.... and the barman asks "what's the matter?"  :-D

<http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=870805>

<http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=higgs+boson+jokes&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8>

and for the uninformed:

Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-disco
vered-higgs-boson-particle.html>

-- 
I just want to say that being chosen as this month's Miss August 
is like a compliment I'll remember for as long as I can. 
Right now I'm a freshman in my fourth year at UCLA, 
but my goal is to become a veterinarian, cause I love children. 

'Cause I'm a blonde - yeah, yeah, yeah! 
     --Julie Brown <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rNfZxgkH7k>

Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

> ... and the barman asks "what's the matter?"  :-D

I have to admit I chuckled over that one :-)

> <http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=870805>
> 
> <http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=higgs+boson+jokes&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
> 8>
> 
> and for the uninformed:
> 
> Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-disco
> vered-higgs-boson-particle.html>

One of the most important, if not _the_ most important discovery of the
past 100 years. It was deeply moving watching the man who theorised the
Higgs-Boson's existence shed tears of joy at the press event.

Science - it works bitches!
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <1kmt89b.yav7ss41j9qlN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
 jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
> 
> > ... and the barman asks "what's the matter?"  :-D
> 
> I have to admit I chuckled over that one :-)
> 
> > <http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=870805>
> > 
> > <http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=higgs+boson+jokes&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
> > 8>
> > 
> > and for the uninformed:
> > 
> > Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-disco
> > vered-higgs-boson-particle.html>
> 
> One of the most important, if not _the_ most important discovery of the
> past 100 years. It was deeply moving watching the man who theorised the
> Higgs-Boson's existence shed tears of joy at the press event.
> 
> Science - it works bitches!

It's up there, although if and when someone figures out how to unify 
quantum mechanics and general relativity, that will surely trump it.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

On 2012-07-05 20:09 , Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
>> ... and the barman asks "what's the matter?"  :-D
>
> I have to admit I chuckled over that one :-)

(It's not new.  But always cute).

>> <http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=870805>
>>
>> <http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=higgs+boson+jokes&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
>> 8>
>>
>> and for the uninformed:
>>
>> Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-disco
>> vered-higgs-boson-particle.html>
>
> One of the most important, if not _the_ most important discovery of the
> past 100 years. It was deeply moving watching the man who theorised the
> Higgs-Boson's existence shed tears of joy at the press event.

He's only crying 'cause someone told him the Nobel committee will only 
award it to up to 3 people.  So his split of the cash is greater than he 
thought.

Okay, that's kinda petty.  But IMO, he deserves the entire enchilada.

It would be a pity if Hawking radiation is not proved in the LHC before 
Hawking kicks the bucket.  That would be Hawking's ticket to a Nobel. 
(Since a primary aim of the LHC is not to prove Hawking radiation it's 
not likely, though it is possible.  Just need to detect the decay of a 
black hole in the LHC.  Somehow.)

-- 
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
             -Samuel Clemens.

In article <fmoore-87C40C.19371805072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

> Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe

All the members of that team wear red sock.

You've heard of the Boson Red Sox, haven't you?

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <barmar-2FD677.21201005072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <1kmt89b.yav7ss41j9qlN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>  jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
> > Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
> > 
....
> > One of the most important, if not _the_ most important discovery of the
> > past 100 years. It was deeply moving watching the man who theorised the
> > Higgs-Boson's existence shed tears of joy at the press event.
> > 

I wonder what this "deeply moving" statement would look like subjected 
to a bit of scientific analysis and test. It is too early to be too 
impressed and I doubt that the person who said this was moved, imagine 
how he would be at a funeral of a close and loved family member, 
suicidal?

> 
> It's up there

-- 
dorayme

Barry Margolin:
> It's up there, although if and when someone figures out how to unify 
> quantum mechanics and general relativity, that will surely trump it.

Big if. A growing number of legitimate physicists doubt that there is a
unified theory. The disparity of scale presents an intellectual hurdle
for some of them; that QM governs the Universe at the very smallest
scale and GR on the very largest scale. The bridge would be a long one.

Freeman Dyson said it back in 2004: "As a conservative, I do not agree
that a division of physics into separate theories for large and small
is unacceptable. I am happy with the situation in which we have lived
for the last 80 years, with separate theories for the classical world
of stars and planets and the quantum world of atoms and electrons."

-- Freeman Dyson in a review of Brian Greene�s book The Fabric of the
Cosmos.

Wikipedia says of Dyson "Friends and colleagues describe him as shy and
self-effacing with a contrarian streak that his friends find refreshing
but his intellectual opponents find exasperating." Wikipedia also
quotes Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg as saying that the Nobel
committee had "fleeced" Dyson [of a Nobel in physics that Dyson
deserved].

I'm not qualified to go deeply into this matter, or to say that Dyson
and other doubters are right or wrong. I will go so far as to say that
I think that a unified theory would not have the beauty that physicists
like to speak of if it had the appearance of a jigsaw puzzle in which
pieces were forced where they didn't fit. String theory, 11 dimensions,
26 dimensions, the notion that gravity is the weakest force because it
is not of this Universe, but that small amounts of it are leaking into
this Universe from another one... and after that it starts to get
really weird.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article <060720120000027750%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> I'm not qualified to go deeply into this matter, or to say that Dyson
> and other doubters are right or wrong. I will go so far as to say that
> I think that a unified theory would not have the beauty that physicists
> like to speak of if it had the appearance of a jigsaw puzzle in which
> pieces were forced where they didn't fit. String theory, 11 dimensions,
> 26 dimensions, the notion that gravity is the weakest force because it
> is not of this Universe, but that small amounts of it are leaking into
> this Universe from another one... and after that it starts to get
> really weird.

It was always weird.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

In article <fmoore-87C40C.19371805072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

> Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-disco
> vered-higgs-boson-particle.html>

  The really sad part, to me, is that when I read the article the my 
first thought was wondering how the writers from The Big Bang Theory  
are going to handle this. (g).
-- 
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

On Thursday, July 5, 2012 9:00:02 PM UTC-7, Davoud wrote:
> Barry Margolin:
> > It's up there, although if and when someone figures out how to unify=20
> > quantum mechanics and general relativity, that will surely trump it.
>=20
> Big if. A growing number of legitimate physicists doubt that there is a
> unified theory. The disparity of scale presents an intellectual hurdle
> for some of them; that QM governs the Universe at the very smallest
> scale and GR on the very largest scale. The bridge would be a long one.
>=20
> Freeman Dyson said it back in 2004: "As a conservative, I do not agree
> that a division of physics into separate theories for large and small
> is unacceptable. I am happy with the situation in which we have lived
> for the last 80 years, with separate theories for the classical world
> of stars and planets and the quantum world of atoms and electrons."
>=20
> -- Freeman Dyson in a review of Brian Greene=B9s book The Fabric of the
> Cosmos.
>=20
> Wikipedia says of Dyson "Friends and colleagues describe him as shy and
> self-effacing with a contrarian streak that his friends find refreshing
> but his intellectual opponents find exasperating." Wikipedia also
> quotes Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg as saying that the Nobel
> committee had "fleeced" Dyson [of a Nobel in physics that Dyson
> deserved].
>=20
> I'm not qualified to go deeply into this matter, or to say that Dyson
> and other doubters are right or wrong. I will go so far as to say that
> I think that a unified theory would not have the beauty that physicists
> like to speak of if it had the appearance of a jigsaw puzzle in which
> pieces were forced where they didn't fit. String theory, 11 dimensions,
> 26 dimensions, the notion that gravity is the weakest force because it
> is not of this Universe, but that small amounts of it are leaking into
> this Universe from another one... and after that it starts to get
> really weird.


"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it."
(Neils Bohr)


> --=20
> I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything t=
hat
> you will say in your entire life.
>=20
> usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article <fmoore-87C40C.19371805072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

> ... and the barman asks "what's the matter?"  :-D

The most common joke seems to be:

A Higgs boson walks into a church. The priest tells him he can't stay, 
he replies "You can't have mass without me."

There are a bunch of web sites collecting Higgs jokes.  But my favorite 
is one I heard on NPR's Science Friday, which I haven't found on any of 
the sites.

What's the big revelation about the Higgs?  It's actually a tax.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

On 07/06/2012 08:31 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <fmoore-87C40C.19371805072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>   Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
>> Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-disco
>> vered-higgs-boson-particle.html>
>
>    The really sad part, to me, is that when I read the article the my
> first thought was wondering how the writers from The Big Bang Theory
> are going to handle this. (g).

Sheldon has a meltdown and Leonard goes over to the neighbor's house for 
consolation again?

On 07/05/2012 10:22 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <fmoore-87C40C.19371805072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>   Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
>> Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe
>
> All the members of that team wear red sock.
>
> You've heard of the Boson Red Sox, haven't you?
>
I've heard of Boson baked beans. And a Boson tea party...not to be 
confused with the paranoid Beck version. And Boson Market makes chicken 
as good as Boson Chicken used to, but not as good as the Kenny Rogers 
chain that forced you to look at Kenny Rogers likeness everywhere you 
looked. Either was better than the Kernel, regardless of how you 
compiled it.

On 07-06-2012 00:00, Davoud wrote:
> Big if. A growing number of legitimate physicists doubt that there is a
> unified theory. The disparity of scale presents an intellectual hurdle
> for some of them; that QM governs the Universe at the very smallest
> scale and GR on the very largest scale. The bridge would be a long one.

I understand you may have been using a metaphor, but I think a more 
accurate statement (speaking literally) is that ____ theory DESCRIBES 
the universe.  Too many people take your term literally.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    “Brigham Young agrees to confine himself to one woman,
     if every member of Congress will do the same.”
                             — Weekly Republican, 1869

On 07-06-2012 18:54, Barry Margolin wrote:
> There are a bunch of web sites collecting Higgs jokes.  But my favorite
> is one I heard on NPR's Science Friday, which I haven't found on any of
> the sites.
>
> What's the big revelation about the Higgs?  It's actually a tax.

I admit it--I don't get it.


-- 
Wes Groleau

    Don't get even — get odd!

In article <jt89ja$g55$3@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> > What's the big revelation about the Higgs?  It's actually a tax.
> 
> I admit it--I don't get it.

It's a play on the Affordable Health Care Act; right wingers are saying 
that the penalty for not being covered by health insurance is actually a 
tax.  They base this on the majority opinion saying that congress has the 
authority to invoke this penalty because it has the power to tax.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

On 07/06/2012 11:35 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <jt89ja$g55$3@dont-email.me>,
>   Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>>> What's the big revelation about the Higgs?  It's actually a tax.
>>
>> I admit it--I don't get it.
>
> It's a play on the Affordable Health Care Act; right wingers are saying
> that the penalty for not being covered by health insurance is actually a
> tax.  They base this on the majority opinion saying that congress has the
> authority to invoke this penalty because it has the power to tax.

We have the right to go bankrupt from an unaffordable illness.

Barry Margolin:
> > There are a bunch of web sites collecting Higgs jokes.  But my favorite
> > is one I heard on NPR's Science Friday, which I haven't found on any of
> > the sites.
> >
> > What's the big revelation about the Higgs?  It's actually a tax.

Wes Groleau:
> I admit it--I don't get it.

The joke didn't work all that well for me, but I /think/ it an allusion
to the SCOTUS decision on the Affordable Health Care for America Act
(ACA). The majority ruling said in part that the law is constitutional
because certain provisions amount to taxes, and the Constitution gives
the Congress the authority to levy taxes.* The Obama administration had
earlier argued that these were fees and fines, not taxes. Romney agreed
with Obama that this was not a tax. He held that position for several
days while his puppeteers panicked because he had agreed with the
President, which the Party of Nixon is not permitted to do even if
Obama calls Monday "Monday." So the puppetmasters  ordered Romney to
change his tune and say it is a tax, and he did so. If they had ordered
him to say that the levy was a figgy pudding he would have said that,
too. Romney supporters are deeply concerned because the Affordable Care
Act is modeled on Romney's own Massachusetts Health Care Plan and it is
difficult--perhaps impossible--for him to disavow what he once rightly
touted as a great personal and political achievement, back when he was
a progressive.

