[Lerkfish]

time for a new topic....this is a partisan-antiseptic topic, just politics in general....

One of my favorites scenes from "The Fly" was where Jeff Goldblum, by then nearly morphed into a fly creature asks his girlfriend: "Are there ever any insect politicians? I mean, I would like to be the first one, to be diplomatic. I'd like to, but I can't....What I'm saying is...run, just run as far away from me as you can...."

As I get older I feel as though politics and diplomacy are becoming mutually exclusive, although they may have always been....here's what I observe on that and other facets of politics:

1. SOUND BYTES: A marked decrease in oratory skills, across the board, in every party. When you can read or listen to speeches by historic politicians or leaders, you can feel stirred or affected by them or moved to understanding or empathy. I know there are examples nowadays, but they are rare.
The obvious scapegoat here is television or radio media that tend to cut off chunks of speeches, "bytes", that seems to force politicians into delivering Schwarzeneggeresque "Ah'lll be back" one-liners.
Instead of substance, there is posturing. Instead of a message, there is a "tone" to deliver. More and more, you can listen to an entire speech and walk away no more enlightened, moved, or convinced than when you walked in, but have an "impression" that he did well or not on the speech. You can really tell the next time any big speech occurs that people listen to...you can get them to say things like "he sounded strong" or "I felt reassured", but you can't get them to really give you the substance of the speech, because there usually isn't any beyond phrases well-engineered to communicate a "tone" without actually saying anything.

2. MORALITY: the oddest thing to me is when things like "family values" or similar elements enter into an election. For example, a local race might have ads that refer to their candidate as a "family man" ....when he's running for treasurer. Now, its nice and all that he has a family (most people do), but what that actually has to do with his professional duties once elected is unclear.
We have gotten to the point where we naively expect lily-white candidates....as if they appeared out of nowhere like the immaculate conception. Possible closet skeletons of a personal kind are fastidiously extracted and paraded as proof of the unfitness of the opposing candidate.
I don't mean incidents of say, embezzlement for a treasurer aspirant, but things like: his daughter had an abortion! (can't think of a different example, but you get my gist).

3. SPOUSAL INHERITANCE: To me, this is the absolute ODDEST tradition we have in the american political system...when a candidate dies, we suddenly elect or allow his spouse to sit in his empty seat. What is up with that? I mean, they MIGHT be qualified, certainly, but simply because they are the widowed spouse? If anything, the losing candidate should step in before the guy's spouse does, at least the candidate ran for the office. this is just a messed up tradition, IMHO.

4. TOUGH ON CRIME: this is an old strategy...the candidate saying they are "tough on crime", as if anyone running for office was supportive of crime. Incumbents usually bolster this image by running raids right before elections of streetwalkers and bookies, and other crimes that are very easy to investigate, require very little resources, and give the appearance of being tough on crime without actually doing anything that makes the community safer. But it gives the appearance of doing so without really doing so. It's a engineered sham, in other words, to look good and nab people that really aren't hiding...I mean, streetwalkers HAVE to be easily accessible, or they don't work....heck, anyone could set up a prostitute sting.
Of course, now nationally, we have the equivalent of being "tough on terrorism', where if a candidate is not perceived to be tough enough on terrorism, it stacks against them...when, really, is any of them PRO terrorism? of course not.

well, that's enough for now...discuss or add your own #5,etc.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
3. SPOUSAL INHERITANCE: To me, this is the absolute ODDEST tradition we have in the american political system...when a candidate dies, we suddenly elect or allow his spouse to sit in his empty seat. What is up with that? I mean, they MIGHT be qualified, certainly, but simply because they are the widowed spouse? If anything, the losing candidate should step in before the guy's spouse does, at least the candidate ran for the office. this is just a messed up tradition, IMHO.

I can only think of one case of this - and that was in Missouri - Jean Carnahan. Maybe there were more, but I'm not sure.

And she certainly wasn't/isn't qualified to be a Senator.

[thunderous_funker]

As with many other problem areas, I think it's unhelpful to only consider the Supply side of the equation (Drugs, Terror, Celine Dion, etc).

The ugly truth is that politicians do the bare minimum required of them by voters.

Why the soundbyte phenomenon? Because it's enough to sway enough voters to get the job. If a majority poured dilligently over plank of a platform and grilled candidates on policy, it would go away.

