http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Wisconsin-Bill-Says-Single-Mothers-Responsible-for-Child-Abuse-141508403.html
QuoteIn Wisconsin, a state senator has introduced a bill aimed at penalizing single mothers by calling their unmarried status a contributing factor in child abuse and neglect.
Senate Bill 507, introduced by Republican Senator Glenn Grothman, moves to amend existing state law by "requiring the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect."
<snip>
Grothman has advanced and supported other policies "that make it harder to access prevention-based health services so that they can prevent pregnancy, so that they're not in a situations here they have an unintended or unwanted pregnancy," Taylor added.
In "How The United States and The State of Wisconsin Are Working to Encourage Single Motherhood and Discouraging Children in 2-Parent Families," he wrote that the government urges women not to get married by making programs like low-income housing assistance, school choice, WIC, tax credits, and food stamps more attractive than marriage.
His solution? Restrict the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps, make Section 8 housing more cramped and limit the value of assets owned living there to $2,000, and eliminate school choice, among other things.
Well, maybe THIS will teach those women not to run around with a vagina. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 06, 2012, 04:06:08 PM
http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Wisconsin-Bill-Says-Single-Mothers-Responsible-for-Child-Abuse-141508403.html
QuoteIn Wisconsin, a state senator has introduced a bill aimed at penalizing single mothers by calling their unmarried status a contributing factor in child abuse and neglect.
Senate Bill 507, introduced by Republican Senator Glenn Grothman, moves to amend existing state law by "requiring the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect."
<snip>
Grothman has advanced and supported other policies "that make it harder to access prevention-based health services so that they can prevent pregnancy, so that they're not in a situations here they have an unintended or unwanted pregnancy," Taylor added.
In "How The United States and The State of Wisconsin Are Working to Encourage Single Motherhood and Discouraging Children in 2-Parent Families," he wrote that the government urges women not to get married by making programs like low-income housing assistance, school choice, WIC, tax credits, and food stamps more attractive than marriage.
His solution? Restrict the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps, make Section 8 housing more cramped and limit the value of assets owned living there to $2,000, and eliminate school choice, among other things.
Well, maybe THIS will teach those women not to run around with a vagina. :lulz:
Single mothers is child abuse, but state restriction of food, education and adequate housing isn't.
:twitch:
Our party is about small government except when it involves anything that has to do with you.
I think that ass-bag legislator being in any form of public service constitutes child abuse.
Honestly, between making it harder for single mothers to keep their kids and making it harder for single women to prevent having kids, she's essentially setting up a government-supported baby-mill for orphanages.
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 06, 2012, 04:16:55 PM
Honestly, between making it harder for single mothers to keep their kids and making it harder for single women to prevent having kids, she's essentially setting up a government-supported baby-mill for orphanages.
We need to keep those prisons full.
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 06, 2012, 04:16:55 PM
Honestly, between making it harder for single mothers to keep their kids and making it harder for single women to prevent having kids, she's essentially setting up a government-supported baby-mill for orphanages.
"He".
Does this legislation extend to single fathers? No probably not, why am I even asking.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 06, 2012, 04:19:11 PM
Does this legislation extend to single fathers? No probably not, why am I even asking.
Read the article for lulz. Seriously.
Quote"the role of fathers in the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect."
Yes, if there is no father around, him being out of the picture might be part of that prevention. This is a no-brainer.
QuoteSaying that people "make fun of old-fashioned families," Grothman -- who has never been married and has no children -- criticized social workers for not agreeing that children should only be raised by two married biological parents
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2010/9/3/1283537238888/Pope-Benedict-XVI-006.jpg)
Edited because other photo too big.
This is also an obvious play at making it illegal for gay couples to have kids.
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 06, 2012, 04:43:27 PM
This is also an obvious play at making it illegal for gay couples to have kids.
That might be an intended side effect, but I see this as more of another attack on women's reproductive rights as well as cutting evil socialist programs.
(http://static.tumblr.com/wykoqhc/03zlvfobz/thisisstupidflashing.gif)
(http://i874.photobucket.com/albums/ab310/arrancar47/Facepalmx2Combo.gif)
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 06, 2012, 04:47:07 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 06, 2012, 04:43:27 PM
This is also an obvious play at making it illegal for gay couples to have kids.