*We have a few nutso cults in this country that claim that income taxes
are unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United
States Constitution could hardly be more lucid on this subject: "The
Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Once more: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes...."
I'm no Einstein, but I get it.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article <jt89g8$g55$2@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 07-06-2012 00:00, Davoud wrote:
> > Big if. A growing number of legitimate physicists doubt that there is a
> > unified theory. The disparity of scale presents an intellectual hurdle
> > for some of them; that QM governs the Universe at the very smallest
> > scale and GR on the very largest scale. The bridge would be a long one.
> 
> I understand you may have been using a metaphor, but I think a more 
> accurate statement (speaking literally) is that ____ theory DESCRIBES 
> the universe.  Too many people take your term literally.

You think "governs" is misleading?

-- 
dorayme

In message <jfmdnegPXL45R2vSnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@earthlink.com> 
  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <fmoore-87C40C.19371805072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

>> Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-disco
>> vered-higgs-boson-particle.html>

>   The really sad part, to me, is that when I read the article the my 
> first thought was wondering how the writers from The Big Bang Theory  
> are going to handle this. (g).

Yep. Same.

-- 
'Sometimes there has to be a civil war, and sometimes, afterwards, it's
best to pretend something didn't happen. Sometimes people have to do a
job, and then they have to be forgotten.' --Men at Arms

In message <barmar-AD5826.18540306072012@news.eternal-september.org> 
  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> What's the big revelation about the Higgs?  It's actually a tax.

Nice.

-- 
I want a refund, I want a light, I want a reason for all this night
after night after night after night

In article <jumdnctT85ZJOGrSnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 07/05/2012 10:22 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article <fmoore-87C40C.19371805072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >   Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe
> >
> > All the members of that team wear red sock.
> >
> > You've heard of the Boson Red Sox, haven't you?
> >
> I've heard of Boson baked beans. And a Boson tea party...not to be 
> confused with the paranoid Beck version. And Boson Market makes chicken 
> as good as Boson Chicken used to, but not as good as the Kenny Rogers 
> chain that forced you to look at Kenny Rogers likeness everywhere you 
> looked. Either was better than the Kernel, regardless of how you 
> compiled it.

After reading that paragraph, I'm certain that you've popped. 
-- 
Remove blown from email address to reply.

In article <michelle-10983C.20351706072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <jt89ja$g55$3@dont-email.me>,
>  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> 
> > > What's the big revelation about the Higgs?  It's actually a tax.
> > 
> > I admit it--I don't get it.
> 
> It's a play on the Affordable Health Care Act; right wingers are saying 
> that the penalty for not being covered by health insurance is actually a 
> tax.  They base this on the majority opinion saying that congress has the 
> authority to invoke this penalty because it has the power to tax.

     A majority of Demo-appointed people (and one outlier) on SCOTUS 
KNOW it is as tax. That it is a tax is law of the land.   Not just the 
right wingers.
-- 
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

In article <z4ednRDz2MjWvmXSnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > It's a play on the Affordable Health Care Act; right wingers are 
> > saying that the penalty for not being covered by health insurance is 
> > actually a tax.  They base this on the majority opinion saying that 
> > congress has the authority to invoke this penalty because it has the 
> > power to tax.
> 
> A majority of Demo-appointed people (and one outlier) on SCOTUS KNOW it 
> is as tax. That it is a tax is law of the land.   Not just the right 
> wingers.

Nope; the decision didn't say that it is a tax.  Read it again.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <michelle-7FB85B.07262307072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <z4ednRDz2MjWvmXSnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > > It's a play on the Affordable Health Care Act; right wingers are 
> > > saying that the penalty for not being covered by health insurance is 
> > > actually a tax.  They base this on the majority opinion saying that 
> > > congress has the authority to invoke this penalty because it has the 
> > > power to tax.
> > 
> > A majority of Demo-appointed people (and one outlier) on SCOTUS KNOW it 
> > is as tax. That it is a tax is law of the land.   Not just the right 
> > wingers.
> 
> Nope; the decision didn't say that it is a tax.  Read it again.

I have three times. The Chief would tend to disagree with you:
4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect 
to Part III�C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as 
within Congress�s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33� 44.
(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the �[s]hared responsibility 
payment� as a �penalty,� not a �tax.� That label is fatal to the appli- 
cation of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether 
an exaction is within Congress�s power to tax. In answering that 
constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, 
�[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub- 
stance and application.� United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 
294. Pp. 33�35.
(b) ***Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment 
may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.***
 If you read it, all of sections of 3 and 4 of the syllabus go through 
the task of construing it as a tax.
-- 
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

On 07-07-2012 01:12, dorayme wrote:
>   Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 07-06-2012 00:00, Davoud wrote:
>>> Big if. A growing number of legitimate physicists doubt that there is a
>>> unified theory. The disparity of scale presents an intellectual hurdle
>>> for some of them; that QM governs the Universe at the very smallest
>>> scale and GR on the very largest scale. The bridge would be a long one.
>>
>> I understand you may have been using a metaphor, but I think a more
>> accurate statement (speaking literally) is that ____ theory DESCRIBES
>> the universe.  Too many people take your term literally.
>
> You think "governs" is misleading?

To people who take it literally, yes.

The universe doesn't literally¹ obey the theories of Einstein, Bohr, 
Planck, etc. and they don't literally govern it.  It is behaving the way 
it has behaved for millenia.  Nor did it change its behavior after 
reading what Newton published.

¹I use the term 'literally' for what it meant _before_ recent 
generations changed it.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise.

On 07-07-2012 10:26, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <z4ednRDz2MjWvmXSnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>   Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> It's a play on the Affordable Health Care Act; right wingers are
>>> saying that the penalty for not being covered by health insurance is
>>> actually a tax.  They base this on the majority opinion saying that
>>> congress has the authority to invoke this penalty because it has the
>>> power to tax.
>>
>> A majority of Demo-appointed people (and one outlier) on SCOTUS KNOW it
>> is as tax. That it is a tax is law of the land.   Not just the right
>> wingers.
>
> Nope; the decision didn't say that it is a tax.  Read it again.

OK, they say Congress has the authority to impose taxes, therefore they 
have the power to do that can be interpreted two ways:

First interpretation, a standard syllogism:
1. Congress has the authority to impose taxes.
2. The penalty is a tax.
3. Therefore, Congress has the authority to impose that penalty.

Second interpretation:
A majority of the justices have forgotten Logic 101.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise.

On 07-07-2012 00:30, Davoud wrote:
> the Congress the authority to levy taxes.* The Obama administration had
> earlier argued that these were fees and fines, not taxes. Romney agreed
> with Obama that this was not a tax. He held that position for several

Which is about as stupid as a typical Usenet argument.

If someone takes a hundred dollars from me, it matters little what name 
they attach to it.

As far as the legality goes, Congress has the authority (subject to veto 
of course) to impose taxes, AND to impose "fees and fines"  Which
makes the semantic arguments even stupider.

And when I say stupid, I am accusing _both_ sides.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise.

In article <ZsednYnt5OyY0mXSnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> (b) ***Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment 
> may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.***
>  If you read it, all of sections of 3 and 4 of the syllabus go through 
> the task of construing it as a tax.

"May for constitutional purposes be considered a tax" is not the same as 
"is a tax".  If he had meant it is a tax, that's what he would have written.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

On 7/6/12 10:35 PM, in article
michelle-10983C.20351706072012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <jt89ja$g55$3@dont-email.me>,
>  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> 
>>> What's the big revelation about the Higgs?  It's actually a tax.
>> 
>> I admit it--I don't get it.
> 
> It's a play on the Affordable Health Care Act; right wingers are saying
> that the penalty for not being covered by health insurance is actually a
> tax.  They base this on the majority opinion saying that congress has the
> authority to invoke this penalty because it has the power to tax.


 The OBAMA motto: "We've got what it takes, to take what you've got!"

On 7/7/12 9:26 AM, in article
michelle-7FB85B.07262307072012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <z4ednRDz2MjWvmXSnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>> It's a play on the Affordable Health Care Act; right wingers are
>>> saying that the penalty for not being covered by health insurance is
>>> actually a tax.  They base this on the majority opinion saying that
>>> congress has the authority to invoke this penalty because it has the
>>> power to tax.
>> 
>> A majority of Demo-appointed people (and one outlier) on SCOTUS KNOW it
>> is as tax. That it is a tax is law of the land.   Not just the right
>> wingers.
> 
> Nope; the decision didn't say that it is a tax.  Read it again.

<WHOOSH>

"To be constitutional it must be considered a tax"

Chief Justice Turncoat Roberts

On 7/7/12 10:16 AM, in article jt9jrk$d7e$1@dont-email.me, "Wes Groleau"
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 07-07-2012 00:30, Davoud wrote:
>> the Congress the authority to levy taxes.* The Obama administration had
>> earlier argued that these were fees and fines, not taxes. Romney agreed
>> with Obama that this was not a tax. He held that position for several
> 
> Which is about as stupid as a typical Usenet argument.
> 
> If someone takes a hundred dollars from me, it matters little what name
> they attach to it.
> 
> As far as the legality goes, Congress has the authority (subject to veto
> of course) to impose taxes, AND to impose "fees and fines"  Which
> makes the semantic arguments even stupider.
> 
> And when I say stupid, I am accusing _both_ sides.

As someone once said:

"A fine is a tax for doing wrong.
  A tax is a fine for doing  well."

�Nuff Said

In article <CC1DC75D.8A3C2%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/7/12 9:26 AM, in article
> michelle-7FB85B.07262307072012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
> Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <z4ednRDz2MjWvmXSnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> >  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>> It's a play on the Affordable Health Care Act; right wingers are
> >>> saying that the penalty for not being covered by health insurance is
> >>> actually a tax.  They base this on the majority opinion saying that
> >>> congress has the authority to invoke this penalty because it has the
> >>> power to tax.
> >> 
> >> A majority of Demo-appointed people (and one outlier) on SCOTUS KNOW it
> >> is as tax. That it is a tax is law of the land.   Not just the right
> >> wingers.
> > 
> > Nope; the decision didn't say that it is a tax.  Read it again.
> 
> <WHOOSH>
> 
> "To be constitutional it must be considered a tax"
> 
> Chief Justice Turncoat Roberts

You guys are lost, bitching and moaning about petty bullshit while your 
government is stolen away from you.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> writes:

> On 7/6/12 10:35 PM, in article
> michelle-10983C.20351706072012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
> Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jt89ja$g55$3@dont-email.me>,
> >  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> > 
> >>> What's the big revelation about the Higgs?  It's actually a tax.
> >> 
> >> I admit it--I don't get it.
> > 
> > It's a play on the Affordable Health Care Act; right wingers are saying
> > that the penalty for not being covered by health insurance is actually a
> > tax.  They base this on the majority opinion saying that congress has the
> > authority to invoke this penalty because it has the power to tax.
> 
> 
>  The OBAMA motto: "We've got what it takes, to take what you've got!"

Too late.  The Republicans already let the banks take it.

Marting

In article <7ed22637-8fa0-4f50-a989-559a0e844b87@googlegroups.com>,
 paris2venice@gmail.com wrote:

> "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it."
> (Neils Bohr)

God doesn't play dice with the Universe. --Albert Einstein

Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice. --Neils Bohr

-- 
And It's Just That Easy�

In article <fmoore-87C40C.19371805072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

> ... and the barman asks "what's the matter?"  :-D
> 
> <http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=870805>
> 
> <http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=higgs+boson+jokes&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
> 8>
> 
> and for the uninformed:
> 
> Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-disco
> vered-higgs-boson-particle.html>

UPDATE!!!   UPDATE!!!   UPDATE!!!   UPDATE!!!   UPDATE!!!   UPDATE!!!   

