mike is right on the money here. those who want to govern the most are nearly always the least suited to do so.
Printable View
mike is right on the money here. those who want to govern the most are nearly always the least suited to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
I wholeheartedly agree, it should be like jury duty. Once you pass an IQ and personality profile of some sort. If you get the call up you do your one turn in office and no more ever.
No need to worry, your not getting a wagging finger. the artical was getting it.
DS
Wag on, finger, wag on! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicestone
Can't you be a Conservative and believe in science? I guess the belief in science now makes one a leftist. Make way for the Jesus horses at the Whitehouse. Now we can ensure that abstinence is taught to all the the children, it seems to have worked well for the Palin's. We can also stop paying them women the same as men, that has just been a pain.
Actually what needed is an IQ test for voters, 51% of americans surveyed think that new offshore drilling will drop the price of gas with in a year, that a statement about the electorate.
Nothing to do with the current state of the American voter, but Jefferson wanted the electorate to be well educated and understand the issues facing the country when they cast their vote. Now we're all reduced to decisions made based on 15 second sound bites and have little personal responsibility (the one item that actually woke me up during Obama's speech) about what we know of the issues. Except for this august group of intellectuals of course. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hutch
It's a lot like playing tennis (any sport) against a much better player, your game gets better. If the expectation is that you are a slacker, you start to act like one. Now where does that fit into public education? voting? citizen participation? Anyone else getting wind of the media "telling us" how we should be by way of who decides what the hot button of the day is? They are the only ones going to make any money off this contest. In that regard, the media are no better than bookies wanting to manipulate the odds and keep the race close, otherwise they got nothing to report.
Another odd thought: (disclaimer, the author has spent way too much time hammering hot steel breathing carbon monoxide) Why shouldn't we franchise the vote? Since apathy is the rule of most US elections, why shouldn't you have to work for your right to vote? In my previous note, serving the US people in some way should be the basis for that right. Go to congress, the senate, some public administrative office, serve in the military, serve in the VA hospitals if you don't want to shoot something, VISTA, the Peace Corps, Americorps, the CCC, etc. Do your two years and maybe with a little sweat equity that vote will mean something.
Look at the brand new democracies. They don't have any trouble pulling majority electoral counts. The US can barely get a portion of that out even when we're excited about it. France's last election pulled 86% of the populace. What the hell is wrong with the longest running democracy on the planet that we don't give a :cen?
I bet Gov. Palin is a good woman and is trying her best to run Alaska according to her own lights. They are all trying to exercise what they believe. If it's an educated belief, I can live with that, if they win. If it's just follow the leader/drink the coolaid...it's painful.
in breaking news, it was also discovered that a shocking 49.9% of the test takers had an IQ below the median score...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutch
It appears, from stories in our news media overnight, that Palin was not McCain's first choice as running mate. There is a story circulating that she was "recommended" by advisers because her "pro life" stance will bring the large conservative Christian vote on board. This is in contrast, apparently, to the person McCain initially wanted, who was "pro choice".
I don't know if this is true or not. But even if there is a glimmer of truth in there, it simply serves to reinforce my belief that politics, whether domestically or abroad, whether conservative or liberal, is simply about doing whatever you need to do to gain power. Groucho Marx summed it up well when he said "These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others". Or a slightly more political take on that might be "These are my principles. If you don't like them, tell me in a focus group and I'll make sure someone works out what principles I need to have."
Until someone has the guts to stand up and actually lay down what they really believe in and how they intend to put those beliefs into practice, politics will remain a sordid, cynical, laughable and despicable freak show. I cannot shake the belief that the party elected into government is simply the one who has the best spin doctors.
Here endeth my (off -topic, sorry) rant.
James.