That might be an intended side effect, but I see this as more of another attack on women's reproductive rights as well as cutting evil socialist programs.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner.
No babies for you, unless you're in a hetrosexual relationship. Which, given cuts in funding and the current attacks on contraceptives means "no sex for you, unless you're married".
The GOP has just spent the last week, pretty much in unision, backing up the idea that women who want access to affordable contraceptives are "sluts" and "whores" and this should see seen entirely within that context of events.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 06, 2012, 04:47:07 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 06, 2012, 04:43:27 PM
This is also an obvious play at making it illegal for gay couples to have kids.
That might be an intended side effect, but I see this as more of another attack on women's reproductive rights as well as cutting evil socialist programs.
Oh, for sure that is the primary reason. I'm just observing that when they use language like "biological", there is a clear and signaled intent to make sure that gay couples are excluded from the two-parent, government supported system.
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 06, 2012, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 06, 2012, 04:47:07 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 06, 2012, 04:43:27 PM
This is also an obvious play at making it illegal for gay couples to have kids.
That might be an intended side effect, but I see this as more of another attack on women's reproductive rights as well as cutting evil socialist programs.
Oh, for sure that is the primary reason. I'm just observing that when they use language like "biological", there is a clear and signaled intent to make sure that gay couples are excluded from the two-parent, government supported system.
Without a doubt. Also fucks over people who adopt, come to think of it.
IIRC, one of Newt's points on his "contract with America" was to take children from single mothers and put them in orphanages.
Yep. I was remembering correctly.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/02/a_look_back_newts_most_outlandish_positions/
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 06, 2012, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 06, 2012, 04:47:07 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 06, 2012, 04:43:27 PM
This is also an obvious play at making it illegal for gay couples to have kids.
That might be an intended side effect, but I see this as more of another attack on women's reproductive rights as well as cutting evil socialist programs.
Oh, for sure that is the primary reason. I'm just observing that when they use language like "biological", there is a clear and signaled intent to make sure that gay couples are excluded from the two-parent, government supported system.
What's even weirder, is that you can logic that out further to show that divorcees are also excluded.
There are no desirable consequences to such a bill.
Well, unless you're a plutocrat.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 06, 2012, 05:05:08 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 06, 2012, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 06, 2012, 04:47:07 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 06, 2012, 04:43:27 PM
This is also an obvious play at making it illegal for gay couples to have kids.
That might be an intended side effect, but I see this as more of another attack on women's reproductive rights as well as cutting evil socialist programs.
Oh, for sure that is the primary reason. I'm just observing that when they use language like "biological", there is a clear and signaled intent to make sure that gay couples are excluded from the two-parent, government supported system.
Without a doubt. Also fucks over people who adopt, come to think of it.
IIRC, one of Newt's points on his "contract with America" was to take children from single mothers and put them in orphanages.
Yep. I was remembering correctly.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/02/a_look_back_newts_most_outlandish_positions/
That fucking guy....
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 06, 2012, 05:06:31 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 06, 2012, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 06, 2012, 04:47:07 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 06, 2012, 04:43:27 PM
This is also an obvious play at making it illegal for gay couples to have kids.
That might be an intended side effect, but I see this as more of another attack on women's reproductive rights as well as cutting evil socialist programs.
Oh, for sure that is the primary reason. I'm just observing that when they use language like "biological", there is a clear and signaled intent to make sure that gay couples are excluded from the two-parent, government supported system.
What's even weirder, is that you can logic that out further to show that divorcees are also excluded.
There are no desirable consequences to such a bill.
Well, unless you're a plutocrat.
Divorces are also a sin. People should just stay with someone they no longer love, growing more and more bitter until one of them snaps and kills the other one. It's only right.
If divorcees are included, then what about widows of soldiers and guys who just up and died suddenly?
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on March 06, 2012, 08:10:50 PM
If divorcees are included, then what about widows of soldiers and guys who just up and died suddenly?
I guess they get to starve to death alongside the residents of Wisconsin that RUINED IT FOR EVERYBODY.
It's the American way.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on March 06, 2012, 08:10:50 PM
If divorcees are included, then what about widows of soldiers and guys who just up and died suddenly?