YOU can do this at home:

Physicist builds Lego Large Hadron Collider
<http://www.tecca.com/news/2011/12/23/lego-large-hadron-collider/>

-- 
HaHa, HoHo, & HeeHee

In article <CC1DC875.8A3C3%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> As someone once said:
> 
> "A fine is a tax for doing wrong.
>   A tax is a fine for doing  well."

You you agree that taxing is fine.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

On 07-07-2012 11:56, George Kerby wrote:
>   The OBAMA motto: "We've got what it takes, to take what you've got!"

I thought that was the IRS motto, adopted in 1915 (replacing the first 
motto of, "Now what the heck are we supposed to be doing here?")


-- 
Wes Groleau

    Curmudgeon's Complaints on Courtesy:
    http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html

On 7/7/12 11:14 AM, in article
jollyroger-1E234F.09142207072012@news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger"
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <CC1DC75D.8A3C2%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>  George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 7/7/12 9:26 AM, in article
>> michelle-7FB85B.07262307072012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
>> Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <z4ednRDz2MjWvmXSnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>>>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> It's a play on the Affordable Health Care Act; right wingers are
>>>>> saying that the penalty for not being covered by health insurance is
>>>>> actually a tax.  They base this on the majority opinion saying that
>>>>> congress has the authority to invoke this penalty because it has the
>>>>> power to tax.
>>>> 
>>>> A majority of Demo-appointed people (and one outlier) on SCOTUS KNOW it
>>>> is as tax. That it is a tax is law of the land.   Not just the right
>>>> wingers.
>>> 
>>> Nope; the decision didn't say that it is a tax.  Read it again.
>> 
>> <WHOOSH>
>> 
>> "To be constitutional it must be considered a tax"
>> 
>> Chief Justice Turncoat Roberts
> 
> You guys are lost, bitching and moaning about petty bullshit while your
> government is stolen away from you.

JR, if it concerns my money being stolen from me, I don't need to worry
about the Government, which has already been stolen, with the election of
2006 and the loss of both Houses of Congress. My hard-earned $$$ and
Retirement being eaten alive by Socialist politicians, in the name of
"Fairness", while scamming the top for their own re-election and fortune, is
indeed NOT "petty bullshit", as you put it.

On 7/7/12 11:55 AM, in article
michelle-322410.09552007072012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <CC1DC875.8A3C3%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>  George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> As someone once said:
>> 
>> "A fine is a tax for doing wrong.
>>   A tax is a fine for doing  well."
> 
> You you agree that taxing is fine.

Huh huh?!?

On 2012-07-07 12:37 , Fred Moore wrote:
> In article <fmoore-87C40C.19371805072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>   Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
>> ... and the barman asks "what's the matter?"  :-D
>>
>> <http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=870805>
>>
>> <http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=higgs+boson+jokes&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
>> 8>
>>
>> and for the uninformed:
>>
>> Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-disco
>> vered-higgs-boson-particle.html>
>
> UPDATE!!!   UPDATE!!!   UPDATE!!!   UPDATE!!!   UPDATE!!!   UPDATE!!!
>
> YOU can do this at home:
>
> Physicist builds Lego Large Hadron Collider

Actually that is just the ATLAS detector.

At that scale, the entire LHC lego model wouldn't fit on a football 
field (it would be about 108m diameter).

-- 
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
             -Samuel Clemens.

On 7/7/12 11:30 AM, in article mya9zbv8hy.fsf@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU, "Martin
Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu" <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote:

> George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 7/6/12 10:35 PM, in article
>> michelle-10983C.20351706072012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
>> Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <jt89ja$g55$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> What's the big revelation about the Higgs?  It's actually a tax.
>>>> 
>>>> I admit it--I don't get it.
>>> 
>>> It's a play on the Affordable Health Care Act; right wingers are saying
>>> that the penalty for not being covered by health insurance is actually a
>>> tax.  They base this on the majority opinion saying that congress has the
>>> authority to invoke this penalty because it has the power to tax.
>> 
>> 
>>  The OBAMA motto: "We've got what it takes, to take what you've got!"
> 
> Too late.  The Republicans already let the banks take it.
> 
> Marting

<http://youtu.be/UjWc9cX7dQc>

In article <CC1DD791.8A45A%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> As someone once said:
> >> 
> >> "A fine is a tax for doing wrong.
> >>   A tax is a fine for doing  well."
> > 
> > You you agree that taxing is fine.
> 
> Huh huh?!?

Woosh.  Can't recognize a pun, can you?

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <CC1DD71D.8A459%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> JR, if it concerns my money being stolen from me, I don't need to worry
> about the Government, which has already been stolen, with the election of
> 2006 and the loss of both Houses of Congress.

The government was stolen in the election of 2000.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <CC1DD71D.8A459%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/7/12 11:14 AM, in article
> jollyroger-1E234F.09142207072012@news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger"
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <CC1DC75D.8A3C2%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
> >  George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 7/7/12 9:26 AM, in article
> >> michelle-7FB85B.07262307072012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
> >> Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> In article <z4ednRDz2MjWvmXSnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> >>>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>>> It's a play on the Affordable Health Care Act; right wingers are
> >>>>> saying that the penalty for not being covered by health insurance is
> >>>>> actually a tax.  They base this on the majority opinion saying that
> >>>>> congress has the authority to invoke this penalty because it has the
> >>>>> power to tax.
> >>>> 
> >>>> A majority of Demo-appointed people (and one outlier) on SCOTUS KNOW it
> >>>> is as tax. That it is a tax is law of the land.   Not just the right
> >>>> wingers.
> >>> 
> >>> Nope; the decision didn't say that it is a tax.  Read it again.
> >> 
> >> <WHOOSH>
> >> 
> >> "To be constitutional it must be considered a tax"
> >> 
> >> Chief Justice Turncoat Roberts
> > 
> > You guys are lost, bitching and moaning about petty bullshit while your
> > government is stolen away from you.
> 
> JR, if it concerns my money being stolen from me, I don't need to worry
> about the Government, which has already been stolen, with the election of
> 2006 and the loss of both Houses of Congress.

The government was stolen from us long, long before 2006, pal. You don't 
get it.

> My hard-earned $$$ and
> Retirement being eaten alive by Socialist politicians

You clearly don't know what "socialist" really means. Stop trying to 
redefine it.

> in the name of
> "Fairness", while scamming the top for their own re-election and fortune, is
> indeed NOT "petty bullshit", as you put it.

Yeah, it is petty, considering what's at stake.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <michelle-E511AC.10211507072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <CC1DD71D.8A459%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>  George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > JR, if it concerns my money being stolen from me, I don't need to worry
> > about the Government, which has already been stolen, with the election of
> > 2006 and the loss of both Houses of Congress.
> 
> The government was stolen in the election of 2000.

Heck even the media don't agree with that statement since every way they 
tried to count the votes came out with Bush ahead.   Besides, since 
every county/precinct in Florida where there was a problem had a 
Democrat majority on their election Boards, the case could be made that 
the Dems tried to steal it and the attempt backfired.
-- 
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

In article <wJednYB4IorzFGXSnZ2dnUVZ_juXnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <michelle-E511AC.10211507072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <CC1DD71D.8A459%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
> >  George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > JR, if it concerns my money being stolen from me, I don't need to worry
> > > about the Government, which has already been stolen, with the election of
> > > 2006 and the loss of both Houses of Congress.
> > 
> > The government was stolen in the election of 2000.
> 
> Heck even the media don't agree with that statement since every way they 
> tried to count the votes came out with Bush ahead.   Besides, since 
> every county/precinct in Florida where there was a problem had a 
> Democrat majority on their election Boards, the case could be made that 
> the Dems tried to steal it and the attempt backfired.

None of that matters. Corporate interests and big money stole it from us 
long ago. This government hasn't been a government for the people, as 
intended by the founding fathers, in many decades.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

On 7/7/12 12:21 PM, in article
michelle-E511AC.10211507072012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <CC1DD71D.8A459%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>  George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> JR, if it concerns my money being stolen from me, I don't need to worry
>> about the Government, which has already been stolen, with the election of
>> 2006 and the loss of both Houses of Congress.
> 
> The government was stolen in the election of 2000.

Ahhh! The Great Hanging Chad Muddle of Boward County. The event that RUINED
the Nation! You BET!

"That's funny. I don't care WHO you are - that there's FUNNY!!!"

�Larry

On 7/7/12 1:25 PM, in article
jollyroger-8CB4F1.11253907072012@news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger"
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <CC1DD71D.8A459%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>  George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 7/7/12 11:14 AM, in article
>> jollyroger-1E234F.09142207072012@news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger"
>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <CC1DC75D.8A3C2%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>>>  George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 7/7/12 9:26 AM, in article
>>>> michelle-7FB85B.07262307072012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
>>>> Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <z4ednRDz2MjWvmXSnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>>>>>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It's a play on the Affordable Health Care Act; right wingers are
>>>>>>> saying that the penalty for not being covered by health insurance is
>>>>>>> actually a tax.  They base this on the majority opinion saying that
>>>>>>> congress has the authority to invoke this penalty because it has the
>>>>>>> power to tax.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A majority of Demo-appointed people (and one outlier) on SCOTUS KNOW it
>>>>>> is as tax. That it is a tax is law of the land.   Not just the right
>>>>>> wingers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nope; the decision didn't say that it is a tax.  Read it again.
>>>> 
>>>> <WHOOSH>
>>>> 
>>>> "To be constitutional it must be considered a tax"
>>>> 
>>>> Chief Justice Turncoat Roberts
>>> 
>>> You guys are lost, bitching and moaning about petty bullshit while your
>>> government is stolen away from you.
>> 
>> JR, if it concerns my money being stolen from me, I don't need to worry
>> about the Government, which has already been stolen, with the election of
>> 2006 and the loss of both Houses of Congress.
> 
> The government was stolen from us long, long before 2006, pal. You don't
> get it.
> 
>> My hard-earned $$$ and
>> Retirement being eaten alive by Socialist politicians
> 
> You clearly don't know what "socialist" really means. Stop trying to
> redefine it.
> 
>> in the name of
>> "Fairness", while scamming the top for their own re-election and fortune, is
>> indeed NOT "petty bullshit", as you put it.
> 
> Yeah, it is petty, considering what's at stake.


Sigh. Hopefully, with age, you will obtain wisdom.

On 7/7/12 2:09 PM, in article
wJednYB4IorzFGXSnZ2dnUVZ_juXnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Kurt Ullman"
<kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <michelle-E511AC.10211507072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> In article <CC1DD71D.8A459%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>>  George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> JR, if it concerns my money being stolen from me, I don't need to worry
>>> about the Government, which has already been stolen, with the election of
>>> 2006 and the loss of both Houses of Congress.
>> 
>> The government was stolen in the election of 2000.
> 
> Heck even the media don't agree with that statement since every way they
> tried to count the votes came out with Bush ahead.   Besides, since
> every county/precinct in Florida where there was a problem had a
> Democrat majority on their election Boards, the case could be made that
> the Dems tried to steal it and the attempt backfired.

NOOOOOO! Not those honest trustful upholder of all that is good? You mean
DimRats in Florida are like those of Cook County? I am  OUTRAGED, I tell ya!