Median is a value that separates the upper half of a list of values from the lower half, I think the term you're looking for is "mean" which is the average so naturally it means that half the people fall above and the other half falls below. As opposed to the "mode" which is the value that occurs most frequently in list of values. If the values are perfectly normally distributed the median=mean=mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Blue
You talk of "personal responsibilities" yet you make excuses for the state of the electorate. The voters and many Americans have chosen to be ignorant and uneducated, it' not the fault of the school system, the media, the government or anyone else. Personal responsibility begins there, if you aren't educated, get educated, if you are ignorant of the issues, become informed. In all honesty in this day and age its never been easier to get educated and informed.
I call 'sour grapes', Jimbo - you just want back the times when it was counting that determined the outcome... used to be that statisticians could come up with the result they get paid to come with and now all these spin doctors manipulating the distribution...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
Actually you should check your definitions, your statement is wrong, and so is your deduction from the 'mean'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutch
Mike (Blue), I very much agree with you, but voters activity in US is very very high compared to most democracies, even new ones. The case with the France's latest elections is an exception. In most new democracies (I'm coming from one of them in eastern europe) it took only few elections before the activity dropped under 60%. In the case of my country the first non-communist government lasted exactly 1 year and after two temporary governments the communists were elected back in a landslide with extremely high voter turnout.
Of course this is about the US elections, so back to that. Since every citizen has the right to vote what we see just seems the correct outcome of the system set up this way. I wish people would be less succeptible to manipulations, but from what I've seen so far it's just far from reality. Education helps a bit, I guess, but not all that much - most people seem to vote more emotionally than rationally.
"Mean is the average" if I'm wrong please explain and set me right.
Well, to me the definitions explain it exactly, so I'm not sure how to reword a definition in a way that you would see it... but I find that for many people in US it is easier to understand by example:
the mean of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 140 is 30, the median is 3.
There are 4 numbers below the mean and 1 above it, while there are 2 below the median and 2 above it.
I think this was a brilliant choice. My view is this pick did a great job of giving the conservative base of the Republican party a couple of their top priorities: pro life and NRA, but presents those in a very human package. And at the same time it gives a dynamic reformer that will appeal to reagan democrats not located on the East Coast or the West Coast.
Rather than a rich white male criticicizing abortion, you've got a woman who had a down sysndrome child rather than aborting it, which to me is as courageous as you can get. After listening to most of my didactic holier than thou democrat friends in liberal elite Boston get amnioed to be sure their child doesn't have downs syndrome so they can kill it before it comes out if it tests positive (while they lambast anyone that would use the word retarded - I guess it's ok to kill a fetus as long as you refer to it's handicap in a polite manner), this choice is exciting to me, even though ultimately I do think whether a woman gets an abortion is her call, even if they make a cowardly call.
And the fact that she is NRA because, heck, she hunts moose, is just awsome. Nothing crazy about that. And I think she will appeal to a lot of people for having these values, walking the walk not just talking the talk, and just being "real." And I don't think the Democrats that are shrilly decrying her as an insult to women even understand the appeal hervalues and achievements will have with the Reagan Democrats that live between the two coasts.
In addition to reinforcing the Republican unity, it also delivers a woman that clearly is formidable, having unseated two former governors in aold boy state, jamming down reforms and getting in the face of big business. And she hasn't achieved this authority by riding on the coat tails of her husband (never mind a philandering husband), or getting featured as a key note speaker before doing anything.
And her very presence is a taunt to Obama - sure, go ahead and say she's inexperienced. And yes, she knows how to use a gun, just like those bitter gun toting working class democrats hillary monopolized.
And like all great Republican moves, it infuriates the liberal elite. :tu
You are probably right Gugi, although I for one wouldn't call anyone who came up with a result they were paid to come up with a "statistician". "Analyst", maybe... :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Gugi is right - it is the Median which, by definition, has half the observations below it and half above it - I thought Jockeys was making a joke about the bleedingly obvious type statements made. A sample mean is basically an equi-weighted sum, which will only be equal to the 50th percentile if the sample data are symmetrically distributed. But you are right that median=mode=mean for a normal distribution :)Quote:
Actually you should check your definitions, your statement is wrong, and so is your deduction from the 'mean'.
James.
