Wapsi Square Forum

Jabberwonky wrote:

shadowinthelight wrote:Dave, I think you just won the thread with that B5 reference. Yes I'm a fanboy who owns every episodic soundtrack CD, stop looking at me like that.

I'm only looking at you like that because I'm thinking about raiding your CD collection...

Some were only a few $s but one cost me over $50. I own no firearms but I'm going to go sharpen that cheap ninja sword I got for Halloween a couple of years ago. Proceed at your own risk.

shadowinthelight wrote:

Jabberwonky wrote:

shadowinthelight wrote:Dave, I think you just won the thread with that B5 reference. Yes I'm a fanboy who owns every episodic soundtrack CD, stop looking at me like that.

I'm only looking at you like that because I'm thinking about raiding your CD collection...

Some were only a few $s but one cost me over $50. I own no firearms but I'm going to go sharpen that cheap ninja sword I got for Halloween a couple of years ago. Proceed at your own risk.

I can dig it. I have a 'Dog Man and the Shepherds' cd that cost me thirty bucks...and I have to replace my Catherine Denise CD every couple of years when someone swipes it from me.

To further this thread derail, run it over if you will:

I'm still missing 2 or 3 of the regular soundtracks. For those that have never seen these CDs before, the 24 episode discs are only around 30 minutes each so they managed to leave the rest of the full sized disk with only clear plastic so they look cut out.

shadowinthelight wrote:To further this thread derail, run it over if you will:

I'm still missing 2 or 3 of the regular soundtracks. For those that have never seen these CDs before, the 24 episode discs are only around 30 minutes each so they managed to leave the rest of the full sized disk with only clear plastic so they look cut out.

Oh.
My.
Great.
Maker.

I've been a fan of the show since it first aired, and somehow I missed ever knowing that those episodic soundtrack CDs even existed. I've got the two collections you show at the top, but none of the others.

Wow.

Shadow, I think your collection is awesome... and probably quite safe. Jabberwonky and I are going to end up obliterating one another, in a feud to settle the question of who gets the first opportunity to burgle your listening room.

I know it is safe. My apartment is at the end of a walkway so it is a very defensible position.

Strange fact, all the season 3 CDs have the TV voice-over playing over the title music. To fix that after ripping them to WAV files before converting to MP3 I copied and pasted in the version from the second suite disc. No clue why they didn't do that themselves if they lost the original.

Sooo jealous...
I, like Dave, didn't know there are episodic discs...
Way cool

Jabberwonky wrote:

Julie wrote:It sounds like you and I share an impossible dream. I have trouble voting because of the whole "party platform" issue. My last vote for a real person was in 2000...and my last vote (where I wrote in fictional characters) was in 2004. Living in a state that isn't a battleground doesn't help me feel motivated to vote either.

The good news (I suppose) is that my husband didn't vote either...so he won't be running me down for failing to perform my civic duty, and I won't run him down either.

The problem, as I see it, is that you'd both be in the same car. That would pretty much nullify running either down. So mark it a draw and find another way to spend the time...

Actually, you're assuming I unlock his door so he can get in the car with me. I could run him down, but I wouldn't (because he'd likely return the favor with his own vehicle ).

Dave wrote:To me it seems that the "two powerful parties" system has become a real problem... we need representatives drawing from all across the political spectrum, with a strong and credible "center" to actually make things work.

You know, I tend to agree with you on that point. I'm not sure hwo we can get any of the "independent" parties strong enough to become a viable third (or fourth) party though.

Dave wrote:I do feel that people should vote (even if there's only one person or proposition or measure on the ballot worth voting for, or against), and serve on juries when called, and donate blood if medically able. None of these is glamorous, all are bothersome to some extent... but they're all part of the glue of "responsibility for us all" that helps strengthen our society.

Well, while I might not vote anymore, and I'm not medically able to donate blood (I got Hepatitis A when I was younger), I do show up for jury duty (nevermind the fact that I was a college student 3 of the 5 times I've been called, so I got to be exempt most of the time).