On 7/7/12 2:18 PM, in article
jollyroger-76459E.12184607072012@news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger"
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <wJednYB4IorzFGXSnZ2dnUVZ_juXnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <michelle-E511AC.10211507072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <CC1DD71D.8A459%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>>>  George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> JR, if it concerns my money being stolen from me, I don't need to worry
>>>> about the Government, which has already been stolen, with the election of
>>>> 2006 and the loss of both Houses of Congress.
>>> 
>>> The government was stolen in the election of 2000.
>> 
>> Heck even the media don't agree with that statement since every way they
>> tried to count the votes came out with Bush ahead.   Besides, since
>> every county/precinct in Florida where there was a problem had a
>> Democrat majority on their election Boards, the case could be made that
>> the Dems tried to steal it and the attempt backfired.
> 
> None of that matters. Corporate interests and big money stole it from us
> long ago. This government hasn't been a government for the people, as
> intended by the founding fathers, in many decades.

You just figured that out? That's a 'given'. The most bucks buys the
election. Try the start of 20th century labor unions and business lobbyists.

In article <CC1DF79B.8A48A%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > The government was stolen in the election of 2000.
> 
> Ahhh! The Great Hanging Chad Muddle of Boward County. The event that 
> RUINED the Nation! You BET!

Nope; it didn't ruin the nation, but it did contribute to putting into the 
White House a man who did a lot towards ruining the nation.

There's a reason that the GOP virtually ignored Bush, and pretty much 
disavowed him, in the 2008 election campaigns.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <jollyroger-76459E.12184607072012@news.individual.net>,

>
> 
> None of that matters. Corporate interests and big money stole it from us 
> long ago. This government hasn't been a government for the people, as 
> intended by the founding fathers, in many decades.

I have always found it interesting that according to FEC stuff, there is 
only one (ATT) corporate or corp-related donor among the top 5 and only 
5 through the top 20. Rest are unions and similar. Not sure what that 
means overall, except Corp interests aren't the only ones stealing 
government from us.
-- 
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

Fred Moore:
> > Physicist builds Lego Large Hadron Collider

Alan Browne:
> Actually that is just the ATLAS detector.
> 
> At that scale, the entire LHC lego model wouldn't fit on a football 
> field (it would be about 108m diameter).

That's not a problem. There is no law in physics that dictates that a
Lego model of the LHC fit on a football field. The only physical
constraint is that the model must not exceed a certain mass lest it
collapse into a Black Hole.

The tricky part is that recent observational results cast doubt on old
theories concerning what that mass limit might be for certain classes
of stars. As far as I know, no studies have been done on Lego-block
Black Holes; the physicist building the Lego LHC would be breaking new
ground. I can imagine, after a certain point, the physicist holding his
breath each time he adds an additional Lego block.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article <jt9j3u$8r8$1@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 07-07-2012 01:12, dorayme wrote:
> >   Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >> On 07-06-2012 00:00, Davoud wrote:
> >>> Big if. A growing number of legitimate physicists doubt that there is a
> >>> unified theory. The disparity of scale presents an intellectual hurdle
> >>> for some of them; that QM governs the Universe at the very smallest
> >>> scale and GR on the very largest scale. The bridge would be a long one.
> >>
> >> I understand you may have been using a metaphor, but I think a more
> >> accurate statement (speaking literally) is that ____ theory DESCRIBES
> >> the universe.  Too many people take your term literally.
> >
> > You think "governs" is misleading?
> 
> To people who take it literally, yes.
> 
> The universe doesn't literally¹ obey the theories of Einstein, Bohr, 
> Planck, etc. and they don't literally govern it.  It is behaving the way 
> it has behaved for millenia.  Nor did it change its behavior after 
> reading what Newton published.
> 
> ¹I use the term 'literally' for what it meant _before_ recent 
> generations changed it.

There is literal governing and there is literal governing. A slave 
owner governs his slaves. But then, so do machines and their softwares 
govern the operation of an industrial plant. If the temperature of 
some slurry rises beyond a certain point, the pump slows down giving a 
heat pump down the line more leeway to do its job. There are even 
devices, mechanical and electronic called "governors" or having it as 
part of their names. It is not easy to maintain that the term is 
nowadays metaphorical in these uses.

Coming down to how scientific laws relate to the events they pertain 
to, it is also difficult to argue that the use of governs is merely 
metaphorical. While the findings of science consist of descriptions of 
all sorts of things, it certainly does not follow that things merely 
happen *consistently* with these descriptions. Few if any rational 
people really believe in this kind of contingency. I don't believe it 
is merely our metaphors from human or animal agency that intrude here. 

There are all sorts of ways this universe could have been different. 
To take evolution on earth, there could well have been a set of 
animals and plants by now very different in appearance to what we have 
now. But there are deeper forces at work that might well have 
determined some same sort of structures; creatures with backbones, 
without, etc). 

It is a hard act to argue that all the deepest of forces at work in 
the universe are mere descriptions that events happen to be consistent 
with - as if they could ignore the laws now and then or even all the 
time depending on the length and pervasiveness that you like your 
miracles to be.

"Governs" fits in with the idea of some necessity and necessity is 
something hard to argue out of the way the world works. It does not 
merely pretend to work as if the machine is such and such, the world 
is a machine and machines force and govern and necessitate.

-- 
dorayme

On 07-07-2012 20:21, dorayme wrote:
> It is a hard act to argue that all the deepest of forces at work in
> the universe are mere descriptions that events happen to be consistent
> with - as if they could ignore the laws now and then or even all the
> time depending on the length and pervasiveness that you like your
> miracles to be.

Nice try.  I never suggested the universe is inconsistent.
I said that it did NOT change its behavior upon reading Einstein or 
Newton or Bohr or any other brain we put on a pedestal.

Nor did I ever saw that "forces" are descriptions.  I said, and still 
do, that all our "laws" are our attempts to describe what we see.
Or think we see.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    What kind of smiley is C:\   ?

In article <jtb1pt$o9j$1@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 07-07-2012 20:21, dorayme wrote:
> > It is a hard act to argue that all the deepest of forces at work in
> > the universe are mere descriptions that events happen to be consistent
> > with - as if they could ignore the laws now and then or even all the
> > time depending on the length and pervasiveness that you like your
> > miracles to be.
> 
> Nice try.

Not that you have a clue what it was trying for. But never mind, 
trying for intelligent conversation here is always a lost cause.

-- 
dorayme

In article <CC1DD71D.8A459%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/7/12 11:14 AM, in article
> jollyroger-1E234F.09142207072012@news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger"
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

<off-topic political twaddle>

<more of the same>


Could you clowns take your parochial political rantings to a more 
appropriate forum, d'ye think?

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

In article <dorayme-207A4C.15214508072012@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <jtb1pt$o9j$1@dont-email.me>,
>  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 07-07-2012 20:21, dorayme wrote:
> > > It is a hard act to argue that all the deepest of forces at work in
> > > the universe are mere descriptions that events happen to be consistent
> > > with - as if they could ignore the laws now and then or even all the
> > > time depending on the length and pervasiveness that you like your
> > > miracles to be.
> > 
> > Nice try.
> 
> Not that you have a clue what it was trying for. But never mind, 
> trying for intelligent conversation here is always a lost cause.

A failure on whose part?

-- 
PRAY, v.  To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

In article <tom_stiller-DAF63C.08282208072012@news.individual.net>,
 Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <dorayme-207A4C.15214508072012@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jtb1pt$o9j$1@dont-email.me>,
> >  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 07-07-2012 20:21, dorayme wrote:
> > > > It is a hard act to argue that all the deepest of forces at work in
> > > > the universe are mere descriptions that events happen to be consistent
> > > > with - as if they could ignore the laws now and then or even all the
> > > > time depending on the length and pervasiveness that you like your
> > > > miracles to be.
> > > 
> > > Nice try.
> > 
> > Not that you have a clue what it was trying for. But never mind, 
> > trying for intelligent conversation here is always a lost cause.
> 
> A failure on whose part?

On mine, of course.

-- 
dorayme

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <michelle-E511AC.10211507072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <CC1DD71D.8A459%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
> >  George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > JR, if it concerns my money being stolen from me, I don't need to worry
> > > about the Government, which has already been stolen, with the election of
> > > 2006 and the loss of both Houses of Congress.
> > 
> > The government was stolen in the election of 2000.
> 
> Heck even the media don't agree with that statement since every way they
> tried to count the votes came out with Bush ahead.   Besides, since 
> every county/precinct in Florida where there was a problem had a 
> Democrat majority on their election Boards, the case could be made that
> the Dems tried to steal it and the attempt backfired.

Not what I read in the major international press. On straight per-person
votes Bush lost. Only your archaic Electoral College system saved him.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:17:18 -0400, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote
(in article <1knbde3.xjcqiq1h0bd6oN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>):

> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <michelle-E511AC.10211507072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <CC1DD71D.8A459%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>>> George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> JR, if it concerns my money being stolen from me, I don't need to worry
>>>> about the Government, which has already been stolen, with the election of
>>>> 2006 and the loss of both Houses of Congress.
>>> 
>>> The government was stolen in the election of 2000.
>> 
>> Heck even the media don't agree with that statement since every way they
>> tried to count the votes came out with Bush ahead.   Besides, since 
>> every county/precinct in Florida where there was a problem had a 
>> Democrat majority on their election Boards, the case could be made that
>> the Dems tried to steal it and the attempt backfired.
> 
> Not what I read in the major international press. On straight per-person
> votes Bush lost. Only your archaic Electoral College system saved him.
> 

Sigh. The Shrub was not the first, and will not be the last, to win because 
of the EC. Presidential elections in the US are not, and unless there's a lot 
of reform, will not be, direct elections. One reason for this, and the main 
reason for the creation of the EC and the reason why it will NOT be going 
away any time soon, is that a direct, straight numbers of votes, election 
will mean that the concerns of states with smaller populations will be 
submerged by sheer numbers (there are considerably more people in Palm Beach 
County, Florida, where I currently reside, than there are in the entire state 
of Alaska, for fairly obvious geographical and demographic reasons). Given 
the way things are arranged now, those same states with smaller populations 
would have to agree to commit political suicide in order to change things, 
and this will not happen. Alaska and Hawaii and Montana and Wyoming and the 
Dakotas and New Hampshire and Vermont and West Virginia don't have much in 
common but they'll all fight to the death to keep the EC because without it 
they have next to no influence on national politics. Presidential election 
campaigns are fought, not for the maximum votes, but for the maximum effect 
in the EC. Shrub won 'cause his team maximised the EC count. It's that 
simple. If the rules had been different he would have run a different 
campaign, and we simply can't tell if he'd have won or lost.

As for Shrub stealing the election of 2000... poor Terry Laplore was a 
_Democrat_. There was no vote-stealing, there was just incompetence on a 
scale hard to believe unless you'd been there. Terry was replaced by Arthur 
Anderson, who was _worse_ than she was, difficult though that may be to 
believe. The current Electoral Officer seems to be semi-competent, so we'll 
see what happens in November. (Kath Harris, the Florida Sec of State in 2000, 
now, _she_ was a Repug, and a damn nasty one, and she leapt on the results 
that poor Terry served up with every indication of glee.) And if Albore had 
just managed to win his home state (Tennessee) the results in Florida would 
not have mattered; the same EC which delivered victory to Bush would have 
delivered it to him, instead. (For years after 2000 billboards on the main 
highways into Tennessee proclaimed that it was Tennessee, and not Florida, 
which kept Albore out of office. It appears that he was not, and is not, 
particularly popular at home. Shrub won Texas, 'cause he was popular at 
home...)

Those who screamed, and who are still screaming, 'cause they lost due to the 
rules of the game merely succeed in making themselves look bad. They knew the 
rules going in, and would have taken a win if they'd got one. Throwing a 
tantrum when they lost does their cause no good at all. Change the rules or 
don't play.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <1knbde3.xjcqiq1h0bd6oN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
 jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> Not what I read in the major international press. On straight per-person
> votes Bush lost. Only your archaic Electoral College system saved him.