Hutch, what woke me was Obama talking about personal responsibilities. I've not heard politicians expecting that from the crowd. I'd say that generally, the desire for those who want to control behavior, is to have us all not question and not act in individual ways, responsible or not. My best example of that doctrine is how Pol Pot manipulated a society to exterminate the majority of the educated portion of an entire culture. Without an educated populace there was no one left capable of differentiating between bad, good enough and better. If there was no one to dream of a better life, the herd simply went along with the murderous masters, who by the way were mostly a few old men and a lot of uneducated but well indoctrinated teenagers who chose to believe what they were told by men with guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutch
Maybe it would be best to say that the potential for easy access to information exists, but other conditions can interfere with the willingness to go after it. Choices can be manipulated by any portion of the system including the individual. I'm certain that despite it being easy to get information, there are individuals who attend to learning but never realize that the teacher, political party, government entity or medial outlet are biased and do not fairly report their bias or expect the learner to search for contradictions. The learner may simply achieve their lowest level of satisfaction and stop seeking more information because they are comfortable with what they know, even if that knowledge is incomplete. In the Khmer case, survival meant that knowledge was death, personal responsibility was death. It's not so easy is it?
I agree that choosing to be ignorant is a sad state and personal responsibility is a good thing. I'm glad we live in a society that allows us the freedom to choose, the freedom to debate such things, and I'm guilty of changing the direction of this thread somewhat.
All humans are biased, to expect anything different is foolhardy. That's why there should be more than one source, whether be for what you're taught, read, or told. The beauty of education is that it teaches more than singular subject matter, it should teach you how to learn. The populace has become lazy all on its own.
I don't know anyone who's being put to death for knowledge in the US, so pining over the state of the US electorate and comparing it to what went on in Cambodia is really an exercise in excuse making to a monumental proportion.
Alaska used to be part of Russia: the czar sold it to the USA!Quote:
Originally Posted by igitur55
I bet Putin would love to have it back! She could always become his V.P. if she fails in the US!:D
Actually oil will drop in a year. If the US would pass a really comprehensive energy plan it would start dropping before the vote. The price of oil is determined by speculators not the actual cost of production.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutch
Above all, and this is freaking out Left Wingers, if McCain is elected president you are likely looking at the first woman president of the United States!
Have a good day!:D
Richard
That is a scary thought, not for the fact that she's a woman but for the fact that she doesn't have a clue. For the sake of the US if Mc Cain gets elected I really hope he lives a really long time.
Bring on all those talking points.
Okay so you're of the camp that that says we are all whiners involved in a mental recession. I'm making the point that you can have all the education you want, but circumstances outside any individual may develop that will prevent the exercise of that learning. The individual can choose to learn, but they can also choose to act improperly with all that education, and conditions outside the human being also have an impact on what they choose to learn and how they act. My point about Cambodia is that those conditions can be manipulated both internally and externally. You want to keep the argument limited to only what the individual can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutch
What you're not choosing to see is that we really agree more than we disagree. Your field of view is smaller or narrower than mine. This is a discussion about a spectrum of behavior and no one person can be extracted from the influences of the whole society they live in. If we acknowledge that perhaps some outside agent can influence individual behavior, then the Cambodian example is the most extreme one I can offer of how a society can exterminate education and suppress behavior. Complete social engineering and reworking the entire educational system of a society will not eliminate the individual mind, but it certainly curtails freedom to act by that individual. It's a very simple example of what you want to deny, that forces outside a person can affect how they learn and act.
It's not as complicated as trying to make the same point by showing how the content of textbooks limits learning choices or say, school prayers, regardless of cosmology, are really the expectation of regimented corporate behavior, as in a showing of public cooperation. Or that attendance in school everyday, on time, eyes open, ears on, is somehow more important to learning than what is going on in their heads. Those are more subtle and a little closer to home.
Where members of this forum stand politically really doesn't matter to me. In fact, I think it is in poor taste to bring up politics in ANY social setting. The media is absolutely leaning LEFT. Gov. Palin is an example of a woman having achieved success by hard work. The smear campaign she is experiencing is a disgrace and shows the downfall of modern journalism.