I did earn a 2 gal pin before I started working overseas. And the couple of times I've been called to jury duty, I went. Never got picked, though...

Dave wrote:To me it seems that the "two powerful parties" system has become a real problem... we need representatives drawing from all across the political spectrum, with a strong and credible "center" to actually make things work.

There are plenty of countries divided into opposing factions who squabble over power, demonize each other, and refuse to compromise and cooperate in government. The results are anything but good. I don't think it would serve America to emulate Iraq, for example.

It seems to me that, historically (particularly before the parties and candidates realized that 50.1% is as good a win as, say, 55% or 60%) this happened as the parties were less concerned with ideological purity and with running things themselves. It was a cycle--some idea would tend to polarize things, the parties took opposite sides on that issue, but then over the next cycles would move back to the center to have a realistic chance to win. They also accepted candidates of the "wrong" position--as long as they could get elected, they were one more vote for the "right" party. All of this made for a better atmosphere to govern the country. Not entirely respectable, but at least what was needed to get done generally was done.

My problem with a two party system is how the American government is set up.

There are three branches of the government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Each of these branches of government have certain responsibilities... Legislative branch makes the laws, Judicial branch makes sure the laws are legal, and the Executive branch makes sure those laws are enforced.

The three branches of government also have checks and balances on each other's powers. The President has the power of the Veto, Congress can overturn a Veto with a 2/3 super-majority. Supreme Court has the right to declare a law as Unconstitutional.

However, when you have two parties, and three branches of government, then someone's got control of 2/3 of the government, and can then bypass the checks and balances put in place, and even abuse them to do pretty much whatever they want and get away with it.

Of course, I'm not sure if the USA would still be able to be considered run by a representative government when less than 20% of the population actually goes out and votes. Since the majority is not being represented (because they don't get off their lazy arse and vote), it technically doesn't qualify under the definition anymore.

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Of course, I'm not sure if the USA would still be able to be considered run by a representative government when less than 20% of the population actually goes out and votes. Since the majority is not being represented (because they don't get off their lazy arse and vote), it technically doesn't qualify under the definition anymore.

For the record, my arse is not lazy. It's just reluctant to pick someone when the available options don't accurately "represent" my beliefs and ideals.

However, I think more than 20% of the eligible voters made a showing at the polls earlier this month. According to this article, as of noon the Friday after the election, a little more than 119 million voters had spoken in favor of either Romney or Obama (I think I heard somewhere that about 126 million voters total turned out for the election this year, but I didn't spend the time to find anything written to back it up). Now, if you go just off the population of the US as of July last year (which was more than 311 million according to the US Census Bureau's projections), then we're already looking at a better than 20% turnout. When you actually take into account how many US citizens are eligible to vote (just over 206 million according to this statistics website that covers the 2008 election...couldn't find much on the 2012 election yet), then you're looking at closer to 56 or 57% voter turnout in the US this year.

Just sayin'.

Julie wrote:

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Of course, I'm not sure if the USA would still be able to be considered run by a representative government when less than 20% of the population actually goes out and votes. Since the majority is not being represented (because they don't get off their lazy arse and vote), it technically doesn't qualify under the definition anymore.

For the record, my arse is not lazy. It's just reluctant to pick someone when the available options don't accurately "represent" my beliefs and ideals.

However, I think more than 20% of the eligible voters made a showing at the polls earlier this month. According to this article, as of noon the Friday after the election, a little more than 119 million voters had spoken in favor of either Romney or Obama (I think I heard somewhere that about 126 million voters total turned out for the election this year, but I didn't spend the time to find anything written to back it up). Now, if you go just off the population of the US as of July last year (which was more than 311 million according to the US Census Bureau's projections), then we're already looking at a better than 20% turnout. When you actually take into account how many US citizens are eligible to vote (just over 206 million according to this statistics website that covers the 2008 election...couldn't find much on the 2012 election yet), then you're looking at closer to 56 or 57% voter turnout in the US this year.