Gore had an extra 543,000 out of 100,000,000 million COUNTED votes. 
Something like 5/10 of 1% difference. There was a shift of something 
like 5,000 or so votes just on the average of the media "recounts" in 
FL. The person that tells you they know either one won the popular vote 
is blowing smoke up your ass. 
      Our archaic EC system meant we only had to recount votes in a 
couple of FL counties instead of every last precinct (with most likely 
legal challanges in all of them)> We'd still be fighting this one 
through the courts/
-- 
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:52:29 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote
(in article <af2dnfEepofjgp7NnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>):

> In article <1knbde3.xjcqiq1h0bd6oN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>  jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
>> Not what I read in the major international press. On straight per-person
>> votes Bush lost. Only your archaic Electoral College system saved him.
> 
> Gore had an extra 543,000 out of 100,000,000 million COUNTED votes. 
> Something like 5/10 of 1% difference. There was a shift of something 
> like 5,000 or so votes just on the average of the media "recounts" in 
> FL. The person that tells you they know either one won the popular vote 
> is blowing smoke up your ass. 
>       Our archaic EC system meant we only had to recount votes in a 
> couple of FL counties instead of every last precinct (with most likely 
> legal challanges in all of them)> We'd still be fighting this one 
> through the courts/
> 

It was a real big deal here in Palm Beach County. Poor Terry lost her job 
'cause of the mess.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 15:26:35 -0400, George Kerby wrote
(in article <CC1DF79B.8A48A%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>):

> 
> 
> 
> On 7/7/12 12:21 PM, in article
> michelle-E511AC.10211507072012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
> Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> In article <CC1DD71D.8A459%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>> George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> JR, if it concerns my money being stolen from me, I don't need to worry
>>> about the Government, which has already been stolen, with the election of
>>> 2006 and the loss of both Houses of Congress.
>> 
>> The government was stolen in the election of 2000.
> 
> Ahhh! The Great Hanging Chad Muddle of Boward County.

Palm beach County. Bow-wow County is the next to the south, just north of La 
Habana Del Norte.

> The event that RUINED
> the Nation! You BET!

Poor Terry Laplore did no such thing.

> 
> "That's funny. I don't care WHO you are - that there's FUNNY!!!"
> 
> �Larry
> 



-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <jtv6rj019sm@news7.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> Sigh. The Shrub was not the first, and will not be the last, to win 
> because of the EC. Presidential elections in the US are not, and unless 
> there's a lot of reform, will not be, direct elections. One reason for 
> this, and the main reason for the creation of the EC and the reason why 
> it will NOT be going away any time soon, is that a direct, straight 
> numbers of votes, election will mean that the concerns of states with 
> smaller populations will be submerged by sheer numbers

That's not the reason; the reason is that the founding fathers didn't trust 
the hoi polloi to elect such a prestigious office, so they introduced the 
EC as middlemen; the idea being that the members of the EC would be more 
educated and knowledgeable.

> Presidential election campaigns are fought, not for the maximum votes, 
> but for the maximum effect in the EC. 

Right, but if there were direct elections of the president, everyone's vote 
would count the same, and the campaigns wouldn't ignore any states.  As it 
is, the states you mentioned, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Wyoming, the 
Dakotas, New Hampshire, Vermont, and West Virginia have 3, 4, (3, 3), 4, 3, 
and 5 electoral votes respectively (the parentheses show both Dakotas), for 
a total of 25 electoral votes.

Compare that to California's 55, Florida's 29, New York's 29, and Texas's 
38. (Those are the only states with 25 or more electoral votes.)  Even 
though the small states each have a disproportionate number of electoral 
votes for its population, they still don't have all that much effect on the 
outcome of the election.

Where do you think that the campaign battles will take place:  the top four 
states, which total 151 (56%) of the necessary 270 to win, or the nine 
states you mentioned, with fewer than 10% of the necessary votes?

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:16:34 -0400, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-4E24C2.13163415072012@news.eternal-september.org>):

> In article <jtv6rj019sm@news7.newsguy.com>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
>> Sigh. The Shrub was not the first, and will not be the last, to win 
>> because of the EC. Presidential elections in the US are not, and unless 
>> there's a lot of reform, will not be, direct elections. One reason for 
>> this, and the main reason for the creation of the EC and the reason why 
>> it will NOT be going away any time soon, is that a direct, straight 
>> numbers of votes, election will mean that the concerns of states with 
>> smaller populations will be submerged by sheer numbers
> 
> That's not the reason; the reason is that the founding fathers didn't trust 
> the hoi polloi to elect such a prestigious office, so they introduced the 
> EC as middlemen; the idea being that the members of the EC would be more 
> educated and knowledgeable.
> 
>> Presidential election campaigns are fought, not for the maximum votes, 
>> but for the maximum effect in the EC. 
> 
> Right, but if there were direct elections of the president, everyone's vote 
> would count the same, and the campaigns wouldn't ignore any states.  As it 
> is, the states you mentioned, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Wyoming, the 
> Dakotas, New Hampshire, Vermont, and West Virginia have 3, 4, (3, 3), 4, 3, 
> and 5 electoral votes respectively (the parentheses show both Dakotas), for 
> a total of 25 electoral votes.
> 
> Compare that to California's 55, Florida's 29, New York's 29, and Texas's 
> 38. (Those are the only states with 25 or more electoral votes.)  Even 
> though the small states each have a disproportionate number of electoral 
> votes for its population, they still don't have all that much effect on the 
> outcome of the election.
> 
> Where do you think that the campaign battles will take place:  the top four 
> states, which total 151 (56%) of the necessary 270 to win, or the nine 
> states you mentioned, with fewer than 10% of the necessary votes?
> 
> 

The bottom rung states count when the election is going to be close. Like 
this year. Mitt the Twit knows that he has no hope of winning California or 
New York, so he's not going to waste significant effort there, just as Obama 
isn't gonna even try for Utah or Texas. Both are going to spend time in 
places they'd never otherwise even think of going, to get the little guys 
lined up... and a lot of time in Ohio, and Florida (I've already had two 
robocalls from the Repugs _today_; hey, Callista, you husband-stealing bitch, 
why the _hell_ would you think that anyone would care what you have to say 
about 'family values'?) and Pennsylvania and Georgia and...

Fortunately Rick the Dick, our esteemed Governor, is doing his very best to 
make life difficult for Repugs in Florida, with the able assistance of Allen 
'loose cannon' West. (West's supporters are trying to say that his opponent 
in the Repug primary, the current Sheriff of Martin County, isn't 
conservative enough. A Republican, who has been sheriff of a mid-Atlantic 
Florida county for nearly two decades and he's _not conservative_? Ooh, 
that's funny. I almost want to move north so that I can vote against West, 
except then I'd have to live in north Palm Beach County or in Martin, and the 
satisfaction of voting West down isn't worth it.)

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <jtv9mi02fph@news6.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> West's supporters are trying to say that his opponent in the Repug 
> primary, the current Sheriff of Martin County, isn't conservative 
> enough. A Republican, who has been sheriff of a mid-Atlantic Florida 
> county for nearly two decades and he's _not conservative_? 

We have something similar going on here; Jeff Flake, current representative 
from CD 6, one of the most rightwing congressional members from Arizona is 
running for the senate seat being vacated by Jon Kyle.  His major opponent 
is saying that Flake isn't conservative enough.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <jtv779219sm@news7.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> It was a real big deal here in Palm Beach County. Poor Terry lost her job 
> 'cause of the mess.

Interesting thing that studies of the hanging chad stuff showed that the 
%age of bad votes was pretty much the same as in the two previous 
elections.  So, it was hardly an unknown problem.
-- 
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

In article <michelle-4E24C2.13163415072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>
> Right, but if there were direct elections of the president, everyone's vote 
> would count the same, and the campaigns wouldn't ignore any states.  As it 
> is, the states you mentioned, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Wyoming, the 
> Dakotas, New Hampshire, Vermont, and West Virginia have 3, 4, (3, 3), 4, 3, 
> and 5 electoral votes respectively (the parentheses show both Dakotas), for 
> a total of 25 electoral votes.
  Nonsense. You can spend X amount of time and talk to 100,000 people or 
you can spend the same amount of time and talk to 1,000,000. Where is 
the person going to go?  I am not convinced that, in real life, the EC 
has that much of an effect on where people with the exception of 
whatever 3-5 states the pundits have decided will be the swing states 
this year. 
> 
> Compare that to California's 55, Florida's 29, New York's 29, and Texas's 
> 38. (Those are the only states with 25 or more electoral votes.)  Even 
> though the small states each have a disproportionate number of electoral 
> votes for its population, they still don't have all that much effect on the 
> outcome of the election.

   Even w/o the EC. 

> 
> Where do you think that the campaign battles will take place:  the top four 
> states, which total 151 (56%) of the necessary 270 to win, or the nine 
> states you mentioned, with fewer than 10% of the necessary votes?

Probably neither. It will be in the four states that are the biggest and 
also closest. I doubt you'll a bunch of campaigning in by Dems in TX for 
instance. I bet you see more time and money spent in FL, Ohio (20) than 
you will in NY and TX and probably CA.
-- 
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

On 07-15-2012 15:49, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> Sigh. The Shrub was not the first, and will not be the last, to win because
> of the EC. Presidential elections in the US are not, and unless there's a lot
> of reform, will not be, direct elections. One reason for this, and the main
> reason for the creation of the EC and the reason why it will NOT be going
> away any time soon, is that a direct, straight numbers of votes, election
> will mean that the concerns of states with smaller populations will be
> submerged by sheer numbers (there are considerably more people in Palm Beach
> County, Florida, where I currently reside, than there are in the entire state
> of Alaska, for fairly obvious geographical and demographic reasons). Given
> the way things are arranged now, those same states with smaller populations
> would have to agree to commit political suicide in order to change things,
> and this will not happen. Alaska and Hawaii and Montana and Wyoming and the
> Dakotas and New Hampshire and Vermont and West Virginia don't have much in
> common but they'll all fight to the death to keep the EC because without it
> they have next to no influence on national politics. Presidential election

This is the argument, but IMHO, it is erroneous.  If it were popular 
vote, instead of a bigger slightly more Democratic state "drowning out" 
Alaska's slightly more Republican leaning by a 55-3 landslide, it would 
have been 55% of California plus 45% of Alaska slightly surpassing 45% 
of California and 55% of Alaska.

The electoral college originally had that rationale in a way, but it's 
more the difficulty of managing a nationwide a popular vote way back 
then.  It was based on the Congressional representation.  The argument 
makes a little sense with Congress--one house is proportional to 
population, the other is each-state-equal, and passing a law requires 
both groups to agree.  In the EC, they're all in one vote, not two, so 
that part of the argument doesn't apply.

> Those who screamed, and who are still screaming, 'cause they lost due to the
> rules of the game merely succeed in making themselves look bad. They knew the

All the accusations of election-tampering from BOTH sides made them both 
look bad.  And the fiasco of election boards scrutinizing ballots and 
GUESSING what the voter wanted really pissed me off.

> rules going in, and would have taken a win if they'd got one. Throwing a
> tantrum when they lost does their cause no good at all. Change the rules or
> don't play.

Last time someone decided not to play, the result was a war.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   I won't burn your Koran because I don't want you to burn my Bible;
   but if you burn my Bible, no one's going to die.
                                    — Robert Rhee

Don't more populous states have more congresscritters who vote in the
electoral college ? If the number of votes at the electoral college is
already relative to the state's population, then moving to a more
democratic process would not hurt those states.

What is not democratic is that if a state elects 51 republicans and 49
democrats, the 49 democrats are forced to vote for the republican president.

It is not democratic if one region in a state votes overwhelmingly for
party 1, that their elected representative would be forced to vote for
the party 2's president because other parts of the state voted for party 2.