I will not share my political views. I spent my entire adult life in Emergency Services and am 100% disabled due to Duty-related injuries and consider myself lucky to be alive. I see the world differently than many who advise others on what they should or shouldn't believe in, take part of and talk sh*^ about.
Regardless of your opinion of McCain, Obama and Washington, D.C. in general. It is very obvious that we are a divided country. The venomous treatment of ALL candidates makes me wonder why anyone would seek public office. This is a critical time in our history and I guess we'll all find out the real deal in November.
:HJ
to all those arguing about median, mean, etc. median is the middle number in a list. so, not quite half above, not quite half below. hutch, i have a degree in math, so what i said was intentional and considered.
i was trying to make a sarcastic point about the usefulness of statistics in cases like these, e.g. just because it is correct doesn't mean it's useful in any way.
sarcasm totally misunderstood, ignore it and move on.
Lt, pardon me if I stand squarely next to your side. Because of your service, I think you've earned the right to speak up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt.Arclight
While I think politics is okay to talk about, the subject matter often lacks a reasoned approach and devolves rapidly away from the country's business into personalities and camps. My father allowed for passion to be expressed, but expected reasoned discussion about any subject, my mother banned such things over dinner because he had a tendency to throw food when he figured out I had him in the argument.
What offends me the most this year is any good American calling other good Americans evil and getting away with it. Unless he's prepared to indict someone for high crimes and misdimeanors, where they really are evil and judged by a legitimate court to be so, that tactic is as old as 1937.
We have, thanks for the permission though ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
Couldn't agree with you more, this preoccupation with perfection is ridicules. Most wouldn't subject themselves to this scrutiny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt.Arclight
As for Palin personally I don't see asking basic questions as "a smear campaign". I'd like to know who is she professionally and politically, what has she done professionally and politically, what has she stood for in the past politically, what does she stand for now politically, and what are her views on issues such as health care, education, foreign affairs, defense, trade, and the economy. If asking for answers to those is a "smear campaign" then I guess I want a smear campaign.
Personally I don't care that she's a hockey mom, hunts, fishes, her daughter is pregnant nor the fact that she exercised her right to choose to have her baby with down syndrome or the fact that she is the most popular governor in the country (wow she's been governor of the small state of Alaska and hasn't ****ed that many people off yet in 2 years). Lets get to the "meat and potatoes" because lets face it she's likely to be the next President.
For the "smear campaign" reference personally I think everyone has basically handled her with kid gloves, for fear of looking sexists. The brunt of the criticism that I have seen and heard has more to do with Mc Cain's judgement for picking her and passing over so many others that actually have lots more experience.
If she had ran for President on her own do you thin she'd have been the Republican nominee, I doubt anyone can say yes with a straight face, so why should the American public just accept her, considering Mc Cain's advanced age, and past health problems that do cast doubt on his ability to complete four years let alone 8 years.
They still matter, which is why a lot of people can't figure out how Obama is being considered for the Presidency. He has not even completed one term in the U.S. Senate. Two years after arriving in D.C., he starting running for President! Our past Presidents are typically governors, senators, or generals. As far as I can tell, Palin is no less experienced than Obama where government leadership is concernedQuote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
This is such an obvious point, I don't understand why anyone contests it. Anyone that thinks Palin is too inexperienced shouldn't be voting Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
Everyone talks about experience but really there is no experience that is even close to being relevant to be the President of the US. If the electorate really thought experience was that important they'd get rid of the constitutional amendment limiting the President to only two terms, then Bill Clinton would most likely still be President.
The difference is subtle but the fact is because Obama has gone through the primaries whether you agree or disagree with his positions on issue we all no what they are. Unfortunately the Republicans have chosen to make this campaign a fluff piece, they talk about all her personal issues, but nobody has heard anything yet from her on what her stand on issues is, or even if she knows what the issues are. The longer we wait to hear this form her, the more it looks like when we do hear it, it's not going to be hear views but those of the handlers.Quote:
Originally Posted by loueedacat
Hmm... maybe Obama should have picked his wife for VP instead of BidenQuote:
Originally Posted by Hutch
She's eloquent, has strong character, and we know where she stands on policy. I wonder what Biden has that Michelle doesn't have?
