Discussion:
My first political rant for ages - "US electioneering: ridiculous"
(too old to reply)
James Gregory
2004-10-31 18:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Despite the fact that I'd much rather be out doing something and talking
to people, my continuing stay in Colchester has meant vast of amounts of
free time with nothing to fill it. I have therefore been randomly surfing
the internet for the past few days, and doing so it's impossible to avoid
reading vast numbers of articles on news websites, personal websites,
blogs, and web forums about the US election. I even went as far as
downloading and watching Fahrenheit 9/11, the first Michael Moore thing
I've ever seen/read.

The one thing that strikes me about absolutely all of this discourse is
the extreme partisanhip of every single resource and article and opinion
available. Either Bush is a patriotic hero and Kerry a communist traitor,
or otherwise Kerry is a champion of the American people and Bush is a
stupid, evil man bent on world domination. Either war in Iraq was 100%
neccessary or it was a moral outrage. You are either "left" (Democrat) or
you are "right" (Bush). It doesn't matter where you live in the world, the
US is the world's only superpower and so the US election matters an order
of magnitude more than any event local to where you live can matter. It
would appear that the coming election is the ultimate ideological and
politcal battle to end all ideological and political battles.

This is ridiculous. Who gets elected will make a difference for a small
minority, for the vast, vast majority it will not. Both would keep troops
in Iraq. Both support liberal, capitalist democracy. Al-queda will kill a
few hundred (or if they're lucky, a few thousand) more people regardless
of who is elected, and the world will be outraged that such a "huge"
catastrophe could happen again. The Democrats say Bush represents the
elite whilst Kerry represents the common man. The Republicans say that
Bush is a decent, everyday American whilst Kerry is some sort of
effeminate Euro-communist fool. In reality both are as American as
American can be, whilst at the same time both are well connected,
privilged members of America's ruling class. Neither would cut military
spending, neither would raise taxes. Though his family name may well have
helped him, the fact that Bush got a higher GPA at university than Kerry
at least shows that it's not a matter of a genius versus a village idiot.

I realise that the above paragraph implies that I think both candidates
are right wing, that I think what is really needed is a truly left wing
candidate, and that really I'm just using the election to make a general
effeminate Euro-communist point about the whole world being biased against
me. This really isn't my point, though. I'm not even particularly
anti-Bush. My world view is admittedly very left wing (I think luck gets
you far further in this world than hard work). But at the same time I see
no reason that it shouldn't be that way. In my experience people who are
fiercely left-wing are either:

a) at least one of poor, ignored, unsuccessful. Why should rich,
successful, good looking people care? Since when was being better than
other people wrong?
b) a teacher, a student, or someone with a decent technical job, who make
themselves feel clever and informed and better than normal people by
voting for a centre-left party (which will probably be in their own
immediate interest in any case as often their job is publically funded)
and giving an absolutely marginal proportion of their income to charity.

My point is rather that it just doesn't matter. Who cares who wins the
presidental election? What difference does it make?

James
cowboy carl
2004-10-31 18:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
Despite the fact that I'd much rather be out doing something and talking
to people, my continuing stay in Colchester has meant vast of amounts of
free time with nothing to fill it. I have therefore been randomly surfing
the internet for the past few days, and doing so it's impossible to avoid
reading vast numbers of articles on news websites, personal websites,
blogs, and web forums about the US election. I even went as far as
downloading and watching Fahrenheit 9/11, the first Michael Moore thing
I've ever seen/read.
The one thing that strikes me about absolutely all of this discourse is
the extreme partisanhip of every single resource and article and opinion
available. Either Bush is a patriotic hero and Kerry a communist traitor,
or otherwise Kerry is a champion of the American people and Bush is a
stupid, evil man bent on world domination. Either war in Iraq was 100%
neccessary or it was a moral outrage. You are either "left" (Democrat) or
you are "right" (Bush). It doesn't matter where you live in the world, the
US is the world's only superpower and so the US election matters an order
of magnitude more than any event local to where you live can matter. It
would appear that the coming election is the ultimate ideological and
politcal battle to end all ideological and political battles.
This is ridiculous. Who gets elected will make a difference for a small
minority, for the vast, vast majority it will not. Both would keep troops
in Iraq. Both support liberal, capitalist democracy. Al-queda will kill a
few hundred (or if they're lucky, a few thousand) more people regardless
of who is elected, and the world will be outraged that such a "huge"
catastrophe could happen again. The Democrats say Bush represents the
elite whilst Kerry represents the common man. The Republicans say that
Bush is a decent, everyday American whilst Kerry is some sort of
effeminate Euro-communist fool. In reality both are as American as
American can be, whilst at the same time both are well connected,
privilged members of America's ruling class. Neither would cut military
spending, neither would raise taxes. Though his family name may well have
helped him, the fact that Bush got a higher GPA at university than Kerry
at least shows that it's not a matter of a genius versus a village idiot.
Agreed up till here.
Post by James Gregory
I realise that the above paragraph implies that I think both candidates
are right wing, that I think what is really needed is a truly left wing
candidate, and that really I'm just using the election to make a general
effeminate Euro-communist point about the whole world being biased against
me. This really isn't my point, though. I'm not even particularly
anti-Bush. My world view is admittedly very left wing (I think luck gets
you far further in this world than hard work). But at the same time I see
no reason that it shouldn't be that way. In my experience people who are
a) at least one of poor, ignored, unsuccessful. Why should rich,
successful, good looking people care? Since when was being better than
other people wrong?
b) a teacher, a student, or someone with a decent technical job, who make
themselves feel clever and informed and better than normal people by
voting for a centre-left party (which will probably be in their own
immediate interest in any case as often their job is publically funded)
and giving an absolutely marginal proportion of their income to charity.
My point is rather that it just doesn't matter. Who cares who wins the
presidental election? What difference does it make?
It doesn't matter to us. I can't think of a single effect Bush has had on
*my* life (except maybe given me some stuff to talk about).

However we don't get to see the domestic side of things in the US. Issues
like gay marriage, I imagine Kerry would be much more unlikely to support an
amendment to the constitution. The economy, Bush has increased the deficit
to enormous levels by cutting taxes on the rich but not cutting spending. I
expect Kerry would have either not cut taxes so much, or not at all.


Anyway, that wasn't what I wanted to reply about.

I wanted to reply about your comment about America needing a left-wing
candidate.

America is not Europe. (Or AINE for short, hmm, that doesn't
work...anyway).

A random fact quoted on a program on BBC1 I watched today said that if you
give every person in America, 1 acre of land, you'd have only given out 5%
of the land. It might have been 50% but I'm sure there was a 5 in there.
Either way, Americans have never been short of land. Or wealth. They have
the highest GDP per capita of any country in the world. So it's hardly
surprising that there's no real "left wing".