Same math applies to MORALITY and TOUGH ON CRIME. Candidates know that more voters will care if they think he reads the Bible on rainy days, attends church and gets flakey bits of spittle around his mouth when he talks about darkies raping your loved ones than will care about fiscal policy, geo-politics, economic justice, sustainable growth, environment, etc.

This is why elections are defined by a handful of "wedge issues". All a candidate has to do is pick the pre-approved labels from the basket of "wedge issues" before the election and never have another original thought.

In short, the answer to this question is similar to the answer to the age old question:

Q: "why does he/she treat me so bad?"
A: "because you let them."

[boots]

The rampant use of polls bothers me a lot. Especially election-night polls. Personally, I could care what anyone else thinks when I vote. It is my right, and I will use my vote as I see fit. I don't need to feel like I'm on the winning team before I cast my ballot.

Likewise, I don't need to feel like part of the in crowd on an issue. So what if 63.46% of polled americans (*) think the frosted side is better that the whole wheat side.
(* sample based upon phone interview of 25 registered voters who haven't voted in the last 2 local elections)

If I like the whole wheat, by God I'm going to eat mini-wheats, not bow to peer pressure and eat frosted mini-wheats.

And while I expect my elected representitives to listen to his/her constituency, I also expect that he/she has more in terms of resources to realy understand some of the issues than I have. If I disagree and s/he can give me a good reason for why I might not be seeing things properly, great. A poll for the sake of a poll is crap. It tells you next to nothing.

But it makes for an impressive ( ) graph in a newspaper column or on a web page.

[davesimondotcom]

I don't have my own number 5, but your list seems to be tilted towards things Republicans say (tough on crime, family values).

The three things Democrats run to when things don't go well are: Medicine (Medicare, Medicaid, Socialized Medicine, Free Drugs), the Environment (where they're given a free ride and Republicans have to work hard to prove they aren't personally working to destroy Mother Earth), Minimum Wage (when in doubt, promise people money, that'll get 'em!)

[thunderous_funker]

Polls feed into the Demand problem I tried to illustrate above. Rather than actually engage with public discourse to arrive at consensus, solidarity or tough decisions--just have some college age volunteers poll the peope who have nothing better to do than answer polls to dictate the path of least resistance.

Outcome based governance.

The most partiotic thing Americans could do is refuse to ever answer another poll. Demand discourse rather than multiple choice cop outs.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I can only think of one case of this - and that was in Missouri - Jean Carnahan. Maybe there were more, but I'm not sure.

And she certainly wasn't/isn't qualified to be a Senator.

Sonny Bono's wife, and George Wallace's wife are two other examples.

[boots]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I don't have my own number 5, but your list seems to be tilted towards things Republicans say (tough on crime, family values).

The three things Democrats run to when things don't go well are: Medicine (Medicare, Medicaid, Socialized Medicine, Free Drugs), the Environment (where they're given a free ride and Republicans have to work hard to prove they aren't personally working to destroy Mother Earth), Minimum Wage (when in doubt, promise people money, that'll get 'em!)

Yes. This is true. And the sad thing is that each of these (from both Lerk's list and yours) is a valid issue of debate. But the sound bytes always obscure real thought. The state of medical care inthis country is complex, and a sound byte solution istn't a solution. Same with crime, moral values, etc. We have a crisis in our country with children in poverty. But no one will give it the time it really needs. The answer is to increase welfare, or use "tough love" (Whatever that really means...)

It's sad, really. We have some great minds in this country, but few ever turn their gifts loose on the real tough social problems. We invent new gadgets that may or may not enrich the lives of those who partake.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I don't have my own number 5, but your list seems to be tilted towards things Republicans say (tough on crime, family values).

The three things Democrats run to when things don't go well are: Medicine (Medicare, Medicaid, Socialized Medicine, Free Drugs), the Environment (where they're given a free ride and Republicans have to work hard to prove they aren't personally working to destroy Mother Earth), Minimum Wage (when in doubt, promise people money, that'll get 'em!)

I think you're injecting partisanship where it's not needed.