Obama himself doesn't even know what several of his positions on issues are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutch
I don't actually think it's a subtle point, but you are still missing it. I said they are equally inexperienced - that has nothing to do with vetting of their IDEAS in the primaries. Whatever his ideas are, he is inexperienced, and if you don't think Palin is experienced enough, you shouldn't be voting Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutch
If you are voting Obama because you know his ideas (hope, change, hope, change) and don't want to vote McCain because you are not versed in his VP's ideas, that's your prerogative.........but on inexperience, having your ideas vetted in the primaries isn't experience.
And handlers....you think Obama isn't being handled? Yes he is (and expertly so I might add).
Hi All,
I apologize if others have said something similar, but eight pages is just too much to read through to find out. Just a few thoughts on pick for VP.
Imagine being a Republican, and sitting in a room with many other supporters. You're waiting to find out who McCain has decided on. Very exciting! Then the moment comes...........it's Sarah Palin!!!!!!!!
Now, what do you think happens next in that room? Wild cheering and exuberance? Lotsa high 5's? Congratulations all around? Yeah..........right.
Nope, the party was confused as hell..........you can bet on that. Hehe, I bet everyone in that room (and most people of both parties) was surprised. That meant the GOP had to 'learn the pitch', or the party line, in other words.
They needed some direction.......how to spin this as best they could. The true believers had to be fed something that sorta sounded legit.......a reason for this totally unexpected pick. Now they all know they are VERY excited about Mrs Palin, and more importantly, they have been told why they are excited. That's a big relief, and now they have a story they can all stick to.
This pick will turn out like Mr Bush and his Harriet Miers moment. Hehe, that was his decision alone, and it showed just what kind of fair and impartial legal mind Mr Bush has. This MUST have been Mr McCain's decision, probably going against the advice of others. Plus, he DID have the luxury of having quite a while to make the decision..........not a good sign.
I'd be willing to bet Mrs Palin will be replaced. Any takers?
Martin
Oh.......in all seriousness, if this post is too much, I can delete it with no hard feelings. Also, I'm a member of neither party, and being impartial seems easy for me as a result.
De Layne,
Others say McCain preferred someone else and the GOP pushed Palin on him as a Hail Mary desperation attempt. I guess after she speaks tonight at the convention we'll have even more to speculate about :)
political speculation I mean
As of this morning, they were giving 8:1 on that. It had been as high as 10:1, but as the various bits of information came out, they began to shorten.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Layne
Remembering as I do the Eagleton mess, I think it would take a real catastrophe to make them ditch her. Still, you can hear Democrats salivating over the choice.
j
:OT @Nord Jim if you can remember that far back you are really showing your age";"
Hi there Lee and Jim,
You know Lee, I heard that also, but I just don't see the 'why' of it myself. What caused the pressure, and why was she the best pick? I also agree that her speech may start to change how I perceive her nomination. It would be a kick if she came across as a likable and believable person....someone who wasn't just a token female being offered up. Of course, I'd have to see how she speaks and acts in other venues, but a good speech would be a start. I'm actually keeping an open mind.
Jim? Hehe, 8-1 still sounds high. I agree with you about the Dems loving this selection.........seems like a wonderful gift so far.
And I thought we were friends...Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
j
We'll probably never know. We do know that the party faithful weren't enamored with McCain's favorites (Lieberman and Ridge) because of their stance on reproductive freedom. Fact is those two were the only ones the Dems were really worried about. I'd love to know who McCain met with on Wednesday or so. Those were the people with the power to force a choice onto the guy with the nomination wrapped up. I'd love to know who they were -- they're the true power brokers in America these days. But we'll probably never know. One was probably Keyser Soze.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Layne
j
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
If you want a friend in Washington, you'd better get a dog. Harry Truman:D