And finally, I disagree that people get further on luck than on hard work.

But I have a cold and I can't really think right now, otherwise I'd give a
reason for it.

cc
James Gregory
2004-10-31 19:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by cowboy carl
It doesn't matter to us. I can't think of a single effect Bush has had on
*my* life (except maybe given me some stuff to talk about).
However we don't get to see the domestic side of things in the US. Issues
like gay marriage, I imagine Kerry would be much more unlikely to support an
amendment to the constitution.
That affects a tiny number of people.
Post by cowboy carl
The economy, Bush has increased the deficit
to enormous levels by cutting taxes on the rich but not cutting spending. I
expect Kerry would have either not cut taxes so much, or not at all.
Anyway, that wasn't what I wanted to reply about.
I wanted to reply about your comment about America needing a left-wing
candidate.
I thought I was pretty clear in saying "that's not what I'm saying".
Post by cowboy carl
America is not Europe. (Or AINE for short, hmm, that doesn't
work...anyway).
A random fact quoted on a program on BBC1 I watched today said that if you
give every person in America, 1 acre of land, you'd have only given out 5%
of the land. It might have been 50% but I'm sure there was a 5 in there.
Either way, Americans have never been short of land.
That's true, but that applies even more so to the Scandinavian
countries, some of the lefiest in the world. So I don't see the point.
Distribution of land hasn't been a major issue in England either for like
a few hundred years.
Post by cowboy carl
Or wealth. They have
the highest GDP per capita of any country in the world. So it's hardly
surprising that there's no real "left wing".
GDP per capita is an average - plenty of Americans are poor. I can't be
bothered to look up statistics, but a lot really aren't at all well off.
And again, I never said there should be a left wing, anyhow.
Post by cowboy carl
And finally, I disagree that people get further on luck than on hard work.
But I have a cold and I can't really think right now, otherwise I'd give
a reason for it.
That remark was just a single sentence to make it clear where I stand, it
wasn't an argument.

James
cowboy carl
2004-10-31 19:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
It doesn't matter to us. I can't think of a single effect Bush has had on
*my* life (except maybe given me some stuff to talk about).
However we don't get to see the domestic side of things in the US.
Issues
like gay marriage, I imagine Kerry would be much more unlikely to support an
amendment to the constitution.
That affects a tiny number of people.
Yes but laws and politics are all about minorities.

Take this gambling bill, or the fox-hunting bill, both don't affect the
majority of people.
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
The economy, Bush has increased the deficit
to enormous levels by cutting taxes on the rich but not cutting spending.
I
expect Kerry would have either not cut taxes so much, or not at all.
Anyway, that wasn't what I wanted to reply about.
I wanted to reply about your comment about America needing a left-wing
candidate.
I thought I was pretty clear in saying "that's not what I'm saying".
I read it as "this is what I think, but it's not the point of this message."
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
America is not Europe. (Or AINE for short, hmm, that doesn't
work...anyway).
A random fact quoted on a program on BBC1 I watched today said that if you
give every person in America, 1 acre of land, you'd have only given out 5%
of the land. It might have been 50% but I'm sure there was a 5 in there.
Either way, Americans have never been short of land.
That's true, but that applies even more so to the Scandinavian
countries, some of the lefiest in the world. So I don't see the point.
Distribution of land hasn't been a major issue in England either for like
a few hundred years.
It's not distribution of land, so much as ability to grow.

Americans have the point of view that growth is always possible, that there
is always a way to create new wealth etc. etc. whereas Europeans have
historically believed that wealth is fixed and people only get richer when
someone else is getting poorer.
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
Or wealth. They have
the highest GDP per capita of any country in the world. So it's hardly
surprising that there's no real "left wing".
GDP per capita is an average - plenty of Americans are poor. I can't be
bothered to look up statistics, but a lot really aren't at all well off.
And again, I never said there should be a left wing, anyhow.
Post by cowboy carl
And finally, I disagree that people get further on luck than on hard work.
But I have a cold and I can't really think right now, otherwise I'd give
a reason for it.
That remark was just a single sentence to make it clear where I stand, it
wasn't an argument.
I realise that, but if someone says something, and I disagree with it, it's
usually helpful if I gave a reason as to why I disagree with it (even if the
original person didn't give a reason as to why they said it).

But I didn't feel like it just then, so I didn't, and I explained why I
didn't :)

cc
James Gregory
2004-10-31 20:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
It doesn't matter to us. I can't think of a single effect Bush has had on
*my* life (except maybe given me some stuff to talk about).
However we don't get to see the domestic side of things in the US.
Issues
like gay marriage, I imagine Kerry would be much more unlikely to support an
amendment to the constitution.
That affects a tiny number of people.
Yes but laws and politics are all about minorities.
I'd say the opposite. Tax, employment, war are the big election issues,
not gay marriage.
Post by cowboy carl
Take this gambling bill, or the fox-hunting bill, both don't affect the
majority of people.
And hence the majority don't care about them.
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
The economy, Bush has increased the deficit
to enormous levels by cutting taxes on the rich but not cutting spending.
I
expect Kerry would have either not cut taxes so much, or not at all.
Anyway, that wasn't what I wanted to reply about.
I wanted to reply about your comment about America needing a left-wing
candidate.
I thought I was pretty clear in saying "that's not what I'm saying".
I read it as "this is what I think, but it's not the point of this message."
Oh. Well, it's not what I think. As I said, I'm not particularly anti-Bush.
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
America is not Europe. (Or AINE for short, hmm, that doesn't
work...anyway).
A random fact quoted on a program on BBC1 I watched today said that if you
give every person in America, 1 acre of land, you'd have only given out 5%
of the land. It might have been 50% but I'm sure there was a 5 in there.
Either way, Americans have never been short of land.
That's true, but that applies even more so to the Scandinavian
countries, some of the lefiest in the world. So I don't see the point.
Distribution of land hasn't been a major issue in England either for like
a few hundred years.
It's not distribution of land, so much as ability to grow.
Americans have the point of view that growth is always possible, that there
is always a way to create new wealth etc. etc. whereas Europeans have
historically believed that wealth is fixed and people only get richer when
someone else is getting poorer.
That's nice, but what has that got to do with your original statement that
"Americans have never been short of land".
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
Or wealth. They have
the highest GDP per capita of any country in the world. So it's
hardly surprising that there's no real "left wing".
Oh, by the way, that fact is wrong in any case - the CIA World Factbook
says the US is third. For some reason this constantly comes up on aua, but
I think debating in terms of GDP per capita is pretty pointless in any
case, not only because as an average which doesn't take into account
distribution, but additionally GDP is determined more by economic history
than the particular political slant of the country's present government.
I admit I know very little about why Luxembourg is 1st, but Norway being
2nd has a lot to do with having a small population with big oil reserves.