Every candidates runs on family values, tough on crime. You can't get elected by anyone in American without addressing those. They are universal. And ultimately, IMO, more essential to getting elected than any other empty promises concerning money or services.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I don't have my own number 5, but your list seems to be tilted towards things Republicans say (tough on crime, family values).

The three things Democrats run to when things don't go well are: Medicine (Medicare, Medicaid, Socialized Medicine, Free Drugs), the Environment (where they're given a free ride and Republicans have to work hard to prove they aren't personally working to destroy Mother Earth), Minimum Wage (when in doubt, promise people money, that'll get 'em!)

well, I was hoping not to devolve into partisanship, and didn't mean to myself (sorry if it appeared that way to you). If we could steer clear of that as much as possible, I'd appreciate it. I intentionally started this thread with the intention of discussing the entire political situation, not just partisanship. Are you able to suspend that just for this discussion? thanks.

Besides, I don't think either party has an exclusive on promoting their family as qualifications for the office, or being tough on crime. I've seen that on both sides of the fence, which reminds me of a possible number 5:

5: NEGATIVE ADVERTISING:. nothing annoys me personally more than this. I wish candidates would just say what is attractive about their own candidacy, instead of what is ugly about their opponent's candidacy. It really makes for a sickening display as they trade pointed barbs back and forth, and the voter suffers because nothing of substance is discussed except for "I know you are, but what am I" type exchanges.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Sonny Bono's wife, and George Wallace's wife are two other examples.

Thank god Sonny wasn't married to Cher at the time!

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, I was hoping not to devolve into partisanship, and didn't mean to myself (sorry if it appeared that way to you). If we could steer clear of that as much as possible, I'd appreciate it. I intentionally started this thread with the intention of discussing the entire political situation, not just partisanship. Are you able to suspend that just for this discussion? thanks.

My intention wasn't partisan - it was simply to share what my view of some of the campaign "issues" are. The same way you did it.

However, because my views are from another part of the spectrum, the issues that I picked were issues that come up for discussion by the party that starts with a D.

Family values are just as valid for discussion as universal health care. It's just that you notice it bothering you because it's usually associated with a party you have already declared that you dislike.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
5: NEGATIVE ADVERTISING:. nothing annoys me personally more than this. I wish candidates would just say what is attractive about their own candidacy, instead of what is ugly about their opponent's candidacy. It really makes for a sickening display as they trade pointed barbs back and forth, and the voter suffers because nothing of substance is discussed except for "I know you are, but what am I" type exchanges.

Never going to change. Negative works.

Besides, how else would someone separate themselves from another candidate without pointing where they think the other candidate is wrong?

Some of the PERSONAL stuff is bad. (See the Senate campaign in Montana 2002 for example.) However, exposing someone's record for what it is, is a GOOD thing. The more someone knows about a candidate, the better off we all are. That includes the negative and the positive.

[thunderous_funker]

I think Lerkfish picked items that are easily Universal for anyone running for office.

You could be preaching the most perfect platform of social justice, economic freedom, strong defense, no taxes, blah blah blah but if you are a confirmed bachelor and don't think we should lock up non-violent drug offenders you're going down in flames.

You know, like Libertarians.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Sonny Bono's wife, and George Wallace's wife are two other examples.

I think Mary Bono won a special election (I don't remember if Wallace did). Voters probably figure that a spouse is likely to have the same political values as the decedent.

[trivial aside: isn't it "sound bites" rather than "sound bytes"?]

[further trivial aside: I only vote for candidates who are in favor of terrorism and against family values]

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
...you're going down in flames.

You know, like Libertarians.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I think Mary Bono won a special election (I don't remember if Wallace did). Voters probably figure that a spouse is likely to have the same political values as the decedent.

right. I said elect or allow.
I think you're right that voters THINK the spouse will share the same political views, but I think that's a weird way to consider someone qualified for office. I mean, I share political views with the janitor, doesn't mean I think he could do my job.

I realize its not THAT cut and dried, but heck, the spouse could have radically disagreed with the decedent, but didn't say so publicly. Then what, the populace elects them and they have to follow their own heart, or else go against their own better judgement and work for their spouse's ideals.

either way, we're electing person A because they were married to person B, instead of whether we feel they are actually qualified.

[boots]

Originally posted by zigzag:
[trivial aside: isn't it "sound bites" rather than "sound bytes"?]