If they changed this aspect to allow congressmen to vote for their party
at the electoral college, it would be a more democratic process and
would mimic true parliementary democracy.

It would also change the electoral campaigns because a candidates would
have to care for all states and not write off a few states because they
know they won't get any electoral votes from that state.

Getting 30 out of 100 votes in a state would be important for a party
whereas now it isn't because they know that all 100 votes will go to the
other party.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:55:08 -0400, JF Mezei wrote
(in article <50034a4d$0$1294$c3e8da3$eb767761@news.astraweb.com>):

> Don't more populous states have more congresscritters who vote in the
> electoral college ? If the number of votes at the electoral college is
> already relative to the state's population, then moving to a more
> democratic process would not hurt those states.
> 
> What is not democratic is that if a state elects 51 republicans and 49
> democrats, the 49 democrats are forced to vote for the republican president.
> 
> It is not democratic if one region in a state votes overwhelmingly for
> party 1, that their elected representative would be forced to vote for
> the party 2's president because other parts of the state voted for party 2.
> 
> If they changed this aspect to allow congressmen to vote for their party
> at the electoral college, it would be a more democratic process and
> would mimic true parliementary democracy.
> 
> It would also change the electoral campaigns because a candidates would
> have to care for all states and not write off a few states because they
> know they won't get any electoral votes from that state.
> 
> Getting 30 out of 100 votes in a state would be important for a party
> whereas now it isn't because they know that all 100 votes will go to the
> other party.


Think carefully before you ask for something. You might get it. And then you, 
too, can get Callista Gringrich robocalling you on Sunday mornings and 
screeching about family values. That's up there with Mitt the Twit saying 
that he's really a dog lover. (Seem on a bumper sticker out in the boonies of 
Indian River County: "At last a Presidential candidate who knows how to treat 
dogs properly! I support Mitt Romney! signed, Michael Vick". I wonder if 
either Mitt the Twit or dog-killer Vick know about this...)

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <50034a4d$0$1294$c3e8da3$eb767761@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> It is not democratic if one region in a state votes overwhelmingly for
> party 1, that their elected representative would be forced to vote for
> the party 2's president because other parts of the state voted for party 2.

   Some states work that way if I am understanding what you are saying. 
They usually apportion the electoral vote according to who won the 
Congressional district and the give the remaining two to the person who 
won the state's vote. I'd actually go for that. 

> 
> If they changed this aspect to allow congressmen to vote for their party
> at the electoral college, it would be a more democratic process and
> would mimic true parliementary democracy.
    Electors are completely different from CongressCritters. The EC is 
based on the number of Representatives the state has and then the two 
Senate seats. But those actually occupying the seats themselves are not 
often the Congress Critter or Senator.
-- 
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

On 07-15-2012 18:55, JF Mezei wrote:
> [snip]

The content appears to agree with me,
but the style seems like trying to persuade me.

-- 
Wes Groleau

Heroes, Heritage, and History
http://UniGen.us/webtrees

In article <50034a4d$0$1294$c3e8da3$eb767761@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Don't more populous states have more congresscritters who vote in the
> electoral college ? If the number of votes at the electoral college is
> already relative to the state's population, then moving to a more
> democratic process would not hurt those states.

Yes and no; the minimum number of votes a state gets is three.  States get 
the sum of the number of representatives (which can be from 1 to 45) and 
senators (which is always two) in the electoral college.

But the senators and representatives themselves do not automatically get to 
vote in the EC; the voters actually vote for a slate of electoral college 
members, selected by the party.  But a member of the electoral college can 
vote any way he or she wants to (except in those states that require them 
to vote for the candidate they supported on the ballot), and can "jump 
ship" so to speak.

It is all or nothing, except for two states; whichever candidate gets the 
plurality of votes, all the candidates on the ballot in support of that 
candidate get elected to the EC.  In the two states that are exceptions, 
it's done by electoral district plus two statewide candidates.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <V9Kdnfr5BdBL0J7NnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Some states work that way if I am understanding what you are saying. 
> They usually apportion the electoral vote according to who won the 
> Congressional district and the give the remaining two to the person who 
> won the state's vote. 

Only two states do that; one is Nebraska, and the other is one of the New 
England states, but I don't recall which one.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In message <jtv6rj019sm@news7.newsguy.com> 
  J.J  O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> Sigh. The Shrub was not the first, and will not be the last, to win because 
> of the EC. Presidential elections in the US are not, and unless there's a lot 
> of reform, will not be, direct elections.

Nor should they be.

> One reason for this, and the main 
> reason for the creation of the EC and the reason why it will NOT be going 
> away any time soon, is that a direct, straight numbers of votes, election 
> will mean that the concerns of states with smaller populations will be 
> submerged by sheer numbers (there are considerably more people in Palm Beach 
> County, Florida, where I currently reside, than there are in the entire state 
> of Alaska, for fairly obvious geographical and demographic reasons). Given 
> the way things are arranged now, those same states with smaller populations 
> would have to agree to commit political suicide in order to change things, 
> and this will not happen. Alaska and Hawaii and Montana and Wyoming and the 
> Dakotas and New Hampshire and Vermont and West Virginia don't have much in 
> common but they'll all fight to the death to keep the EC because without it 
> they have next to no influence on national politics.

Elections would involve California, New York, Texas, Florida, and not
much else. The rest of the country would be left to sort itself out.
California alone is well more than 10% the US population. Those four
states represent 1/3 of the US population.

Illinois is the next most populous state, and it's a third the size of
California.
 
> Presidential election 
> campaigns are fought, not for the maximum votes, but for the maximum effect 
> in the EC. Shrub won 'cause his team maximised the EC count. It's that 
> simple. If the rules had been different he would have run a different 
> campaign, and we simply can't tell if he'd have won or lost.

Bush was appointed by the SCotUS in 2000.

>if Albore had just managed to win his home state (Tennessee) the
>results in Florida would not have mattered;

True enough. But Tennessee has become and very Republican and very
racist state in the recent years, and, like Florida, had a system in
place pre-2000 to disenfranchise minority voters, including, but by no
means limited to, having a low number of voting machines in minority
communities so that lines to vote were always extremely long, making it
impossible for some people to vote because they couldn't be gone from
work for 4 hours, and then closing polls while people were still waiting
to vote.

> Those who screamed, and who are still screaming, 'cause they lost due to the 
> rules of the game merely succeed in making themselves look bad. They knew the 
> rules going in, and would have taken a win if they'd got one. Throwing a 
> tantrum when they lost does their cause no good at all. Change the rules or 
> don't play.

The rules wer changed in that the vote counting in Florida was stopped
and the Supreme Court stepped in and appointed Bush the winner. How the
vote would have turned out had it been counted is not relevant to that
extremely dangerous fact. The Supreme Court stepped completely out of
the bounds of the Constitution and made up a power they have never had.

He is the first Selected President, but I seriously doubt he will be the
last. The 2000 decision will become (in fact, is already becoming) known
as one of the worst decision in Supreme Court history, possibly
supplanting Dread Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson.

-- 
National Socialism is not Socialism, any more than the Black Panthers
were actually cats. @jearl

In message <michelle-4E24C2.13163415072012@news.eternal-september.org> 
  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <jtv6rj019sm@news7.newsguy.com>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

>> Sigh. The Shrub was not the first, and will not be the last, to win 
>> because of the EC. Presidential elections in the US are not, and unless 
>> there's a lot of reform, will not be, direct elections. One reason for 
>> this, and the main reason for the creation of the EC and the reason why 
>> it will NOT be going away any time soon, is that a direct, straight 
>> numbers of votes, election will mean that the concerns of states with 
>> smaller populations will be submerged by sheer numbers

> That's not the reason;

It is EXACTLY the reason. It is the same reason we have a proportional
House elected by the popular vote and a non-proportional Senate
(originally appointed by the Governor of each state), thsi was to
protect the smaller states.

> Right, but if there were direct elections of the president, everyone's vote 
> would count the same, and the campaigns wouldn't ignore any states.

They would certainly ignore the small ones and all bt ignore the top 4.

>As it is, the states you mentioned, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Wyoming,
>the Dakotas, New Hampshire, Vermont, and West Virginia have 3, 4, (3,
>3), 4, 3, and 5 electoral votes respectively (the parentheses show both
>Dakotas), for a total of 25 electoral votes.

> Compare that to California's 55, Florida's 29, New York's 29, and Texas's 
> 38. (Those are the only states with 25 or more electoral votes.)  Even 
> though the small states each have a disproportionate number of electoral 
> votes for its population, they still don't have all that much effect on the 
> outcome of the election.

There was a very real possibility in 2008 that the election would come
down to New Mexico, with 5 electoral votes.

> Where do you think that the campaign battles will take place:  the top four 
> states, which total 151 (56%) of the necessary 270 to win, or the nine 
> states you mentioned, with fewer than 10% of the necessary votes?

Both campaigns in 2008 spent a lot of time and money in Colorado (9 EC)
because it was a critical state. In a general direct election no
candidate would ever set foot in Colorado.

<http://www.electoral-vote.com>

The states that are solid blue and solid red are not the states getting
the most attention, it is the pale blue and pale red states where the
campaign is happening, because it us those states that will decide the
election.

-- 
Please to meet you, Rose. Now run for your life!

On 7/15/12 2:49 PM, in article jtv6rj019sm@news7.newsguy.com, "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:17:18 -0400, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote
> (in article <1knbde3.xjcqiq1h0bd6oN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>):
> 
>> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <michelle-E511AC.10211507072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <CC1DD71D.8A459%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>>>> George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> JR, if it concerns my money being stolen from me, I don't need to worry
>>>>> about the Government, which has already been stolen, with the election of
>>>>> 2006 and the loss of both Houses of Congress.
>>>> 
>>>> The government was stolen in the election of 2000.
>>> 
>>> Heck even the media don't agree with that statement since every way they
>>> tried to count the votes came out with Bush ahead.   Besides, since
>>> every county/precinct in Florida where there was a problem had a
>>> Democrat majority on their election Boards, the case could be made that
>>> the Dems tried to steal it and the attempt backfired.
>> 
>> Not what I read in the major international press. On straight per-person
>> votes Bush lost. Only your archaic Electoral College system saved him.
>> 
> 
> Sigh. The Shrub was not the first, and will not be the last, to win because
> of the EC. Presidential elections in the US are not, and unless there's a lot
> of reform, will not be, direct elections. One reason for this, and the main
> reason for the creation of the EC and the reason why it will NOT be going
> away any time soon, is that a direct, straight numbers of votes, election
> will mean that the concerns of states with smaller populations will be
> submerged by sheer numbers (there are considerably more people in Palm Beach
> County, Florida, where I currently reside, than there are in the entire state
> of Alaska, for fairly obvious geographical and demographic reasons). Given
> the way things are arranged now, those same states with smaller populations
> would have to agree to commit political suicide in order to change things,
> and this will not happen. Alaska and Hawaii and Montana and Wyoming and the
> Dakotas and New Hampshire and Vermont and West Virginia don't have much in
> common but they'll all fight to the death to keep the EC because without it
> they have next to no influence on national politics. Presidential election
> campaigns are fought, not for the maximum votes, but for the maximum effect
> in the EC. Shrub won 'cause his team maximised the EC count. It's that
> simple. If the rules had been different he would have run a different
> campaign, and we simply can't tell if he'd have won or lost.
> 
> As for Shrub stealing the election of 2000... poor Terry Laplore was a
> _Democrat_. There was no vote-stealing, there was just incompetence on a
> scale hard to believe unless you'd been there. Terry was replaced by Arthur
> Anderson, who was _worse_ than she was, difficult though that may be to
> believe. The current Electoral Officer seems to be semi-competent, so we'll
> see what happens in November. (Kath Harris, the Florida Sec of State in 2000,
> now, _she_ was a Repug, and a damn nasty one, and she leapt on the results
> that poor Terry served up with every indication of glee.) And if Albore had
> just managed to win his home state (Tennessee) the results in Florida would
> not have mattered; the same EC which delivered victory to Bush would have
> delivered it to him, instead. (For years after 2000 billboards on the main
> highways into Tennessee proclaimed that it was Tennessee, and not Florida,
> which kept Albore out of office. It appears that he was not, and is not,
> particularly popular at home. Shrub won Texas, 'cause he was popular at
> home...)
> 
> Those who screamed, and who are still screaming, 'cause they lost due to the
> rules of the game merely succeed in making themselves look bad. They knew the
> rules going in, and would have taken a win if they'd got one. Throwing a
> tantrum when they lost does their cause no good at all. Change the rules or
> don't play.