Widows are worse than divorcees! Look at them, smiling, living their lives, maybe even
remarrying when their poor husbands died for their Freedom! They don't even feel bad about it!
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on March 06, 2012, 08:13:07 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on March 06, 2012, 08:10:50 PM
If divorcees are included, then what about widows of soldiers and guys who just up and died suddenly?
Widows are worse than divorcees! Look at them, smiling, living their lives, maybe even remarrying when their poor husbands died for their Freedom! They don't even feel bad about it!
Ann Coulter DID remark that the 911 widows were apparently having a grand old time.
Goddammit. I'd forgotten about that.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on March 06, 2012, 08:10:50 PM
If divorcees are included, then what about widows of soldiers and guys who just up and died suddenly?
No, they must suffer and be considered child abusers for having God see fit to take them away.
They can never remarry, since those children would never have a biological father again, and have their foodstamps taken away because that's God's will. God's all knowing. It's a test like. Because God wants broken homes and children to be considered abused because some spag fucking got shot in a desert thousands of miles away.
Don't you see how this works, Freeky?
I'm not sure how I missed it, but I have a thorough perspective now.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on March 06, 2012, 08:10:50 PM
If divorcees are included, then what about widows of soldiers and guys who just up and died suddenly?
I say we should implement Sati here like Krishna intended.
This whole thing translates to "can't get laid; doesn't think of women as human; assumes that women marry for money and not for normal human motivations like love and companionship".
Sorry to state the bleeding obvious, but there's too many politicians in your country! Statements from a Wisconsin Senator? How many houses in your state legislatures? I'm assuming two - which would mean there are literally thousands of politicians in America, yeah? With local government powers there, you'd have to include councillors. Our local governments only control roads and rubbish collection (oh, development applications, yeah, the biggest source of corruption in local government), so we can't really count them as politicians.
For all the Republican talk of small government, the monster seems to be getting bigger, wackier, and less intelligent.
Harsh?
Quote from: Deepthroat Chopra on March 07, 2012, 12:02:40 AM
Sorry to state the bleeding obvious, but there's too many politicians in your country! Statements from a Wisconsin Senator? How many houses in your state legislatures? I'm assuming two - which would mean there are literally thousands of politicians in America, yeah? With local government powers there, you'd have to include councillors. Our local governments only control roads and rubbish collection (oh, development applications, yeah, the biggest source of corruption in local government), so we can't really count them as politicians.
For all the Republican talk of small government, the monster seems to be getting bigger, wackier, and less intelligent.
Harsh?
I don't think it's the number of politicians that's the problem. With a country as large as this one, both in terms of geography and population, there are naturally more representatives than if the country was half or a quarter the size.
The structure of the government, however, is pretty much utterly fucked.
Just for a point of reference, Wisconsin is 65,503 square miles and has a population of 5,711,767 as of the last census. It would be a bit odd to leave that many people unrepresented. You are correct that there are two senators per state (which is patently unfair, greatly over-representing states with small populations and under-representing states with large ones) but how many members of the House each state has is determined by population, with the maximum number of state Representatives for the nation being 435.
So that's 535 people total to represent 50 states with a combined total of 311,591,917 people, or one representative per ~58,241 people. That doesn't really seem like too many.
That actually seems like a somewhat reasonable number.
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2012, 12:21:54 AM
(which is patently unfair, greatly over-representing states with small populations and under-representing states with large ones) but
I dunno. I don't think it's fair to the entirety of Montana to be outvoted by, like, LA.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on March 07, 2012, 12:23:40 AM
That actually seems like a somewhat reasonable number.
Yeah, I just looked up Australia and their political structure seems to be pretty similar, but their ratio is around one representative per 9,880 people.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on March 07, 2012, 12:30:27 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2012, 12:21:54 AM
(which is patently unfair, greatly over-representing states with small populations and under-representing states with large ones) but
I dunno. I don't think it's fair to the entirety of Montana to be outvoted by, like, LA.
Montana isn't a person. It doesn't have opinions or feelings.
Over-representation of states with small populations means that in effect, each Montana citizen is worth 38 California citizens when it comes to passing laws that affect the entire country. How is that more fair? Do you think you, (if you lived in Montana), are 38 times more important than someone in California?
Hang on a sec...