James
cowboy carl
2004-10-31 22:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
It doesn't matter to us. I can't think of a single effect Bush has had on
*my* life (except maybe given me some stuff to talk about).
However we don't get to see the domestic side of things in the US.
Issues
like gay marriage, I imagine Kerry would be much more unlikely to
support
an
amendment to the constitution.
That affects a tiny number of people.
Yes but laws and politics are all about minorities.
I'd say the opposite. Tax, employment, war are the big election issues,
not gay marriage.
Right, but very little ever changes on the 'big election issues'.

The only laws that are ever passed seem to be minor ones. Only changes that
are made are minor ones.
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
Take this gambling bill, or the fox-hunting bill, both don't affect the
majority of people.
And hence the majority don't care about them.
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
The economy, Bush has increased the deficit
to enormous levels by cutting taxes on the rich but not cutting spending.
I
expect Kerry would have either not cut taxes so much, or not at all.
Anyway, that wasn't what I wanted to reply about.
I wanted to reply about your comment about America needing a left-wing
candidate.
I thought I was pretty clear in saying "that's not what I'm saying".
I read it as "this is what I think, but it's not the point of this message."
Oh. Well, it's not what I think. As I said, I'm not particularly anti-Bush.
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
America is not Europe. (Or AINE for short, hmm, that doesn't
work...anyway).
A random fact quoted on a program on BBC1 I watched today said that if you
give every person in America, 1 acre of land, you'd have only given out 5%
of the land. It might have been 50% but I'm sure there was a 5 in there.
Either way, Americans have never been short of land.
That's true, but that applies even more so to the Scandinavian
countries, some of the lefiest in the world. So I don't see the point.
Distribution of land hasn't been a major issue in England either for like
a few hundred years.
It's not distribution of land, so much as ability to grow.
Americans have the point of view that growth is always possible, that there
is always a way to create new wealth etc. etc. whereas Europeans have
historically believed that wealth is fixed and people only get richer when
someone else is getting poorer.
That's nice, but what has that got to do with your original statement that
"Americans have never been short of land".
America has always been growing. Conquering the West (or whatever it is
they call it). And they have plenty of space to continue to grow.

Whereas in Europe, everyone has been stuck in the same place for hundreds
and hundreds of years, having to share and cope with limited resources,
hence more left-wing politics have evolved.
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
Or wealth. They have
the highest GDP per capita of any country in the world. So it's
hardly surprising that there's no real "left wing".
Oh, by the way, that fact is wrong in any case - the CIA World Factbook
says the US is third. For some reason this constantly comes up on aua, but
I think debating in terms of GDP per capita is pretty pointless in any
case, not only because as an average which doesn't take into account
distribution, but additionally GDP is determined more by economic history
than the particular political slant of the country's present government.
I admit I know very little about why Luxembourg is 1st, but Norway being
2nd has a lot to do with having a small population with big oil reserves.
Luxembourg and Norway, as you say, have very small populations, and skew the
results a bit.

If you look at the top 20 countries by GDP, then sort them by GDP per
capita, US comes top by about $8000.

Anyway, my point is, they are, by any standard[1] the richest country in the
world, being poor in the US means owning a big screen TV and a car etc.

cc

[1] except by stupid standards which define "poor" as the lowest 25% on some
distribution curve hence ensuring there will always be poor people, even if
they are all millionaires living a life of luxery.
Toby
2004-10-31 22:38:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:08:35 -0000, "cowboy carl" <***@lka.ds.mkd>
wrote:

<Bingly bonly snip>
Post by cowboy carl
[1] except by stupid standards which define "poor" as the lowest 25% on some
distribution curve hence ensuring there will always be poor people, even if
they are all millionaires living a life of luxery.
teehee like Brunei.
Ian/Cath Ford
2004-10-31 23:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by cowboy carl
Anyway, my point is, they are, by any standard[1] the richest country in the
world, being poor in the US means owning a big screen TV and a car etc.
<deep breath>I don't think I've ever read such a stupid, ignorant,
ridiculous comment on usenet<exhale>

Go see it. Look beyond what's in your TV and find the rest of it -
particularly, but not exclusivly, in the cities.

There are lots of well off Americans, sure there are. But to suggest
that being poor means owning a wide screen TV is incredibly
patrionising.

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later
cowboy carl
2004-11-01 09:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Post by cowboy carl
Anyway, my point is, they are, by any standard[1] the richest country in the
world, being poor in the US means owning a big screen TV and a car etc.
<deep breath>I don't think I've ever read such a stupid, ignorant,
ridiculous comment on usenet<exhale>
Go see it. Look beyond what's in your TV and find the rest of it -
particularly, but not exclusivly, in the cities.
There are lots of well off Americans, sure there are. But to suggest
that being poor means owning a wide screen TV is incredibly
patrionising.
Poor "impoverished" people in the states have big houses and big gardens,
poor people in the UK live in tiny council estates, and poor people in
Russia live in tiny council estates with 50 other people.

I know where I would rather be.

cc
jess
2004-11-01 18:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by cowboy carl
Poor "impoverished" people in the states have big houses and big gardens,
ummm, no they don't.

ever heard of the projects?
cowboy carl
2004-11-01 18:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by jess
Post by cowboy carl
Poor "impoverished" people in the states have big houses and big gardens,
ummm, no they don't.
ever heard of the projects?
nope
jess
2004-11-01 18:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by jess
Post by cowboy carl
Poor "impoverished" people in the states have big houses and big gardens,
ummm, no they don't.
ever heard of the projects?
nope
well, i suggest you do some wider research, and don't base your opinion of a
country on what an ignorant person says.
cowboy carl
2004-11-01 18:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by jess
Post by jess
Post by cowboy carl
Poor "impoverished" people in the states have big houses and big gardens,
ummm, no they don't.
ever heard of the projects?
nope
well, i suggest you do some wider research, and don't base your opinion of
a country on what an ignorant person says.
Surprise surprise, another unhelpful post.

It seems as if I am the only one in this thread producing relevant links to
documents which support my case.

cc
Ian/Cath Ford
2004-11-01 21:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by cowboy carl
Poor "impoverished" people in the states have big houses and big gardens,
poor people in the UK live in tiny council estates, and poor people in
Russia live in tiny council estates with 50 other people.
OK, so you need some links I gather from later articles in this
thread.

Let's pick 2 or 3 places in the States and let's, whilst we're at it,
make sure that we're using fairly reliable, not awfully biased sources
here.

#1 - Detroit. OK, it's obvious, but I only picked it becuase I happen
to read two of the local newspapers on an almost daily basis. Start
there:

www.freep.com is the Free Press whilst www.detnews.com is the News.
Read both for a few weeks. You'll start to get a feeling for the city
and how it works (or doesn't).