JJ, that was an excellent explanation of what makes the country a REPUBLIC
and NOT a Democracy, where the majority, by as little as 50% + 1 vote screws
the minority(ies).

Those who live in Socialist regimes do not understand and call it "archaic"
only because of their hatred of people that understand realty
(Conservatives) do not agree with their liberal view of the world.

Thank God for the United States of America and the Republic for which it
stands. However, I feel that our way of life will soon succumb to the
tentacles of the Obamanistas.

In the meantime, I will do everything I can to maintain our Way OF Life and
again fight for this Country with all I can.

On 7/15/12 2:52 PM, in article
af2dnfEepofjgp7NnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Kurt Ullman"
<kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <1knbde3.xjcqiq1h0bd6oN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>  jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
>> Not what I read in the major international press. On straight per-person
>> votes Bush lost. Only your archaic Electoral College system saved him.
> 
> Gore had an extra 543,000 out of 100,000,000 million COUNTED votes.
> Something like 5/10 of 1% difference. There was a shift of something
> like 5,000 or so votes just on the average of the media "recounts" in
> FL. The person that tells you they know either one won the popular vote
> is blowing smoke up your ass.
>       Our archaic EC system meant we only had to recount votes in a
> couple of FL counties instead of every last precinct (with most likely
> legal challanges in all of them)> We'd still be fighting this one
> through the courts/

That's how they'd do it in the Hinterlands. And the civil wars immediately
follow....

On 7/15/12 3:08 PM, in article jtv7vb319sm@news7.newsguy.com, "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 15:26:35 -0400, George Kerby wrote
> (in article <CC1DF79B.8A48A%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>):
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/7/12 12:21 PM, in article
>> michelle-E511AC.10211507072012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
>> Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <CC1DD71D.8A459%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>>> George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> JR, if it concerns my money being stolen from me, I don't need to worry
>>>> about the Government, which has already been stolen, with the election of
>>>> 2006 and the loss of both Houses of Congress.
>>> 
>>> The government was stolen in the election of 2000.
>> 
>> Ahhh! The Great Hanging Chad Muddle of Boward County.
> 
> Palm beach County. Bow-wow County is the next to the south, just north of La
> Habana Del Norte.
> 

My bad!

>> The event that RUINED
>> the Nation! You BET!
> 
> Poor Terry Laplore did no such thing.
> 

If you say so! LOL!

>> 
>> "That's funny. I don't care WHO you are - that there's FUNNY!!!"
>> 
>> ?Larry
>> 
> 
> 

In article <CC28CA03.8ABE6%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In the meantime, I will do everything I can to maintain our Way OF Life 
> and again fight for this Country with all I can.

So will I.

BTW, "republic" is a synonym for "representative democracy".

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <michelle-3F0241.16362915072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <V9Kdnfr5BdBL0J7NnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Some states work that way if I am understanding what you are saying. 
> > They usually apportion the electoral vote according to who won the 
> > Congressional district and the give the remaining two to the person who 
> > won the state's vote. 
> 
> Only two states do that; one is Nebraska, and the other is one of the New 
> England states, but I don't recall which one.

The other state to do so is Maine. Check section 2.7 which provides the 
numbers of electors for each state.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)>
-- 
Remove blown from email address to reply.

On 07-15-2012 19:52, Lewis wrote:
> Both campaigns in 2008 spent a lot of time and money in Colorado (9 EC)
> because it was a critical state. In a general direct election no
> candidate would ever set foot in Colorado.
>
> <http://www.electoral-vote.com>
>
> The states that are solid blue and solid red are not the states getting
> the most attention, it is the pale blue and pale red states where the
> campaign is happening, because it us those states that will decide the
> election.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2008/


-- 
Wes Groleau

    “If it wasn't for that blasted back-hoe,
     a hundred of us could be working with shovels”
    “Yeah, and if it weren't for our shovels,
     a thousand of us could be working with spoons."

In article <michelle-612BA8.16350715072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> 
> Yes and no; the minimum number of votes a state gets is three.  States get 
> the sum of the number of representatives (which can be from 1 to 45) and 
> senators (which is always two) in the electoral college.
> 
> But the senators and representatives themselves do not automatically get to 
> vote in the EC; the voters actually vote for a slate of electoral college 
> members, selected by the party.  But a member of the electoral college can 
> vote any way he or she wants to (except in those states that require them 
> to vote for the candidate they supported on the ballot), and can "jump 
> ship" so to speak.
> 
> It is all or nothing, except for two states; whichever candidate gets the 
> plurality of votes, all the candidates on the ballot in support of that 
> candidate get elected to the EC.  In the two states that are exceptions, 
> it's done by electoral district plus two statewide candidates.

Eight states and D.C have passed legislation to circumvent the
Electoral College by joining the National Popular Vote Interstate
Compact. These states have passed bills requiring all electoral votes
to go to the winner of the national popular vote. The eight are
Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts,
Vermont, and California, with a total of 132 electoral votes. If enough
states join this movement (138 more votes to reach the 270 needed to
win), then the Electoral College will be obsolete.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#National
_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact>

-- 
Jim Gibson

In article <ju01nv$3hs$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 07-15-2012 19:52, Lewis wrote:
> > Both campaigns in 2008 spent a lot of time and money in Colorado (9 EC)
> > because it was a critical state. In a general direct election no
> > candidate would ever set foot in Colorado.
> >
> > <http://www.electoral-vote.com>
> >
> > The states that are solid blue and solid red are not the states getting
> > the most attention, it is the pale blue and pale red states where the
> > campaign is happening, because it us those states that will decide the
> > election.
> 
> http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2008/

I open a posting about the Higgs boson. A Princeton URL hits my eye,
and then some mention of red and blue states. Quantum chromodynamics?
Nooo...

-- 
Chris Henrich
http://www.mathinteract.com
God just doesn't fit inside a single religion.

In article <160720121841080757%chenrich@monmouth.com>,
 "Christopher J. Henrich" <chenrich@monmouth.com> wrote:

> I open a posting about the Higgs boson. A Princeton URL hits my eye,
> and then some mention of red and blue states. Quantum chromodynamics?
> Nooo...

Well, Chris, you did note that you were reading Usenet, right?

As the OP, I'll repost the original:

.... and the barman asks "what's the matter?"  :-D

<http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=870805>

<http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=higgs+boson+jokes&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8>

and for the uninformed:

Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-disco
vered-higgs-boson-particle.html>

[and for the physics impaired]
I just want to say that being chosen as this month's Miss August 
is like a compliment I'll remember for as long as I can. 
Right now I'm a freshman in my fourth year at UCLA, 
but my goal is to become a veterinarian, cause I love children. 

'Cause I'm a blonde - yeh, yeh, yeh! 
     --Julie Brown <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rNfZxgkH7k>

-- 
HaHa, HoHo, & HeeHee

George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> writes:

....
> JJ, that was an excellent explanation of what makes the country a
> REPUBLIC and NOT a Democracy, where the majority, by as little as
> 50% + 1 vote screws the minority(ies).

Yeah, we don't need no stinkin' 50%+1 to screw the rest.

Keep it like it is where the 1% screws the 99%.

Martin

Rethorical/philosophical question:

If the USA constitution required the US president to be neutral and not
be member of any political party, would government work better ?


Right now, because the president is with Party A,  Party B spends its
time trying to block/defeat anything the president tries to do because
their motivation is to be able to claim at the next election that Party
A didn't do anything.

But if the president were not part of a party, then the parties in
congress and senate might focus more on running the country than just
defeating whatever the president tries to do.

Jim Gibson wrote:

> Eight states and D.C have passed legislation to circumvent the
> Electoral College by joining the National Popular Vote Interstate
> Compact. These states have passed bills requiring all electoral votes
> to go to the winner of the national popular vote. 


This is still not democratic. Say Hawaii has voted overwhelmingly for
president A, but the total national vote tallied positively for
President B. This means that Hawaii's votes will go for President B even
though citizens of Hawaii voted overwhelmingly for president A.

A state's participation at electoral college should represent the votes
in that state, not a tally which includes votes from outside the state.

In article <500afcea$0$1225$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Rethorical/philosophical question:
> 
> If the USA constitution required the US president to be neutral and not
> be member of any political party, would government work better ?
> 

    Probably not. The problem is not so much the President (although 
that is an added issue) but rather the inability of the two-parties to 
stop arguing in Congress.

> 
> Right now, because the president is with Party A,  Party B spends its
> time trying to block/defeat anything the president tries to do because
> their motivation is to be able to claim at the next election that Party
> A didn't do anything.

    Same thing would occur since it more ideology than party (the party 
currently being to a greater or lesser extent a proxy for ideology). I 
could see it where it might be even worse because then neither party 
would have a vested interest in at least making the Pres. LOOK good. 

> 
> But if the president were not part of a party, then the parties in
> congress and senate might focus more on running the country than just
> defeating whatever the president tries to do.

Then they would continue to do what is really happening, which is trying 
to pass their own agendas. That wouldn't change in Congress.
-- 
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

In article <500afcea$0$1225$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Rethorical/philosophical question:
> 
> If the USA constitution required the US president to be neutral and not 
> be member of any political party, would government work better ?

No because it's more a matter of ideology than of party membership.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:03:05 -0400, JF Mezei wrote
(in article <500afcea$0$1225$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com>):

> Rethorical/philosophical question:
> 
> If the USA constitution required the US president to be neutral and not
> be member of any political party, would government work better ?

Nope. Then the prez wouldn't get _anything_ he wanted done, unless what he 
wanted was also wanted by a bunch of congresscritters. And good luck with 
that.

> 
> 
> Right now, because the president is with Party A,  Party B spends its
> time trying to block/defeat anything the president tries to do because
> their motivation is to be able to claim at the next election that Party
> A didn't do anything.

Yep. That's why a parliamentary type government can be more efficient; the 
prime minister is the prime minister 'cause he has a majority and can get 
what he wants passed. The problem, of course, is that while it works if there 
are two strong parties, or even if there are three parties, things get very 
strange if there are a _lot_ of parties. So you can have something like, oh, 
Israel right now, where the largest party in Parliament is in opposition... 
'cause it didn't have a majority and the _next_ largest party was able to put 
together a coalition with several small parties which _did_ have a majority. 
The problem with that is the small parties have vast power; if the big guys 
don't give the little guys what they want, said little guys bail from the 
coalition and now the big guy doesn't have a majority anymore. (See further 
Greece, Italy, others...) Two, or even three, parties avoids that. 
(Usually...) Once you get past that, you're gonna have problems.

> 
> But if the president were not part of a party, then the parties in
> congress and senate might focus more on running the country than just
> defeating whatever the president tries to do.

Then they'd just concentrate on defeating whatever the other party tried to 
do. No difference from today.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <juf9s62tll@news3.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:03:05 -0400, JF Mezei wrote
> (in article <500afcea$0$1225$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com>):
> 
> > Rethorical/philosophical question:
> > 
> > If the USA constitution required the US president to be neutral and not
> > be member of any political party, would government work better ?
> 
> Nope. Then the prez wouldn't get _anything_ he wanted done, unless what he 
> wanted was also wanted by a bunch of congresscritters. And good luck with 
> that.