What I'm talking about is the sheer number of pollies at all levels of government. This Grothman character, I undertsand, doesn't represent Wisconsin in Washington, he's in the Wisconsin Senate, so he represents a small portion of Wisconsin in Madison, yeah?
I'm unconvinced that if he shrivelled up and died, Wisconsin would be unrepresented. Add to that that local politicians, members of school boards, sherriffs, etc., are basically politicians that have to find a constituency, the sheer volume of politicians seems huge, and will result in this sort of chicanery that begat this thread.
We get the odd nutter in parliament, but when looking for sheer bastadry, yanqui politicians leave us choking on dust (by comment).
Our ultra-conservative opposition leader, for example, has proposed about the most generous system of maternal leave on the planet (if you forget about Scandanavia), for example. The fact that we probably haven't got the $$$ for it is another matter. But they're not going around trashing working mothers. To their faces, at least.
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2012, 12:31:32 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on March 07, 2012, 12:23:40 AM
That actually seems like a somewhat reasonable number.
Yeah, I just looked up Australia and their political structure seems to be pretty similar, but their ratio is around one representative per 9,880 people.
May I have a link please?
Quote from: Deepthroat Chopra on March 07, 2012, 12:54:28 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2012, 12:31:32 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on March 07, 2012, 12:23:40 AM
That actually seems like a somewhat reasonable number.
Yeah, I just looked up Australia and their political structure seems to be pretty similar, but their ratio is around one representative per 9,880 people.
May I have a link please?
I looked up the numbers in Wikipedia and did the math.
Quote from: Deepthroat Chopra on March 07, 2012, 12:53:03 AM
Hang on a sec...
What I'm talking about is the sheer number of pollies at all levels of government. This Grothman character, I undertsand, doesn't represent Wisconsin in Washington, he's in the Wisconsin Senate, so he represents a small portion of Wisconsin in Madison, yeah?
I'm unconvinced that if he shrivelled up and died, Wisconsin would be unrepresented. Add to that that local politicians, members of school boards, sherriffs, etc., are basically politicians that have to find a constituency, the sheer volume of politicians seems huge, and will result in this sort of chicanery that begat this thread.
We get the odd nutter in parliament, but when looking for sheer bastadry, yanqui politicians leave us choking on dust (by comment).
Our ultra-conservative opposition leader, for example, has proposed about the most generous system of maternal leave on the planet (if you forget about Scandanavia), for example. The fact that we probably haven't got the $$$ for it is another matter. But they're not going around trashing working mothers. To their faces, at least.
I am not sure what any of what you just said has to do with there being "too many" politicians. There's a huge difference between "A shitty system of representation that doesn't really work because we're not using it as intended" and "too many politicians".
We don't have an overload of politicians per capita; in fact, with over 311 million people we probably need more representation, not less. We just have a broken political system, and the people who are supposed to be representing us, don't.
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2012, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: Deepthroat Chopra on March 07, 2012, 12:54:28 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2012, 12:31:32 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on March 07, 2012, 12:23:40 AM
That actually seems like a somewhat reasonable number.
Yeah, I just looked up Australia and their political structure seems to be pretty similar, but their ratio is around one representative per 9,880 people.
May I have a link please?
I looked up the numbers in Wikipedia and did the math.
You left out a zero. 150 in House of Reps, 76 in Senate. 22,328,800/226 = 98,800. But that's all at a national level.
Sorry. Spectrum disorder, and that.
Wisconsin is the sane 26 square miles of Madison surrounded by reality of country misogynists. This is how it is. I've gotten used to it, because frankly the state is beautiful, and there are enough good people nearby for me to get by.
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2012, 01:04:09 AM
Quote from: Deepthroat Chopra on March 07, 2012, 12:53:03 AM
Hang on a sec...
What I'm talking about is the sheer number of pollies at all levels of government. This Grothman character, I undertsand, doesn't represent Wisconsin in Washington, he's in the Wisconsin Senate, so he represents a small portion of Wisconsin in Madison, yeah?
I'm unconvinced that if he shrivelled up and died, Wisconsin would be unrepresented. Add to that that local politicians, members of school boards, sherriffs, etc., are basically politicians that have to find a constituency, the sheer volume of politicians seems huge, and will result in this sort of chicanery that begat this thread.
