out of pity or for any other reason, to help a sociopath conceal his true character.
12) Defend your psyche.
13) Living well is the best revenge.
And DG, though no one has made me that offer.... rest assured that I cannot fathom a price that I would need to receive in order to entertain even the thought of entertaining WTF. :P
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Edrienne Cole @ Mar 24 2009, 05:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>I think a better answer would have been "I wouldn't screw WTF with Summerhill hoochie." hahaQuote:
And DG, though no one has made me that offer.... rest assured that I cannot fathom a price that I would need to receive in order to entertain even the thought of entertaining WTF. :P[/b]
You take yourself way to seriously Ms Cole. All I was doing was what I consider fair play. Which is to acknowledge on a message board POINTS that I agree with. I do not really care about the personality behind the points. I agrre with POV's not people. It is a discussion board. Were more people to do that and take this less personal we wouldn't be having these spitwad contests.
You and I had gotten crossway when you stated you did not support economic discrimination against gays yet when shown evidence that in fact you do support that very thing you ran and hid with the red herring that I was not civil enough to your liking. boohoo Had I been gay I would have told you where to stick your civility. Many people because of religious upbringing think just like you and I do not have one problem with that thinking, I do not agree with it but I understand it. You on the other hand engaged in a discussion where you asked me to show you something that you did not think existed.....yet when in fact I pointed out where gays were discriminated against economically, you red herring'd me. Never addressing the rreal issue....your discrimination. What a total crock. I have no use for that.
Your first post*** on this site was a shot a me. Now who forgot number eight on your sociopath chart. So who baited whom?...why you did. Maybe it is I that should not engage you. sociopath, sociopath lol It seems you do not like your opinions (or belief's) challenged with actual facts. To bad.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Edrienne Cole @ Mar 24 2009, 05:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Quote:
8) The best way to protect yourself from a sociopath is to avoid him, to refuse any kind of contact or communication.[/b]
***I'll second SvelteTamara, Lauren. You're a better woman than I to bother engaging with some people. Civil discussions are quite nice... but require someone civil to discuss with.
Say WTF, did you ever think that some day you'd be looking bak at W's Administration as a time of low deficits?
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/...amabudget1.jpg
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pjorourke @ Mar 24 2009, 08:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>That's WTpsycoF. :DQuote:
Say WTF, did you ever think that some day you'd be looking bak at W's Administration as a time of low deficits?
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/...amabudget1.jpg[/b]
Fuc No.
Where's a good housing bubble when you need it?!