My understanding (without looking this up) is that the original 
Constitution called for the Vice-president to be the "runner-up" in the 
general election. I wonder how that would have worked out?
-- 

.... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

In article <michelle-CE12D3.14533721072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner  <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <500afcea$0$1225$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com>,
> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> Rethorical/philosophical question:
>> 
>> If the USA constitution required the US president to be neutral and not 
>> be member of any political party, would government work better ?
>
>No because it's more a matter of ideology than of party membership.
>

And besides, the US Constitution has no concept of "party" in it ...

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| Brian Gordon     -->briang@panix.com<--     brian dot gordon at cox dot net |
+ brianggordon@hotmail.com   Bass: Lexington "Main Street Harmonizers" chorus +
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <juf9s62tll@news3.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> > Rethorical/philosophical question:
> > 
> > If the USA constitution required the US president to be neutral and 
> > not be member of any political party, would government work better ?
> 
> Nope. Then the prez wouldn't get _anything_ he wanted done, unless what 
> he wanted 

That's the way it is today; there would be no change.

-- Michelle

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <500b31f1$0$44533$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>,
Warren Oates  <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <juf9s62tll@news3.newsguy.com>,
> J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:03:05 -0400, JF Mezei wrote
>> (in article <500afcea$0$1225$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com>):
>> 
>> > Rethorical/philosophical question:
>> > 
>> > If the USA constitution required the US president to be neutral and not
>> > be member of any political party, would government work better ?
>> 
>> Nope. Then the prez wouldn't get _anything_ he wanted done, unless what he 
>> wanted was also wanted by a bunch of congresscritters. And good luck with 
>> that.
>
>My understanding (without looking this up) is that the original 
>Constitution called for the Vice-president to be the "runner-up" in the 
>general election. I wonder how that would have worked out?
>-- 

Nope.  The VP is whoever gets the most EC votes for VP.  Doesn't have to have
been a contender for President at all.

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| Brian Gordon     -->briang@panix.com<--     brian dot gordon at cox dot net |
+ brianggordon@hotmail.com   Bass: Lexington "Main Street Harmonizers" chorus +
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <500b31f1$0$44533$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> My understanding (without looking this up) is that the original 
> Constitution called for the Vice-president to be the "runner-up" in the 
> general election. I wonder how that would have worked out?

It worked out very poorly; that's the reason it was changed.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <jufcbq$akk$2@reader1.panix.com>,
 briang@panix.com (Brian Gordon) wrote:

> >My understanding (without looking this up) is that the original 
> >Constitution called for the Vice-president to be the "runner-up" in the 
> >general election. I wonder how that would have worked out? -- 
> 
> Nope.  The VP is whoever gets the most EC votes for VP.  Doesn't have to 
> have been a contender for President at all.

That is true now, but wasn't always the case.

Article. II.Section. 1. Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their 
respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least 
shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they 
shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes 
for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to 
the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President 
of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the 
Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the 
Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes 
shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of 
Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, 
and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall 
immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person 
have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House 
shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the 
Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having 
one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members 
from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be 
necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, 
the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the 
Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal 
Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. (See 
Note 8)

Note 8: This Clause has been superseded by amendment XII.

Amendment XII:  The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and 
vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, 
shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall 
name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct 
ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make 
distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons 
voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which 
lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the 
government of the United States, directed to the President of the 
Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate 
and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall 
then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for 
President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the 
whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, 
then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the 
list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall 
choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the 
President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each 
state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member 
or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states 
shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall 
not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon 
them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the 
Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other 
constitutional disability of the President. (See Note 14)--The person 
having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the 
Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of 
Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two 
highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a 
quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of 
Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a 
choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of 
President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <michelle-CE12D3.14533721072012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <500afcea$0$1225$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com>,
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Rethorical/philosophical question:
> > 
> > If the USA constitution required the US president to be neutral and not 
> > be member of any political party, would government work better ?
> 
> No because it's more a matter of ideology than of party membership.

Maybe in the circles you frequent, Michelle, but not universally. My
mother, for example, was raised in a family where voting for ANY
Republican was grounds for being disowned...alternatively, I know
people where the exact opposite is true. The "straight-party ticket"
may not be as prevalent today as it was, say, 40 years ago, but it
still exists.

Just to put my perspective on it, the two major parties are both
dominated by their extreme wings, more so every election, to the
detriment of US society as a whole.

-- 
Spenser

In article <jufcbq$akk$2@reader1.panix.com>, Brian Gordon
<briang@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <500b31f1$0$44533$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>,
> Warren Oates  <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <juf9s62tll@news3.newsguy.com>,
> > J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:03:05 -0400, JF Mezei wrote
> >> (in article <500afcea$0$1225$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com>):
> >> 
> >> > Rethorical/philosophical question:
> >> > 
> >> > If the USA constitution required the US president to be neutral and not
> >> > be member of any political party, would government work better ?
> >> 
> >> Nope. Then the prez wouldn't get _anything_ he wanted done, unless what he 
> >> wanted was also wanted by a bunch of congresscritters. And good luck with 
> >> that.
> >
> >My understanding (without looking this up) is that the original 
> >Constitution called for the Vice-president to be the "runner-up" in the 
> >general election. I wonder how that would have worked out?
> >-- 
> 
> Nope.  The VP is whoever gets the most EC votes for VP.  Doesn't have to have
> been a contender for President at all.

Read the Constitution again. Article III originally had the second
highest vote-getter to be VP; however, the 12th amendment changed that,
providing for direct election of VP.

-- 
Spenser

In message <500b31f1$0$44533$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> 
  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <juf9s62tll@news3.newsguy.com>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:03:05 -0400, JF Mezei wrote
>> (in article <500afcea$0$1225$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com>):
>> 
>> > Rethorical/philosophical question:
>> > 
>> > If the USA constitution required the US president to be neutral and not
>> > be member of any political party, would government work better ?
>> 
>> Nope. Then the prez wouldn't get _anything_ he wanted done, unless what he 
>> wanted was also wanted by a bunch of congresscritters. And good luck with 
>> that.

> My understanding (without looking this up) is that the original 
> Constitution called for the Vice-president to be the "runner-up" in the 
> general election. I wonder how that would have worked out?

So badly it as the first thing changed.

-- 
The Monks of Cool, whose tiny and exclusive monastery is hidden in a
really cool and laid-back valley in the lower Ramtops, have a
passing-out test for a novice. He is taken into a room full of all type
of clothing and asked: Yo, my son, which of these is the most stylish
thing to wear? And the correct answer is: Hey, whatever I select.

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 18:18:45 -0400, J.J. O'Shea wrote:

> Yep. That's why a parliamentary type government can be more efficient;
> the prime minister is the prime minister 'cause he has a majority and
> can get what he wants passed. The problem, of course, is that while it
> works if there are two strong parties, or even if there are three
> parties, things get very strange if there are a _lot_ of parties. So you
> can have something like, oh, Israel right now, where the largest party
> in Parliament is in opposition... 'cause it didn't have a majority and
> the _next_ largest party was able to put together a coalition with
> several small parties which _did_ have a majority. The problem with that
> is the small parties have vast power; if the big guys don't give the
> little guys what they want, said little guys bail from the coalition and
> now the big guy doesn't have a majority anymore. (See further Greece,
> Italy, others...) Two, or even three, parties avoids that. (Usually...)
> Once you get past that, you're gonna have problems.

Understood.  With two or three strong parties there can also be a problem 
if one of them has such an overwhelming majority that they can do 
whatever they like.  I have seen this and haven't been 100% happy even 
where the party I wanted to win did so.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <juf9s62tll@news3.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> Yep. That's why a parliamentary type government can be more efficient; the 
> prime minister is the prime minister 'cause he has a majority and can get 
> what he wants passed. The problem, of course, is that while it works if there 
> are two strong parties, or even if there are three parties, things get very 
> strange if there are a _lot_ of parties. So you can have something like, oh, 
> Israel right now, where the largest party in Parliament is in opposition... 

 The biggest problem I have with Parliament and prime minister is the 
lack of continuity. At least in the US you know (1) you are stuck with 
the Pres for the full four years and (2) there is a chance to kick him 
or her out at the end of four years.  As Greece, among others, has 
shown, the only thing that has become more efficient is the elections 
apparatus because of heavy use recently. The frequent falling also, at 
least to my experience, tends to occur  when there is some major 
stressor that then can't be addressed.
-- 
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

J.J. O'Shea wrote:

> Yep. That's why a parliamentary type government can be more efficient; the 
> prime minister is the prime minister 'cause he has a majority and can get 
> what he wants passed. The problem, of course, is that while it works if there 
> are two strong parties, or even if there are three parties, things get very 
> strange if there are a _lot_ of parties.

Indeed: that's what happened (as I understand) with the Fourth Republic 
in France from 1958, eventually leading to de Gaulle taking power.

But an argument has been made for a minority third party holding the 
balance of power, as in the UK for instance with the Liberals: it is as 
follows.

Such a party can actually win more votes than any other, but have only a 
few seats (in much the same way as one can win more games but lose the 
match in tennis, come to think of it).  So in that situation the party 
actually represents vox populi.

The same situation has been advanced to argue for proportional 
representation.

Paul Magnussen

Kurt Ullman wrote:

>  The biggest problem I have with Parliament and prime minister is the 
> lack of continuity. At least in the US you know (1) you are stuck with 
> the Pres for the full four years and (2) there is a chance to kick him 
> or her out at the end of four years. 


In a minority parliament, there is a chance to kick the PM out before he
does too much damage to the country. Bush JR is the prfect example of
how much damage someone can cause to a country (and in his case other
countries as well) and the people unable to stop him.

In a majority parliament, the PM can remain PM for the duration of his
mandate (generally between 4 and 5 years). The PM can call an election
early if he so desires.

In the case of Greece, Italy and others, it is because there is a lack
of a true leader who can inspire the confidence of the nation, so there
is no clear majority and diverging opinions result in frequent
elections. But this is more democratic because you don't let someone who
hasn't gotten majpority of votes/seats make drastic changes to the
country without the support of parliament.

On 2012-07-22 09:23 , Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <juf9s62tll@news3.newsguy.com>,
>   J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> Yep. That's why a parliamentary type government can be more efficient; the
>> prime minister is the prime minister 'cause he has a majority and can get
>> what he wants passed. The problem, of course, is that while it works if there
>> are two strong parties, or even if there are three parties, things get very
>> strange if there are a _lot_ of parties. So you can have something like, oh,
>> Israel right now, where the largest party in Parliament is in opposition...
>
>   The biggest problem I have with Parliament and prime minister is the
> lack of continuity. At least in the US you know (1) you are stuck with
> the Pres for the full four years and (2) there is a chance to kick him
> or her out at the end of four years.

The advantage though, is when the PM's mandate is weak (minority 
government) then there will be many opportunities to bring down the weak 
government (budget votes are traditionally non-confidence votes, but 
other votes may serve as well) if they are doing badly.  This forces the 
party leader to call a convention allowing the party to elect a new 
candidate for PM.

OTOH, a strong MP who is doing well can call an early election and 
prolong his mandate (say calling an election at yr 3 of a 5 yr cycle 
thereby extending it to 8 years).

Another very important point is the notion of executive power.  A PM 
does not wield the overall power that a US president wields.  This is 
one reason why most republics have term limits for the president.  (Look 
at how Putin abuses this by taking a term off as "PM").

Canada does not have term limits.

No system is perfect.  Each has its strengths and weaknesses.

The weakness in Canada (IMO) is the first-past-the-post electing of 
MP's.  See my other post.



-- 
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
             -Samuel Clemens.