Comments for The Hidden Message

Comment on Black and blue by val

val — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:36:39 +0000

Thank you for this writeup. Curious about your reaction to the 2nd down of the ‘possibly related posts’, “a teachable moment.” Brings class into the conversation, though it lost me around the time when it tried to slam the neighbor lady for false reporting.

Comment on EFBQ asked for it last week by scooterbird

scooterbird — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:28:48 +0000

Always a good idea – regardless of who is in power.

Comment on EFBQ asked for it last week by arensb

arensb — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:57:36 +0000

Neat! Thanks!

Comment on Add it up by David Kendall

David Kendall — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:10:50 +0000

Personally, I see the drama in the GOP a good thing for those (like yourself, for example) who want to do away with the two party system. Where one of the established parties suddenly (or even gradually) starts changing themselves away from their defined place on the spectrum then you have disenfranchised people. For example, if the GOP leans closer to Limbaugh than Powell, then those on Powell’s side of the party (what we’d call “Red Tories”) would not like the party and be grumbling about splitting off and forming their own party to represent their needs, since that can no longer be done with the GOP. If some of the high-profile GOPers themselves (like Powell) take up that cause and run for leadership in the new party then bingo, you’ve got a viable third party with an established base to challenge the other two and finally put an end to that silly two-party system you got.

In my mind that’s probably the best way to break the two-party system rather than bringing an existing third party (like the Whigs, Libertarians, or Greens) up to the level of the Big Two. The signs, as you point out, are there. The dominoes just have to fall (and attitudes have to be changed too, attitudes like “It’s America’s God-given destiny to be a two-party country”, even though that shows massive ignorance of history). I doubt though that Americans will “tolerate” an ideological shift of their party merely to prop up the “two-party” illusion (Americans are a LOT less tolerant than Canadians in that sense), so it will happen, mark my words.

Comment on Add it up by scooterbird

scooterbird — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:09:44 +0000

@ val: A very valid point. Three things about that: first, to address it directly, it’s possible to place a threshold on the percentage of the vote in order to get any seats at all – sort of a “you must be this tall to ride”. Israel’s threshold is notably small; I think it’s 1%. Secondly, it was possible for an alternative coalition on the left to have formed a government in Israel had Avigdor Lieberman’s faction not gained quite as much as they did. 12% doesn’t sound like a lot, except when you realize the leading two parties only gained about 22% each – and if a similar election was held here, 12% of the U.S. population is a little over 34 million people.

Third, as an aside, implementing such a system in the U.S. would not necessarily mean “parlimentarianism”, as it’s understood in foreign countries. Congress would still have no power to declare no confidence, nor extract any concessions from the executive or judicial branches. The only thing it would necessarily mean would be the committee chairmanships – important, but not insurmountable for a determined minority, particularly with the power of filibuster and possible a popular referendum at their disposal.

Comment on Add it up by val

val — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:25:19 +0000

Suggestions for avoiding Israel’s proportional representation experience? My understanding of it is that the two major moderateish parties had around the same percentages, like 45ish each, and so needed all the little guys to get to a large enough coalition. Meaning that the 5 percent ultraorthodox were VERY important, and ended up with a whole lot of power re the whole country.

Comment on Add it up by Jonathan Simeone

Jonathan Simeone — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:38:29 +0000

I have written about a world with no political parties. In many ways, I think a system that forced people to run as individuals rather than as a part of a large political machine makes a great deal of sense. If there were no political parties politicians would be much more likely to serve the voters, because bribing them would be more difficult. Instead of bringing in more parties I say we should do away with the entire party system.

Comment on National disaster by Kou

Kou — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:10:02 +0000

On the other hand, betcha that Segway guy feels like king of the world right about now.

Comment on National disaster by James

James — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:58:34 +0000

“The other two figures shown, and I am absolutely not kidding when I say this, were the Nats’ eagle-headed costumed mascot, and…the guy who cruises around in a Segway between innings, firing t-shirts into the crowd with a compressed air cannon.”

That is sad

Comment on Frame-up by Mary Clyens

Mary Clyens — Tue, 26 May 2009 02:47:27 +0000

My version of the Republicans = Uncle Moneybags. How exactly is that part of the Republican Party “quite dead?” Cause, maybe it’s just me, but the fact that the RNC just passed a resolution condemning the Democrats “march to socialism” kinda hints at their priorities.

By the way, you didn’t answer the other stuff. I am interested to know your take on the sexual revolution. It’s Memorial Day and I have that Greatest Generation vibe going… doesn’t really mesh well with an appreciation of self-indulgence and identity-seeking. Hedonists. Just ain’t raht.