Just for fun I pulled out the census section of the News:
http://www.detnews.com/2004/census/0411/01/a01-256073.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2004/census/0411/01/a01-20136.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2004/census/0411/01/census-193856.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2004/census/0411/01/census-255321.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2004/census/0411/01/census-255469.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2004/census/0411/01/a06-256048.htm

Then try the site which is currently trading as:
http://detroityes.com/index.html Take a tour of the ruins - spend some
time, there's lots to see.

http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2003/04/20030421_b_main.asp should
give you a little (there's not much there - deliberatly) idea about
housing projects. Want more? Heck, watch ER.

#2 Saratoga, New York - mid state. Why'd I pick it? I spent a summer
there once, a long time ago. It's well off - really. Does it have
poverty:

http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8437181&BRD=1169&PAG=461&dept_id=517969&rfi=6

is one article from the series that you'll find at

http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.asp?brd=1169&pag=460&dept_id=517969

A quote you might find interesting: "Poverty in 2003 is defined by the
federal government as a family of four living off less than $18,400 a
year." What's $18k? Must be £10k? For a family of four. Hard.

Saratoga is one of the richest counties in New York State btw.

Now, let's go someplace else: I know:

#3 California. Heck, let's take the whole State. What did Woody
Guthrie call it - the "garden of Eden" wasn't it? You couldn't get in,
he said, if you didn't have the "Doh, ray, me" (geddit?).

OK, so:

http://www.ppic.org/main/commentary.asp?i=249

and a shorty at:

http://www.nccp.org/pub_cpc02.html

are interesting.

My browser just cut me off. I can't be bothered to go back and look
for more. That'll do me for now.

Sure, you could find a zillion sits that said America is great, that
it's rich and powerful and manly and so on. Sure it is, but it also
has another population that you don't see so much on the movies.

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later
cowboy carl
2004-11-01 22:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Post by cowboy carl
Poor "impoverished" people in the states have big houses and big gardens,
poor people in the UK live in tiny council estates, and poor people in
Russia live in tiny council estates with 50 other people.
OK, so you need some links I gather from later articles in this
thread.
Let's pick 2 or 3 places in the States and let's, whilst we're at it,
make sure that we're using fairly reliable, not awfully biased sources
here.
#1 - Detroit. OK, it's obvious, but I only picked it becuase I happen
to read two of the local newspapers on an almost daily basis. Start
www.freep.com is the Free Press whilst www.detnews.com is the News.
Read both for a few weeks. You'll start to get a feeling for the city
and how it works (or doesn't).
http://www.detnews.com/2004/census/0411/01/a01-256073.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2004/census/0411/01/a01-20136.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2004/census/0411/01/census-193856.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2004/census/0411/01/census-255321.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2004/census/0411/01/census-255469.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2004/census/0411/01/a06-256048.htm
http://detroityes.com/index.html Take a tour of the ruins - spend some
time, there's lots to see.
http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2003/04/20030421_b_main.asp should
give you a little (there's not much there - deliberatly) idea about
housing projects. Want more? Heck, watch ER.
#2 Saratoga, New York - mid state. Why'd I pick it? I spent a summer
there once, a long time ago. It's well off - really. Does it have
http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8437181&BRD=1169&PAG=461&dept_id=517969&rfi=6
is one article from the series that you'll find at
http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.asp?brd=1169&pag=460&dept_id=517969
A quote you might find interesting: "Poverty in 2003 is defined by the
federal government as a family of four living off less than $18,400 a
year." What's $18k? Must be £10k? For a family of four. Hard.
Saratoga is one of the richest counties in New York State btw.
#3 California. Heck, let's take the whole State. What did Woody
Guthrie call it - the "garden of Eden" wasn't it? You couldn't get in,
he said, if you didn't have the "Doh, ray, me" (geddit?).
http://www.ppic.org/main/commentary.asp?i=249
Thanks for all the links, it's interesting reading, but I have a few
comments.

First one is on the link I "interrupted" at.

"If the California poverty threshold were set at one-half the state's median
family income, it would be $26,347 for a family of four in California. By
this measure, the state's poverty rate in 2000 was 24 percent, compared to
21 percent in the rest of the nation. That would give California the second
highest rate in the nation, after Washington, D.C."

If you set anything to be half the median of anything, it's likely to be
about 25% into it. That's (almost) the definition of median.

It's this "defining poverty as being below a certain level *relative to
everyone else*" which I have a problem with. As I said elsewhere, if
everyone in California were 4 times richer, and the poverty threshold set at
one-half the state's median family income, it would be $100,000. Living off
that is hardly "poverty".


Secondly, yes, the $18,400 figure for the poverty level is pretty shocking,
and yes, it'd be very hard to live off £10,000 a year in this country, but
things (energy, fuel, food, clothing etc.) is cheaper in the US, so a direct
comparison is not possible (unless you have lived in the US in those
circumstances).

I'm not saying $18,400 is plenty, or that it's enough, or that it's too
little, I'm just saying that it is very difficult for us to make that
judgement.


Also, most of these websites talk about the poverty level but don't mention
the actual quality of life. Except for the first link in the set of Detroit
News links you mentioned:

"They switched from beef to hot dogs and hamburgers - and even those are
starting to feel expensive. She drives less and got rid of her cell phone.
She quit going to the salon and started getting her hair cut for $6 at the
Michigan College of Beauty. The family cut back on cable and the Internet."

Hot dogs and hamburgers, hopefully it doesn't mean takeaways, and switching
from eating beef every day to finding something cheaper is hardly "poverty".
Eating beef is expensive and eating it too often is unhealthy.

She drives a car, and she had a cell phone. Again, not something you would
normally associate with poverty in this country (or anywhere else). And
they had/have cable TV and Internet access.

Okay, I'm coming across as if I think people should be happy to live at this
standard. I'm not. I think every home should have a computer and Internet
access and everyone should be able to afford nice healthy food. But saying
this woman is living in "poverty" is a bit much.


Oxfam have a good definition of poverty:
(http://www.oxfam.org.uk/coolplanet/glossary.htm)

"poverty: the condition of being poor. People can be reduced to poverty if
their way of life is threatened, or if they do not have enough land, money
or other resources to enjoy a reasonable standard of life. Poverty differs
from one country to another. People in the UK feel they are poor if they do
not own a car or a TV. Only wealthy people in Kenya would hope to own such
things."