We get the odd nutter in parliament, but when looking for sheer bastadry, yanqui politicians leave us choking on dust (by comment).
Our ultra-conservative opposition leader, for example, has proposed about the most generous system of maternal leave on the planet (if you forget about Scandanavia), for example. The fact that we probably haven't got the $$$ for it is another matter. But they're not going around trashing working mothers. To their faces, at least.
I am not sure what any of what you just said has to do with there being "too many" politicians. There's a huge difference between "A shitty system of representation that doesn't really work because we're not using it as intended" and "too many politicians".
We don't have an overload of politicians per capita; in fact, with over 311 million people we probably need more representation, not less. We just have a broken political system, and the people who are supposed to be representing us, don't.
Indeed, good point. "Too many politicians" is more a gut reaction to bozo's like this one who spring from a state legislature to carry on with this garbage, rather than a well-thought out action.
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2012, 12:36:45 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on March 07, 2012, 12:30:27 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2012, 12:21:54 AM
(which is patently unfair, greatly over-representing states with small populations and under-representing states with large ones) but
I dunno. I don't think it's fair to the entirety of Montana to be outvoted by, like, LA.
Montana isn't a person. It doesn't have opinions or feelings.
Over-representation of states with small populations means that in effect, each Montana citizen is worth 38 California citizens when it comes to passing laws that affect the entire country. How is that more fair? Do you think you, (if you lived in Montana), are 38 times more important than someone in California?
Removing that safeguard means that states with small populations are totally drowned out by states with large ones, when their voices and concerns are perfectly valid. It's not fair to the people of Montana if they're suffocated under the weight of southern California. Yes, I realize that is in a number of ways unfair to the people who do belong to larger states but we still wield no small amount of power through the House. Two senators per state balances that out a little.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on March 07, 2012, 03:44:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2012, 12:36:45 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on March 07, 2012, 12:30:27 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2012, 12:21:54 AM
(which is patently unfair, greatly over-representing states with small populations and under-representing states with large ones) but
I dunno. I don't think it's fair to the entirety of Montana to be outvoted by, like, LA.
Montana isn't a person. It doesn't have opinions or feelings.
Over-representation of states with small populations means that in effect, each Montana citizen is worth 38 California citizens when it comes to passing laws that affect the entire country. How is that more fair? Do you think you, (if you lived in Montana), are 38 times more important than someone in California?
Removing that safeguard means that states with small populations are totally drowned out by states with large ones, when their voices and concerns are perfectly valid. It's not fair to the people of Montana if they're suffocated under the weight of southern California. Yes, I realize that is in a number of ways unfair to the people who do belong to larger states but we still wield no small amount of power through the House. Two senators per state balances that out a little.
Yes. Besides there are two houses. The House of Representatives helps balance things out by giving proportional representation based on population. And ultimately, as we've seen all too well, nothing passes without the support of both Houses, so I think all states are getting equally ripped off by their shitty Congressmen.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on March 07, 2012, 02:29:55 AM
Wisconsin is the sane 26 square miles of Madison surrounded by reality of country misogynists. This is how it is. I've gotten used to it, because frankly the state is beautiful, and there are enough good people nearby for me to get by.
At least my state is honest about being run by gangsters and crooks. Hell, it's a point of pride. :lulz:
I think Republicans are trying to garner favor with their prison-contractor cronies by retaining more un-aborted babies and orphans but that shit's gonna backfire on them one day when they all vote for a Muslim president...O WAI...
I wonder how many people I was able to offend THAT time. :)
Quote from: Deepthroat Chopra on March 07, 2012, 12:02:40 AM
Sorry to state the bleeding obvious, but there's too many politicians in your country!
No, there aren't
enough. At least not for me.
More politicians= more people to lobby. We need like, 10 senators to a state and 5 representatives to a congressional district to make a nice little throbbing headache for everyone involved.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 07, 2012, 06:54:31 PM
More politicians= more people to lobby. We need like, 10 senators to a state and 5 representatives to a congressional district to make a nice little throbbing headache for everyone involved.
More politicians = more chaos & weirdness.
And I'm still not satisfied. My need is MOAR.
More politicians = less consensus.
I leave that up to you whether that is a good or bad thing.