Just sayin'.

Which is still a very low turnout.

Here (France) the turnout at last presidential election was considered to be low at 80% of the eligible citizens on both rounds ! Dont even go to Belgium with >98% turnouts or so ! Of course there, you get a fine if you dont vote

alj_ws wrote:Which is still a very low turnout.

Here (France) the turnout at last presidential election was considered to be low at 80% of the eligible citizens on both rounds ! Dont even go to Belgium with >98% turnouts or so ! Of course there, you get a fine if you dont vote

Fair enough. Still, I like that I have a right to vote...not an obligation.

alj_ws wrote:Here (France) the turnout at last presidential election was considered to be low at 80% of the eligible citizens on both rounds ! Dont even go to Belgium with >98% turnouts or so ! Of course there, you get a fine if you dont vote

Didn't Belgium go for years without a Government (in the parliamentary sense)?

Julie wrote:

alj_ws wrote:Which is still a very low turnout.

Here (France) the turnout at last presidential election was considered to be low at 80% of the eligible citizens on both rounds ! Dont even go to Belgium with >98% turnouts or so ! Of course there, you get a fine if you dont vote

Fair enough. Still, I like that I have a right to vote...not an obligation.

No obligation here either, but the point is that the lower the turnout, the more skewed the election can be (generally toward conservative views as older persons lean on the right side and they vote more; this is not a bug but a feature). Even with a 80% turnout like we had, the ratios of voters were very different between ages and wealth from the polls inquiries. Youngs and poors did not vote much. I can just imagine with a 55-60% one, things would be really worse.

This kind of skewing is a problem, and while i agree that making vote mandatory is not a solution, low turnouts is recipe for bad things.

Fairportfan wrote:

alj_ws wrote:Here (France) the turnout at last presidential election was considered to be low at 80% of the eligible citizens on both rounds ! Dont even go to Belgium with >98% turnouts or so ! Of course there, you get a fine if you dont vote

Didn't Belgium go for years without a Government (in the parliamentary sense)?

yes and no. there was no federal governement (there was a parlement) but the local ones and the federal bureaucraty worked

Julie wrote:

alj_ws wrote:Which is still a very low turnout.

Here (France) the turnout at last presidential election was considered to be low at 80% of the eligible citizens on both rounds ! Dont even go to Belgium with >98% turnouts or so ! Of course there, you get a fine if you dont vote

Fair enough. Still, I like that I have a right to vote...not an obligation.

I would call it more of a civil duty and a responsibility, personally.

A representative government requires three things from its citizens to continue to function as such:

1) An informed public, so they know what the issues they are voting on are

2) An educated public, so they know the consequences of the issues they are voting on

3) An involved public, so they will have their vote tallied and recognized.

Without these three things from the public, no representative government can continue as such, and it will inevitably backslide into a form of government which is not representative. It happened to Rome, it happened to Germany (not trying to Godwin, but if the German population were informed about the true intent, the Nazi party would never have gotten into power), it even happened to Russia when it became the USSR (what started out as a collective regime of peace and love ended up being... well... what it actually was), even France had it happen a couple of times where a revolutionist movement was co-opted by individuals who only wanted personal power.

It is the responsibility of a full citizen of a representative form of government to ensure that they are kept abreast of the topics, and their votes are registered, or they lose any and all right to b**ch and complain about what is wrong.

Of course, it's also my personal opinion that if you don't like either candidate, there should be an option for 'vote of no confidence'. I also wish a Moderate Party would spring from the moderate Republicans and the Moderate Democrats, but I doubt that would ever happen.

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:

Julie wrote:

alj_ws wrote:Which is still a very low turnout.