So, in my opinion, my original point is still valid, poverty in different
countries equates to very different standards of living. And in the US, it
equates to a relatively high standard of living, including owning a TV and
owning/driving a car (I exzagerated with the widescreen bit, sorry).

cc
James Gregory
2004-11-01 08:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
I'd say the opposite. Tax, employment, war are the big election issues,
not gay marriage.
Right, but very little ever changes on the 'big election issues'.
Elections are fought on the basis of 1% rises/cuts in taxes and
on what basis we choose which wars to fight and which to leave.
Things might not change much, but that's nonetheless what politics is
about for most people.
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
That's nice, but what has that got to do with your original statement
that "Americans have never been short of land".
America has always been growing. Conquering the West (or whatever it is
they call it). And they have plenty of space to continue to grow.
Whereas in Europe, everyone has been stuck in the same place for
hundreds and hundreds of years, having to share and cope with limited
resources, hence more left-wing politics have evolved.
But, yet again, coping with limited land is not an issue, so why did you
mention it?
Post by cowboy carl
Anyway, my point is, they are, by any standard[1] the richest country in
the world, being poor in the US means owning a big screen TV and a car
etc.
That's just unbelieveably ignorant.

James
cowboy carl
2004-11-01 09:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
I'd say the opposite. Tax, employment, war are the big election issues,
not gay marriage.
Right, but very little ever changes on the 'big election issues'.
Elections are fought on the basis of 1% rises/cuts in taxes and
on what basis we choose which wars to fight and which to leave.
Things might not change much, but that's nonetheless what politics is
about for most people.
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
That's nice, but what has that got to do with your original statement
that "Americans have never been short of land".
America has always been growing. Conquering the West (or whatever it is
they call it). And they have plenty of space to continue to grow.
Whereas in Europe, everyone has been stuck in the same place for
hundreds and hundreds of years, having to share and cope with limited
resources, hence more left-wing politics have evolved.
But, yet again, coping with limited land is not an issue, so why did you
mention it?
It is a factor in the rapid growth and development of America, which is why
I mentioned it.
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
Anyway, my point is, they are, by any standard[1] the richest country in
the world, being poor in the US means owning a big screen TV and a car
etc.
That's just unbelieveably ignorant.
It's an almost exact quote from something an American told me, it's not just
my opinion from my sheltered live in England watching TV.

cc
Rebecca Loader
2004-11-01 11:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
Anyway, my point is, they are, by any standard[1] the richest country in
the world, being poor in the US means owning a big screen TV and a car
etc.
That's just unbelieveably ignorant.
It's an almost exact quote from something an American told me, it's not just
my opinion from my sheltered live in England watching TV.
It's also completely false. The USA has one of the biggest rich-poor
differentials in the world, greater than in Britain. The gap is huge.
Welfare provision was never particularly good and has only become worse.
You've got to look at the context: it's completely disingenuous from a
Western point of view to classify 'poverty' in Developing World terms.

And quoting an American as /the/ authority is just ridiculous, for reasons I
don't need to spell out.

Becky
cowboy carl
2004-11-01 11:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rebecca Loader
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
Anyway, my point is, they are, by any standard[1] the richest country
in
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
the world, being poor in the US means owning a big screen TV and a car
etc.
That's just unbelieveably ignorant.
It's an almost exact quote from something an American told me, it's not
just
Post by cowboy carl
my opinion from my sheltered live in England watching TV.
It's also completely false. The USA has one of the biggest rich-poor
differentials in the world, greater than in Britain. The gap is huge.
Welfare provision was never particularly good and has only become worse.
You've got to look at the context: it's completely disingenuous from a
Western point of view to classify 'poverty' in Developing World terms.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

I'm not classifying povery in America in Developing World terms, I'm
comparing it to the UK or Europe (okay, I did mention Russia, but only as a
more extreme example, when people describe a home without a computer as
'poverty' in this country I get annoyed).

Note I don't agree with the whole of that document (it says to fix poverty,
people should just work more, 2000 hours a year rather than 800, but doesn't
go on to explain where these jobs come from, and it says single mothers
should just marry the fathers of their children as if that would magically
solve the problem). The statistics in that report are what is interesting.

cc
James Gregory
2004-11-01 11:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by cowboy carl
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
That comes at the top of google searches for american inequality. You had
already formed an opinion and now you are searching for facts to justify
it. As such, I can't be bothered to argue.

James
cowboy carl
2004-11-01 12:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
That comes at the top of google searches for american inequality. You had
already formed an opinion and now you are searching for facts to justify
it. As such, I can't be bothered to argue.
God forbid I should try to find facts to justify my argument.

Just out of curiosity, what did you expect me to do? Look up this stuff
before I started the discussion, with some kind of future-predicting ability
to know what is going to be posted here a few days before it gets posted?

Maybe what happened was I read this article months ago, remembered it when
this discussion started, and searched for it so I could post a link to it
justifying my views. Did you ever consider that?

cc
James Gregory
2004-11-01 15:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
That comes at the top of google searches for american inequality. You had
already formed an opinion and now you are searching for facts to justify
it. As such, I can't be bothered to argue.
God forbid I should try to find facts to justify my argument.
If the point is to practice debating skills, then yes, that's a perfectly
sensible thing to do. However, I posted to listen to what
already-well-informed objections people might have to my point of view,
not to practice debating skills.
Post by cowboy carl
Just out of curiosity, what did you expect me to
do? Look up this stuff
before I started the discussion, with some kind of future-predicting
ability to know what is going to be posted here a few days before it
gets posted?
Well, if you want me to argue with you, then yes, I do. I posted here
because I know there are often people who have researched/studied/though
about this sort of thing before, and I was looking to hear their opinions.

Of course, usenet is free, you can say whatever you want to, it's just I
needn't feel obliged to reply.
Post by cowboy carl
Maybe what happened was I read this article months ago, remembered it
when this discussion started, and searched for it so I could post a link
to it justifying my views. Did you ever consider that?
No, because it's so unlikely it wasn't worth considering.

James
cowboy carl
2004-11-01 16:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
That comes at the top of google searches for american inequality. You had
already formed an opinion and now you are searching for facts to justify
it. As such, I can't be bothered to argue.
God forbid I should try to find facts to justify my argument.
If the point is to practice debating skills, then yes, that's a perfectly
sensible thing to do. However, I posted to listen to what
already-well-informed objections people might have to my point of view,
not to practice debating skills.
I had an informed opinion, you didn't believe it, I produced evidence to
support it. Then you went off on one and refused to discuss it any further.

<sigh>

I don't have a problem if you disagree with me and can convince me that
there are millions and millions of people in the US living in poverty, and
that those statistics are utter rubbish. In fact, I'd rather like it if you
did, because those stats come from a right-wing think tank and as such
aren't exactly 100% reliable, but they do fit in with everything else I've
seen and heard about the US.

Not that I want people in the US to be poorer ... but it goes against my gut
instinct, however my gut instinct has nothing to back it up, so I would have
appreciated a better response than "That comes at the top of google searches
for american inequality. [...] As such, I can't be bothered to argue."