Quote from: Cain on March 07, 2012, 07:04:30 PM
More politicians = less consensus.
I leave that up to you whether that is a good or bad thing.
In my personal book, it's a good thing, no matter how I look at it. In the 21st century, inefficiency is your only defense against tyranny.
Dual-class system: Politicians and Inmates.
BUT...
THERE ARE NO CATS IN AMERICA AND THE STREETS ARE PAVED WITH CHEEEEESE!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 07, 2012, 07:05:27 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 07, 2012, 07:04:30 PM
More politicians = less consensus.
I leave that up to you whether that is a good or bad thing.
In my personal book, it's a good thing, no matter how I look at it. In the 21st century, inefficiency is your only defense against tyranny.
Only problem there is that the executive is efficient to the point of making "efficiency" a sinister sounding word. If you wanted truly tyranny thwarting inefficiency the 535 gridlocked imbeciles would have to be the co-commanders in chief's. Hell, even if we went ahead and completed the swap and had one single legislator writing all the laws for the entire country, even the most heinous crap that person could come up with wouldn't likely make it out of committee when it came time to actually *do* the thing.
At a certain level I'm not sure it really matters. The People put them there. If enough of The People truly gave a shit about fixing anything, I mean anything that is really broken (not made up bullshit), they'd accept, raise up, and put into place a different style of person to serve.
Instead, The People keep installing self-centered, resume-padding, ego-centrics who talk a game just good enough to convince people that they aren't going to make things worse.
Actually, having been catching up on my political scienc reading, I'm coming around more to the idea that more politicians are better.
Why?
Because it means more people to pay off, and the larger the number of politicians, the harder it is to pay them all off.
Dictatorships are characterized by very few power brokers, which is why they are a) stable and b) durable. Knowing who the power brokers are, and that there are only a few of them, allows for a stable, continuous government stretching over decades.
This rarely happens in democracy (stable, continuous interests, maybe, which can be in part attributed to class interests, institutions, etc), because power resides with the population at large, and paying them all off is impossible, because there are so many of them, and because of competing interests.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 12:26:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 07, 2012, 07:05:27 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 07, 2012, 07:04:30 PM
More politicians = less consensus.
I leave that up to you whether that is a good or bad thing.
In my personal book, it's a good thing, no matter how I look at it. In the 21st century, inefficiency is your only defense against tyranny.
Only problem there is that the executive is efficient to the point of making "efficiency" a sinister sounding word.
What the hell does that have to do with what I said? The president isn't the system.
There are lots of bureaucrats and politicians in Turkey. They have democratic elections... interestingly though they vote for a party, rather than an individual. The party that wins the region, sets policy for the region. The party that wins the most region gets to be in charge of the national level stuff.
The biggest advantage I've seen, is that it allows the party to select the best individuals for the jobs, rather than relying on a popularity contest between individuals for every position.
It was pretty weird to wrap my head around... and it really expanded my idea of how democracies can be implemented.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:02:18 PM
There are lots of bureaucrats and politicians in Turkey. They have democratic elections... interestingly though they vote for a party, rather than an individual. The party that wins the region, sets policy for the region. The party that wins the most region gets to be in charge of the national level stuff.
The biggest advantage I've seen, is that it allows the party to select the best individuals for the jobs, rather than relying on a popularity contest between individuals for every position.
It was pretty weird to wrap my head around... and it really expanded my idea of how democracies can be implemented.
England and Canada have the same system, or one very close to it. It has problems of its own, but I prefer it to the train wreck we have here.
The downside to that is that if the party selection procedure is corrupt as hell, then there are going to be significant political problems down the road. Once a certain party gets entrenched in a region, someone with sufficient influence over the selection process can then make sure their political buddies get safe seats.
Not that there aren't problems with other selection systems, of course, but that is a notable downside to our current system. It ensures a core group of "professional politicians", usually with a similar ideological outlook, can have an outsized impact on the political system.
Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2012, 01:18:26 PM
Actually, having been catching up on my political scienc reading, I'm coming around more to the idea that more politicians are better.
Why?
Because it means more people to pay off, and the larger the number of politicians, the harder it is to pay them all off.