It's the electronic age, bub. come join us. If it can't be put into an mp3 or .wav format for the web-site, it ain't of value.

[Timo]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Polls feed into the Demand problem I tried to illustrate above. Rather than actually engage with public discourse to arrive at consensus, solidarity or tough decisions--just have some college age volunteers poll the peope who have nothing better to do than answer polls to dictate the path of least resistance.

Polls are particularly inciduous for a number of reasons

1. they masquerade as science, giving certain "common sense" questions and answers and scientific veneer -- and thus increasing their credibility.

2. they masquerade as a referendum of the body politic; the problem with many polls is that the questions asked reveal more about the pollster than those being polled.

3. they suggested that majority rule is to be favored over minority rights, and that the holding of opinions is to be favored over the arriving at opinions.

4. they are inherently and systemically related to advertising -- polls allow for the reduction of opinion to commodity and the concentration of political power in pollster hands, for use as a manipulative tool rather than a tool for furthering understanding and debate.

Polls are statistics (remember Twain), and suffer from the same problems (epistomological problems) as most scientific models suffer from: in short, is the model an accurate model of reality?

Most polls, IMHO, can't pass that test, in part because pollsters ask questions looking for predetermined answers with questions removed from their context. The best a poll can hope to be is a part of a discussion between the specific and the general, and such a modest program for a poll is never supposed.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Timo:
Polls are particularly inciduous for a number of reasons

1. they masquerade as science, giving certain "common sense" questions and answers and scientific veneer -- and thus increasing their credibility.

2. they masquerade as a referendum of the body politic; the problem with many polls is that the questions asked reveal more about the pollster than those being polled.

3. they suggested that majority rule is to be favored over minority rights, and that the holding of opinions is to be favored over the arriving at opinions.

4. they are inherently and systemically related to advertising -- polls allow for the reduction of opinion to commodity and the concentration of political power in pollster hands, for use as a manipulative tool rather than a tool for furthering understanding and debate.

Polls are statistics (remember Twain), and suffer from the same problems (epistomological problems) as most scientific models suffer from: in short, is the model an accurate model of reality?

Most polls, IMHO, can't pass that test, in part because pollsters ask questions looking for predetermined answers with questions removed from their context. The best a poll can hope to be is a part of a discussion between the specific and the general, and such a modest program for a poll is never supposed.

a post so nice it should be posted twice.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Timo:
Polls are particularly inciduous for a number of reasons

1. they masquerade as science, giving certain "common sense" questions and answers and scientific veneer -- and thus increasing their credibility.

2. they masquerade as a referendum of the body politic; the problem with many polls is that the questions asked reveal more about the pollster than those being polled.

3. they suggested that majority rule is to be favored over minority rights, and that the holding of opinions is to be favored over the arriving at opinions.

4. they are inherently and systemically related to advertising -- polls allow for the reduction of opinion to commodity and the concentration of political power in pollster hands, for use as a manipulative tool rather than a tool for furthering understanding and debate.

Polls are statistics (remember Twain), and suffer from the same problems (epistomological problems) as most scientific models suffer from: in short, is the model an accurate model of reality?

Most polls, IMHO, can't pass that test, in part because pollsters ask questions looking for predetermined answers with questions removed from their context. The best a poll can hope to be is a part of a discussion between the specific and the general, and such a modest program for a poll is never supposed.

Thrice

Thanks, Timo. That was a joy to read. Especially "the holding of opinions is to be favored over the arriving at opinions".

[boots]

Originally posted by Timo:
Polls are particularly inciduous for a number of reasons

Help. I'm being sucked into the personality black-hole that is Maxelson/Timo!

It's scary how much we think alike sometimes.

Of course, I'll always have more personality than the two of you combined, but that's a different thread altogether.....

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Timo:
Polls are statistics (remember Twain), and suffer from the same problems (epistomological problems) as most scientific models suffer from: in short, is the model an accurate model of reality?

The only statistics that matter are baseball statistics. And even those are trivial.

There, maybe we need politician cards: Senator Soandso is batting .220 with bills in scoring position. He leads the Senate in pork pulled in (PPI) and is third in End Runs (ERs). He has 41 Doubletalks and 13 Tripletalks. His earned respect average (ERA) is 1.23.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
The only statistics that matter are baseball statistics. And even those are trivial.