But as you say, this is usenet, you don't need to reply if you don't want
to.

cc
Ian/Cath Ford
2004-11-01 21:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by cowboy carl
It's an almost exact quote from something an American told me, it's not just
my opinion from my sheltered live in England watching TV.
An American told me that there were weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq.

Don't believe everything Americans tell you.

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later
Matthew Huntbach
2004-11-01 11:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
However we don't get to see the domestic side of things in the US.
Issues like gay marriage, I imagine Kerry would be much more unlikely
to support an amendment to the constitution.
That affects a tiny number of people.
Yes but laws and politics are all about minorities.
I'd say the opposite. Tax, employment, war are the big election issues,
not gay marriage.
Reports from the USA suggest that many people *are* making issues like
gay marriage their key deciding issues. In the USA many people are
"fundamentalist Christians" and somehow they have been led to believe that
means the key thing that they should think about on voting is gay rights,
while things like fairness to the poor are unimportant. (Er, how many times
is Jesus Christ reported in the Bible as condemning gays - 0 - how many
times is he reported as calling for justice for the poor - dozens. Funny
sort of "fundamentalists Christians" these are).
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
Take this gambling bill, or the fox-hunting bill, both don't affect the
majority of people.
And hence the majority don't care about them.
They've become symbolic issues, rather like gay rights in the USA. They
may not be important in the big scheme of things, but they are the sort
of things people get worked up about, and there is a big vocal minority
that gets hugely worked up about them.
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
Americans have the point of view that growth is always possible, that there
is always a way to create new wealth etc. etc. whereas Europeans have
historically believed that wealth is fixed and people only get richer when
someone else is getting poorer.
That's nice, but what has that got to do with your original statement that
"Americans have never been short of land".
A lot. It's true that in the USA there is far more land per person than in
most of Europe. The USA has a recent history of land being available for
free - you just went out beyond the western frontier and made your stake.
Compare with England where the whole country was parcelled out to the
Norman invaders in 1066. But in those days the aristocracy had a duty to
house the peasantry. When council housing was effectively abolished, that
duty was abolished. Now we in Britain have no right to housing, and land
is in such short supply that many spend lives of misery because they can
never get the housing they need. But no-one talks about that, because the
right-wing have led us to think that when house prices go up it's "Whee-hee,
we're getting richer and richer" and when they go down it's "bad news".
House price rises mean the rich who have houses and own land are getting
richer at the expense of the poor who need to buy them.

While land itself is less of an issue in the USA, a similar process applies.
Politics is written up in the interests of the rich. The poor are made to
feel that somewhow one day they too will join the rich, and so identify
with policies that help the rich. The national myth in the USA is "log cabin
to White House", the idea that everyone can make it. Reality in the USA is
that social mobility is less than in much of Europe - if you are born poor,
you stay poor. But, as you note, Kerry is being condemned as some sort of
"communist" because he opposes tax cuts which are only of advantage to the
top 1% of the population.

Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
2004-11-01 11:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
Post by cowboy carl
A random fact quoted on a program on BBC1 I watched today said that if you
give every person in America, 1 acre of land, you'd have only given out 5%
of the land. It might have been 50% but I'm sure there was a 5 in there.
Either way, Americans have never been short of land.
That's true, but that applies even more so to the Scandinavian
countries, some of the lefiest in the world. So I don't see the point.
Distribution of land hasn't been a major issue in England either for like
a few hundred years.
What, everyone in England is well-housed? Every family with kids has a house
with a big garden suitable for bringing them up? There is no-one homeless
because they can't afford housing? There are no families squeezed into two
bedroom flats because of high housing costs? No-one is struggling to pay
a mortgae because of the high price of land?

Of course these things are not discussed as much as they ought to be because
we have a right-wing press which manages to make people feel grateful they're
being squeezed to death by high housing costs (it's an investment, innit?)
and doesn't give a toss about poor people - the only people whose lives,
opinions and happiness matter are celebrities and big businessmen.

Matthew Huntbach
James Gregory
2004-11-01 11:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Huntbach
What, everyone in England is well-housed?
Every family with kids has a house
with a big garden suitable for bringing them up? There is no-one homeless
because they can't afford housing? There are no families squeezed into two
bedroom flats because of high housing costs? No-one is struggling to pay
a mortgae because of the high price of land?
The vast majority of the cost of a house is for the house, not
for the land. Even more so if you're poor and hence not
living in an expensive area. And though it's certainly nice to have a big
back garden, I don't think is the most pressing of issues for poor people.

James
Matthew Huntbach
2004-11-01 13:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
Post by Matthew Huntbach
What, everyone in England is well-housed?
Every family with kids has a house
with a big garden suitable for bringing them up? There is no-one homeless
because they can't afford housing? There are no families squeezed into two
bedroom flats because of high housing costs? No-one is struggling to pay
a mortgae because of the high price of land?
The vast majority of the cost of a house is for the house, not
for the land.
No, it's not. If the cost of a house were largely down to the cost of the
bricks and mortar, it would not vary much across the country because the
cost of bricks and mortar does not vary much across the country. If a house
in London costs 300,000 whereas the same house in Liverpool would cost
100,000, the difference in cost is due to the difference in land prices.
Post by James Gregory
Even more so if you're poor and hence not living in an expensive area.
What, so you think there are no poor people living in London or other
parts of the south-east?
Post by James Gregory
And though it's certainly nice to have a big
back garden, I don't think is the most pressing of issues for poor people.
Somewhere to live is not the most pressing concern for most people?
Are the thousands of people on the council house waiting list in my
London borough all just a figment of my imagination? Are the people who
come to me in my councillor's surgery, weeping because they live with
several kids in two-bedroom flat and have been told there is absolutely
no chance of ever being allocted a three bedroomed house just an illusion?
With a three bedroom house in my ward - one of the cheapest parts of London -
costing 180,000 pounds, do you suppose most people earn the 60,000 it
would require to get a mortgage on it? Do you suppose we in London are
all city stockbrokers and the like? Have you ever looked at the wages
ordinary people get in London?

Matthew Huntbach
James Gregory
2004-11-01 15:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Post by James Gregory
Post by Matthew Huntbach
What, everyone in England is well-housed?
Every family with kids has a house
with a big garden suitable for bringing them up? There is no-one homeless
because they can't afford housing? There are no families squeezed into two
bedroom flats because of high housing costs? No-one is struggling to pay
a mortgae because of the high price of land?
The vast majority of the cost of a house is for the house, not
for the land.
No, it's not. If the cost of a house were largely down to the cost of the
bricks and mortar, it would not vary much across the country because the
cost of bricks and mortar does not vary much across the country. If a house
in London costs 300,000 whereas the same house in Liverpool would cost
100,000, the difference in cost is due to the difference in land prices.
OK, so it's different in London. However, as far as I'm aware accomodation
in certain areas of large American cities isn't cheap, either. The
original debate was contrasting the UK with the US.
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Post by James Gregory
And though it's certainly nice to have a big
back garden, I don't think is the most pressing of issues for poor people.
Somewhere to live is not the most pressing concern for most people?
Are the thousands of people on the council house waiting list in my
London borough all just a figment of my imagination? Are the people who
come to me in my councillor's surgery, weeping because they live with
several kids in two-bedroom flat and have been told there is absolutely
no chance of ever being allocted a three bedroomed house just an illusion?
With a three bedroom house in my ward - one of the cheapest parts of London -
costing 180,000 pounds, do you suppose most people earn the 60,000 it
would require to get a mortgage on it? Do you suppose we in London are
all city stockbrokers and the like? Have you ever looked at the wages
ordinary people get in London?
OK, I admit I wasn't thinking about London.