Here (France) the turnout at last presidential election was considered to be low at 80% of the eligible citizens on both rounds ! Dont even go to Belgium with >98% turnouts or so ! Of course there, you get a fine if you dont vote

Fair enough. Still, I like that I have a right to vote...not an obligation.

I would call it more of a civil duty and a responsibility, personally.

A representative government requires three things from its citizens to continue to function as such:

1) An informed public, so they know what the issues they are voting on are

2) An educated public, so they know the consequences of the issues they are voting on

3) An involved public, so they will have their vote tallied and recognized.

Cant agree more and #2 & #3 make the existence of fair journalism outlets critical. I would argue that both USA and France are at a point where the latters have became quite hard to find.

Without these three things from the public, no representative government can continue as such, and it will inevitably backslide into a form of government which is not representative. It happened to Rome, it happened to Germany (not trying to Godwin, but if the German population were informed about the true intent, the Nazi party would never have gotten into power), it even happened to Russia when it became the USSR (what started out as a collective regime of peace and love ended up being... well... what it actually was), even France had it happen a couple of times where a revolutionist movement was co-opted by individuals who only wanted personal power.

It is the responsibility of a full citizen of a representative form of government to ensure that they are kept abreast of the topics, and their votes are registered, or they lose any and all right to b**ch and complain about what is wrong.

Of course, it's also my personal opinion that if you don't like either candidate, there should be an option for 'vote of no confidence'. I also wish a Moderate Party would spring from the moderate Republicans and the Moderate Democrats, but I doubt that would ever happen.

your last point is only a reflect of the political system you use, and indeed unlikely to evolve much. Ours is 2 blocks but with several parties in each and a rather weak center. I had choice for presidential 1° turn vote between 12 candidates and that left 2 candidates at 2° turn. The conversatives are exploding right now and I bet we will have a rather strong center party soon as well as a new far right one.
German system is almost a 3 sides one with the FDP able to join on either side of the fence (but more likely to be toward the right) or the greens with SPD.

One of the reforms proposed by our new president is tallying the white vote (no candidate) separately from null one which is a good proxy for no confidence.

alj_ws wrote:

Fairportfan wrote:Didn't Belgium go for years without a Government (in the parliamentary sense)?

yes and no. there was no federal governement (there was a parlement) but the local ones and the federal bureaucraty worked

"...and that ain't bad!"

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:I would call it more of a civil duty and a responsibility, personally.

A representative government requires three things from its citizens to continue to function as such:

1) An informed public, so they know what the issues they are voting on are

2) An educated public, so they know the consequences of the issues they are voting on

3) An involved public, so they will have their vote tallied and recognized.

Without these three things from the public, no representative government can continue as such, and it will inevitably backslide into a form of government which is not representative.

Edit historical stuff...

It is the responsibility of a full citizen of a representative form of government to ensure that they are kept abreast of the topics, and their votes are registered, or they lose any and all right to b**ch and complain about what is wrong.

True...Unfortunately, I'm of the opinion that politicians count on the general public to not be informed or educated...and there certainly aren't many people who really research the news and issues to find out anything more than headlines or political ads tell them. That problem alone somewhat negates the value of an involved public. I wish I had more faith in people... And for what it's worth, I rarely "b**ch and complain" about what's wrong other than to say I don't like anything involving politics because any people in positions of power (no matter the party they claim) are almost always more self-serving than they are concerned about the people they claim to serve. *shrugs*

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Of course, it's also my personal opinion that if you don't like either candidate, there should be an option for 'vote of no confidence'. I also wish a Moderate Party would spring from the moderate Republicans and the Moderate Democrats, but I doubt that would ever happen.

I would vote if I could have the "no confidence" option since it would give me a way to actually voice my opinion instead of just picking a "lesser of two evils"...and I would love to see a Moderate Party...or even a decent Libertarian candidate (since that's the party I seem to align with according to various "political party quiz" outputs). I just don't foresee that happening in our current political climate. There just isn't enough funding or backing to give any additional parties the strength to be much of a factor in elections.