There, maybe we need politician cards: Senator Soandso is batting .220 with bills in scoring position. He leads the Senate in pork pulled in (PPI) and is third in End Runs (ERs). He has 41 Doubletalks and 13 Tripletalks. His earned respect average (ERA) is 1.23.

LOL! I'd buy that for a dollar!

maybe a deck of cards for the politicians, given to every voter.



good suggestion. Although I'd prefer it be antiseptic information, like a voting scorecard.

[thunderous_funker]

LOL, Pork Pulled In. Classic.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! I'd buy that for a dollar!

maybe a deck of cards for the politicians, given to every voter.



good suggestion. Although I'd prefer it be antiseptic information, like a voting scorecard.

And it all comes in wax paper with a very stale piece of gum!

Seriously though, even voting scorecards are skewed, due to the line items and such that are in bills.

For example, a bill might be put through declaring Mom and Apple Pie to be good things. In it there might be a line about killing a few baby seals to provide moms with a nice pelt.

Someone votes against killing baby seals and their opponents run ads saying they are against Mom and Apple Pie. It's clear in their voting record.

Of course, someone who voted FOR the bill would be described by their opponents as being in favor of killing baby seals. It's clear in their voting record.

The problem is that not a single voter can read every single bit of legislation and decide how they would vote on it, then find a candidate that agrees with them. That's why we have a representative system.

The key to voting is to find the person who most closely represents you and vote for them. There will be times at which you disagree with them, but if they share most of your values, they'll do right by you.

[boots]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
For example, a bill might be put through declaring Mom and Apple Pie to be good things. In it there might be a line about killing a few baby seals to provide moms with a nice pelt.

Someone votes against killing baby seals and their opponents run ads saying they are against Mom and Apple Pie. It's clear in their voting record.

Of course, someone who voted FOR the bill would be described by their opponents as being in favor of killing baby seals. It's clear in their voting record.

This is why I was (in principle) very much for a line-item veto. I don't think riders should be allowed. If it isn't important enough to be passed on its own merit, it isn't important enough to be passed.

If we could do away with riders (especially spending riders) we could trim a lot of crap from the budget and give the lay person a more meaningful understanding of voting records.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by boots:
This is why I was (in principle) very much for a line-item veto. I don't think riders should be allowed. If it isn't important enough to be passed on its own merit, it isn't important enough to be passed.

If we could do away with riders (especially spending riders) we could trim a lot of crap from the budget and give the lay person a more meaningful understanding of voting records.

Agreed. But it goes further than that.

We have in our state Constitution in Montana a clause that says that no bill can have anything in the body of the bill that isn't stated in it's title.

Thus, you couldn't pass the "We Love Mom and Apple Pie Act of 2003" and include the beaten baby seals. It would have to be called the "We Love Mom and Apple Pie So We'll Give Mom a Beaten Seal Act of 2003."

Otherwise, after passage, it can be judged unconstitutional.

And it helps eliminate dumb names like "Patriot Act." Which as a name nobody would vote for, but in principle, many should have voted against.

[thunderous_funker]

I've always liked Montana. Seems such a sensible place.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I've always liked Montana. Seems such a sensible place.

Yeah, when did you get that idea, exactly? Was that before or after the Unibomber was found here and the Freemen were in a standoff with the ATF?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Yeah, when did you get that idea, exactly? Was that before or after the Unibomber was found here and the Freemen were in a standoff with the ATF?

Hey, I appreciate people who passionately pursue Liberty

Hehe, I joked once to people here that if I had to live in LA much longer, I might turn into the Unibomber. They didn't think it was that funny.

I love the mountains and forests in Montana (told you I liked wild places with few people) and I am often surprised by intelligent people who make their home there. I'm a big fan of Robert Pirsig.

[mo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Sonny Bono's wife, and George Wallace's wife are two other examples.

Also: Rep. Lois Capps, California (current); Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri (current); Rep. Cathy Long, Louisiana (1970s); Sen. Marian Allen, Alabama (1970s); Rep. Lindy Boggs, Louisiana (1970s); Rep. Cardiss Collins, Illinois (1970s); Sen. Muriel Humphrey, Minnesota (1970s); Sen. Hattie Carraway, Arkansas (1930s); Gov. Nellie Ross, Wyoming (1920s); and so on. If memory serves, all of the above won election in their own right, except Humphrey, who didn't run.