Dictatorships are characterized by very few power brokers, which is why they are a) stable and b) durable. Knowing who the power brokers are, and that there are only a few of them, allows for a stable, continuous government stretching over decades.
This rarely happens in democracy (stable, continuous interests, maybe, which can be in part attributed to class interests, institutions, etc), because power resides with the population at large, and paying them all off is impossible, because there are so many of them, and because of competing interests.
Yep. More representatives usually means a greater probability of some of them actually representing the people.
Or we could get rid of all of them and just go right to a nice, clean dictatorship. Or maybe a monarchy.
Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2012, 04:15:39 PM
The downside to that is that if the party selection procedure is corrupt as hell, then there are going to be significant political problems down the road. Once a certain party gets entrenched in a region, someone with sufficient influence over the selection process can then make sure their political buddies get safe seats.
Not that there aren't problems with other selection systems, of course, but that is a notable downside to our current system. It ensures a core group of "professional politicians", usually with a similar ideological outlook, can have an outsized impact on the political system.
In the end that doesn't seem all that different from the current situation in the US... with the exception of a few like this nut from Wisconsin or Dennis from Cleveland. Sure sometimes an individual kicks up a storm and gets their way, like McCain and the Gang of Four or Olympia Snowe... but the victories were tiny and they're all gone now. Most of the politicians follow the party line. Most of the powers in the party are familiar (like GWB's boys or Obama's). I can't really think of a situation where the professional politicians were KO'd by an individual... at least not since the Bull Moose party.
The one advantage I've seen is that the parties here seem to shun the more crazy members because one crazy individual can taint the whole party. You don't give the rabid religious nut with diarrhea of the mouth a position, because it will get shit all over the whole party.
Good and bad on both sides I agree... I'd just never really considered it before.
This change in location has seriously poked some holes in my head :D
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/wisconsin-senator-who-introduced-anti-single-parent-bill-says-women-trained-lie-about-planne
QuoteGrothman: There's been a huge change over the last 30 years and a lot of that change has been the choice of the women. There's a reason why in the 50s and the 60s you had less than ten percent of the births illegitimate, and now we're over 40 percent. It's not that there weren't abusive men in the 40s or there was a problem with child support. It is the popular culture, led by the social service professions, who are saying...
Colmes: Well tell me what you would change.
Grothman: I think the first thing we do is that we should educate women that this is a mistake.
Colmes: You think women need to be educated, are they not smart enough on their own?
Grothman: They do have to be educated, because right now the culture encourages a single motherhood lifestyle.
Colmes: You think women choose to be single moms...
Grothman: Oh absolutely
Colmes: You think women want to have homes without fathers? You think women look to the opportunity to have to raise kids and not be able to get work because they have to stay home and take care of the kids. Women want to do this?
Grothman: I think a lot of women are adopting the single motherhood lifestyle because the government creates a situation in which it is almost preferred.
....
Colmes: According to data published in USA Today, at least four in ten pregnancies in every state are unwanted or mistimed. According to the analysis that was released last May, more than half of pregnancies in 29 states and the District of Columbia were unintended, 38 to 50 percent were unintended in the remaining states. This mitigates against the argument that women are purposefully wanting to have kids. Their unintended for the most part. They're unintended pregnancies, which is the argument for health care services and birth control for women.
Grothman: I think you undersell these women.
Colmes: Undersell them?
Grothman: Undersell them. I think when you have an epidemic of this great proportion, people are not so dumb that it's surprising when they get pregnant. I think people are trained to say that 'this is a surprise to me,' because there's still enough of a stigma that they're supposed to say this.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 12:26:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 07, 2012, 07:05:27 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 07, 2012, 07:04:30 PM
More politicians = less consensus.
I leave that up to you whether that is a good or bad thing.
In my personal book, it's a good thing, no matter how I look at it. In the 21st century, inefficiency is your only defense against tyranny.
Only problem there is that the executive is efficient to the point of making "efficiency" a sinister sounding word.
What the hell does that have to do with what I said? The president isn't the system.
Just that the law as written is much less a tool for tyranny than the actual executing part. If assassinating U.S. citizens was a task that 535 people all had to reach a consensus on, it'd be much less likely to occur than having it sit in the hands of one person. Maybe it's time for a 50 president panel with no "decider". I'm well with you that inefficiency's about the last shot we have.