James
Ian/Cath Ford
2004-11-01 21:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
Despite the fact that I'd much rather be out doing something and talking
to people, my continuing stay in Colchester has meant vast of amounts of
free time with nothing to fill it.
I drove past Colchester twice last week. I thought of you both times.
See what positive effect you have on other people's lives just by
living there? :-)

Have you, btw, read the article about Bush that was in the NY Times?
It got reprinted in the Observer this week - it may well be on their
website. Interesting - worth a read. It puts a different pov on the
politics of America (and, perhaps, increasingly this country?).

<snip>
Post by James Gregory
I realise that the above paragraph implies that I think both candidates
are right wing, that I think what is really needed is a truly left wing
candidate,
Michael Howard would proabbly be a left wing candidate in America
though.

The place is just so dfferent. If you take European politics as a
starting point, then America is in a totally different ballpark as far
as I can tell. Different stuff matters and the mindsets are coming at
issues from other places. Left wing candidates exist, but have
absolutely no chance of a faint sniff at anything, let alone
significant numbers of votes.
Post by James Gregory
My point is rather that it just doesn't matter. Who cares who wins the
presidental election? What difference does it make?
Hmm, I've thought about this for a couple of days now. I've tried to
decide that it does matter for good reasons, but perhaps you're right.

Perhaps I only care because I look at Bush and think "ohmygod" (as, it
appears, do lots of Americans but not in quite the same way I do);
perhaps it's because of the sense of unfair play I got from the last
election and there's this British sense of justice that hopes he loses
after being found guilty of some hideous gerrymander or electoral
fraud; perhaps I think that maybe Bush is scary when he's directing
the policies of this country as well as his own.

Would it make a difference? Probably not that much. I think it's that
I just don't like Bush as a human being which will make his inevitable
re-election rather annoying. And then I'll wake up, go to work, come
home, watch kids TV and everything will seem OK again.

I hope.

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later
Nora Bennett
2004-11-02 20:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Good rant. You're right, it's probably not the manichean armageddon some
paint it, people do enjoy getting worked up. But in terms of trade and war
with other nations, environmental policy, etc., it will probably make some
difference whether Bush or Kerry is elected - even aside from domestic
policies which perhaps won't really have much effect on the rest of the
world. A small difference in one policy or program in the year 2007 could
end up leading to a massively different outcome 20 years later, the
butterfly coughing in the forest effect.

What are you doing in Colchester anyway?
--
Nora
Post by James Gregory
Despite the fact that I'd much rather be out doing something and talking
to people, my continuing stay in Colchester has meant vast of amounts of
free time with nothing to fill it. I have therefore been randomly surfing
the internet for the past few days, and doing so it's impossible to avoid
reading vast numbers of articles on news websites, personal websites,
blogs, and web forums about the US election. I even went as far as
downloading and watching Fahrenheit 9/11, the first Michael Moore thing
I've ever seen/read.
The one thing that strikes me about absolutely all of this discourse is
the extreme partisanhip of every single resource and article and opinion
available. Either Bush is a patriotic hero and Kerry a communist traitor,
or otherwise Kerry is a champion of the American people and Bush is a
stupid, evil man bent on world domination. Either war in Iraq was 100%
neccessary or it was a moral outrage. You are either "left" (Democrat) or
you are "right" (Bush). It doesn't matter where you live in the world, the
US is the world's only superpower and so the US election matters an order
of magnitude more than any event local to where you live can matter. It
would appear that the coming election is the ultimate ideological and
politcal battle to end all ideological and political battles.
This is ridiculous. Who gets elected will make a difference for a small
minority, for the vast, vast majority it will not. Both would keep troops
in Iraq. Both support liberal, capitalist democracy. Al-queda will kill a
few hundred (or if they're lucky, a few thousand) more people regardless
of who is elected, and the world will be outraged that such a "huge"
catastrophe could happen again. The Democrats say Bush represents the
elite whilst Kerry represents the common man. The Republicans say that
Bush is a decent, everyday American whilst Kerry is some sort of
effeminate Euro-communist fool. In reality both are as American as
American can be, whilst at the same time both are well connected,
privilged members of America's ruling class. Neither would cut military
spending, neither would raise taxes. Though his family name may well have
helped him, the fact that Bush got a higher GPA at university than Kerry
at least shows that it's not a matter of a genius versus a village idiot.
I realise that the above paragraph implies that I think both candidates
are right wing, that I think what is really needed is a truly left wing
candidate, and that really I'm just using the election to make a general
effeminate Euro-communist point about the whole world being biased against
me. This really isn't my point, though. I'm not even particularly
anti-Bush. My world view is admittedly very left wing (I think luck gets
you far further in this world than hard work). But at the same time I see
no reason that it shouldn't be that way. In my experience people who are
a) at least one of poor, ignored, unsuccessful. Why should rich,
successful, good looking people care? Since when was being better than
other people wrong?
b) a teacher, a student, or someone with a decent technical job, who make
themselves feel clever and informed and better than normal people by
voting for a centre-left party (which will probably be in their own
immediate interest in any case as often their job is publically funded)
and giving an absolutely marginal proportion of their income to charity.
My point is rather that it just doesn't matter. Who cares who wins the
presidental election? What difference does it make?
James
James Gregory
2004-11-02 21:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nora Bennett
Good rant. You're right, it's probably not the manichean armageddon some
paint it, people do enjoy getting worked up. But in terms of trade and war
with other nations, environmental policy, etc., it will probably make some
difference whether Bush or Kerry is elected - even aside from domestic
policies which perhaps won't really have much effect on the rest of the
world. A small difference in one policy or program in the year 2007 could
end up leading to a massively different outcome 20 years later, the
butterfly coughing in the forest effect.
I think that commonly the butterfly is flapping its wings rather than
coughing, and I'm not quite sure what it's being in a forest has to do
with anything - perhaps if someone in China claps their hands noone in
America hears a hurricane, or something, as well?