Miriam "Ma" Ferguson (Texas, 1920s) won the governor's race after her husband had been impeached and removed from office by promising the state "two governors for the price of one." (Sheesh.)

Spouses have filled congressional seats vacated by death something like 45 times. Of the 26 women who served in Congress before 1940, half were appointed to fill their husband's seat following his death. So it's a fairly long (and I agree, stupid) tradition. And of course, this doesn't count political sons like Lincoln Chaffee, who was appointed to fill the unexpired portion of his father's senatorial term (and then won re-election on his own).

[raskol]

Originally posted by boots:
Help. I'm being sucked into the personality black-hole that is Maxelson/Timo!

It's scary how much we think alike sometimes.

Of course, I'll always have more personality than the two of you combined, but that's a different thread altogether.....

Can I join the Borg too?!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by mo:
Also: Rep. Lois Capps, California (current); Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri (current); Rep. Cathy Long, Louisiana (1970s); Sen. Marian Allen, Alabama (1970s); Rep. Lindy Boggs, Louisiana (1970s); Rep. Cardiss Collins, Illinois (1970s); Sen. Muriel Humphrey, Minnesota (1970s); Sen. Hattie Carraway, Arkansas (1930s); Gov. Nellie Ross, Wyoming (1920s); and so on. If memory serves, all of the above won election in their own right, except Humphrey, who didn't run.

Miriam "Ma" Ferguson (Texas, 1920s) won the governor's race after her husband had been impeached and removed from office by promising the state "two governors for the price of one." (Sheesh.)

Spouses have filled congressional seats vacated by death something like 45 times. Of the 26 women who served in Congress before 1940, half were appointed to fill their husband's seat following his death. So it's a fairly long (and I agree, stupid) tradition. And of course, this doesn't count political sons like Lincoln Chaffee, who was appointed to fill the unexpired portion of his father's senatorial term (and then won re-election on his own).

thanks, I didn't have the details.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I love the mountains and forests in Montana (told you I liked wild places with few people) and I am often surprised by intelligent people who make their home there. I'm a big fan of Robert Pirsig.

I grew up here, left for a year, came back because I missed it so much. I need to be under the Big Sky.

I left Billings because it was getting too big and starting to look like every town, USA, with all the same stores, etc. Well, that and for a girl!

Now I'm in Bozeman, which is much more unique, even though we're starting to get all of those same stores! We still have the ones that started here. We complain about traffic, but we know deep down it's nothing.

[Timo]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm a big fan of Robert Pirsig.

Care to elaborate? All I see is a puffed up guy who strapped his child to the back of a motorcycle; that is, all I see are a lot of bugs in some kid's teeth just north of St Cloud. Genuinely curious what you see in Pirsig.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Hey, I appreciate people who passionately pursue Liberty

One of the big debates we just had was over drinking and driving laws. The legislature killed a bill making it illegal to have open beer in your car while you're driving. That after one of the governor's aids was drinking and driving and killed a couple state legislators and tried to have the governor help him cover it up.

Dave, did you follow that at all this past session? The debate was hilarious. I felt like I was on a different planet.

And we still don't have fluoride in our water in most places because they think it's big gov't.

Originally posted by Timo:
Genuinely curious what you see in Pirsig.

I LOVED that book when I was a teenager. Made me feel very philosophical. Read it again in my 20s and realized it was crap.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by BRussell:
One of the big debates we just had was over drinking and driving laws. The legislature killed a bill making it illegal to have open beer in your car while you're driving. That after one of the governor's aids was drinking and driving and killed a couple state legislators and tried to have the governor help him cover it up.

He only killed one Legislator, not that that is much better. And he spent very little time in jail, if at all.

And our Governor is an idiot. She isn't smart enough to cover anything up.

Originally posted by BRussell:
Dave, did you follow that at all this past session? The debate was hilarious. I felt like I was on a different planet.

It was pretty pathetic. I guess they do their best to get things done, but it's a safe bet they'll have a special session again.

Originally posted by BRussell:
And we still don't have fluoride in our water in most places because they think it's big gov't.

What are you, the dental police?