Anyway, to be slightly more serious, in 20 years time we will have been
through another maybe 3 presidents or something, so minor changes are just
as likely to be squashed or reversed as they are manified. I mean, Kyoto
is a case in point. It was signed, people went "woo, this could be the
start of a major change in world environmental policy", and then it was
killed again.
Post by Nora Bennett
What are you doing in Colchester anyway?
I was briefly working as a cleaner, before returning once again to working
for the Post Office, which seems to becoming a bit of a habit. However,
I'm off on "holiday" tommorrow, first visiting some friends in York for a
couple of days, then going caving for a couple of days with a few of said
friends, then driving up to Scotland on my own for a week, just because if
my parents say I can borrow the car for a week I may as well make full use
of it.

Also, though I have admittedly let my aua lurking slip now and again,
that's the first post I've seen from you in absolutely ages. In a totally
unrelated fashion, I was surfing the web just now and totally by
accident (well, OK, the final click on the link to the website wasn't an
accident, but getting to that link was) came across feralchicken's website
(who left aua, like, 4 years ago). Having graduated in computer science,
she is apparently now studying an art and design course. Doing a degree
and then deciding you want nothing to do with the subject ever again rules.

James
Nora Bennett
2004-11-03 13:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
Post by Nora Bennett
What are you doing in Colchester anyway?
I was briefly working as a cleaner, before returning once again to working
for the Post Office, which seems to becoming a bit of a habit. However,
I'm off on "holiday" tommorrow, first visiting some friends in York for a
couple of days, then going caving for a couple of days with a few of said
friends, then driving up to Scotland on my own for a week, just because if
my parents say I can borrow the car for a week I may as well make full use
of it.
Where in Scotland? I've only been to tiny bits of it, but I'd like to go
there more, it's just so far away.
Post by James Gregory
Also, though I have admittedly let my aua lurking slip now and again,
that's the first post I've seen from you in absolutely ages. In a totally
unrelated fashion, I was surfing the web just now and totally by
accident (well, OK, the final click on the link to the website wasn't an
accident, but getting to that link was) came across feralchicken's website
(who left aua, like, 4 years ago). Having graduated in computer science,
she is apparently now studying an art and design course. Doing a degree
and then deciding you want nothing to do with the subject ever again rules.
James
Well, maybe she will combine the two and become an artist for computer games
developers, the games industry employs more animation artists than movie
studios do now, I think. Have you ever come across any indication of what
Mark Thakkar is up to these days?
m***@balliol-oxford.com
2004-12-28 01:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Nora,
Have you ever come across any indication of what Mark Thakkar is up to
these days?
Hello! I'm seeing what AUA's up to these days, that's what I'm up to.
(I'm at home with my parents and not quite tired enough to go to bed.)

Otherwise I'm doing another Master's, this time in the History of Science
at Imperial/UCL, for what is in effect a gap year. This time last year I
had no idea what I wanted to do afterwards (though I applied for Oxford's
2-year BPhil in Philosophy and was rejected), whereas now I'm much better
placed to think about - shock, horror, seriousness - a PhD. Specifically
I'm hoping to study mediaeval philosophy, having spent the summer ruining
my eyesight over a dissertation on a 14th-century thinker (which I've put
up in my litter: http://www.moomins.demon.co.uk/snufkin/philosophy.htm).

I've had some encouragement from a mediaeval historian, who has suggested
a Latin translation with philosophical notes as a PhD-size project. That
sounds right up my street, so I'm fairly sure of my topic; now, though, I
need to find a potential supervisor.

The other piece of excitement is that my tutor at the Warburg thinks it'd
be worth trying to get my dissertation published. There's quite a bit of
rewriting I'd need to do first - e.g. someone's just written a whole book
on the subject - and I haven't really got the time at the moment, but the
suggestion itself makes me think I might be onto something. My potential
PhD topic (Peter Auriol on future contingents) is closely related, on the
other hand, so I might be able to work it up as a spin-off.

When I emerge, blinking, from that sort of world, I find myself in a cosy
flat in Balham (SW London) with Rachel, who's now got a job working as an
administrative assistant for the Warehouse Theatre in Croydon.

Oh, and when I get back to Balham (I'm in snowy Manchester at the moment)
one of the first things I'll be doing is watching the extended DVD of the
Return of the King, which my family refuse to do here.

Has anyone else seen 2003's "Le Mystère de la Chambre Jaune"? My brother
gave it to my mum for Christmas (from www.amazon.fr) and it's wonderful.

I've started wittering, and being tired, presumably relatedly, so I'll .

Mark.

Ian/Cath Ford
2004-11-02 21:31:09 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:32:51 -0000, "Nora Bennett"
<***@trionetworks.com> wrote:

<waves>

How the devil are you?

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later
Nora Bennett
2004-11-03 13:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian/Cath Ford
<waves>
How the devil are you?
Ian
I'm fine, thanks, and I see you have a new addition, congratulations !!!!
When was that?
--
Nora
Ian/Cath Ford
2004-11-03 19:55:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:12:35 -0000, "Nora Bennett"
Post by Nora Bennett
Post by Ian/Cath Ford
<waves>
How the devil are you?
I'm fine, thanks, and I see you have a new addition, congratulations !!!!
When was that?
Must have been May - so nearly 6 months. Lovely little chap, v laid
back. Just starting to crawl and so on :-)

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later
Nora Bennett
2004-11-13 00:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Must have been May - so nearly 6 months. Lovely little chap, v laid
back. Just starting to crawl and so on :-)
This is the third time I've tried to say some sort of congratulatory remark,
and every time I come back and check to see if my remark has been posted, it
hasn't. I think I've been failing to press the right button - I'm using a
different mail/news client than I used to use, which is confusing me.

So here I go again: That's lovely about your new kiddy, I'll bet he's
gorgeous and you're all having loads of fun - most days anyway. :-)

Nora
Ian/Cath Ford
2004-11-13 22:31:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:16:45 -0000, "Nora Bennett"
Post by Nora Bennett
Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Must have been May - so nearly 6 months. Lovely little chap, v laid
back. Just starting to crawl and so on :-)
This is the third time I've tried to say some sort of congratulatory remark,
and every time I come back and check to see if my remark has been posted, it
hasn't. I think I've been failing to press the right button - I'm using a
different mail/news client than I used to use, which is confusing me.
So here I go again: That's lovely about your new kiddy, I'll bet he's
gorgeous and you're all having loads of fun - most days anyway. :-)
I can see it too this time :-)

He's laid back and cool. He wakes up in the morning (not during the
night - good start) and lies there occasionally cooing. Fabulous.

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later
Continue reading on narkive:
Search results for 'My first political rant for ages - "US electioneering: ridiculous"' (Questions and Answers)
23
replies
Republicans', how do you propose paying for our federal deficit?
started 2006-08-28 13:56:42 UTC
politics
Loading...