IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Wretched.. that the homogenization (all issues) has spread
Thanks--clear-enough. The Bad-seeds are sown--will *Your* body-politic Immune-system activate soon enough?
Reducing the manifestly-complex to the simplistic appears to be the root-key to the methodical destruction of first, intelligibility--next:
[see Confucius as to 'why Language Must-be correct!']

Surely then, whatever deterioration is already noted: some of the extreme patois Has come via digital instant-transmission: from these parts.
Murdoch comes from 'Kingdom' roots (so we could already discern that Muricans were not the only cynical manipulators, merely #1 and Proud of it)
(Fucking over Language-itself is not much removed from the basic (and base) tenets of vulture-capitalism, when one notes the parallel strategies and tactics.)

I have little idea how recondite Information is to be preserved amidst such a mass of premeditated dis-Info, inculcated-in so large a % who cannot tell the difference.
Can imagine no 'plan' by which the phenom is attacked Head-on--via any of the usual means: which always do require that the Words be Understood [!!]
It seems left to One-on-One patient, repetitive, cool demonstrations (while self is purged of the rage) at oft deliberate obtuseness--of an entire mindset, set-in-concrete.
This intransigence is now a Badge of Belonging to like-mindless cohorts. Powerful incentive for the suicidal, I wot.
(So encapsulating of.. the mediocre stubborn-Shrub/evil-Cheney and our 8 Years of The Shogunate.) Antidotes..? Any?

Nevertheless, Let Us Prey.. on those, wherever a pregnant opportunity arises--or we're All Fucked (in any 'next.')
Are we shortly to learn IF $Trillions-fueled, premeditated arrant knownothingism IS capable of nullifying everything meant by 'civilization' (worth preserving) ??


We may squeak-by this formidable Idiocy; all I know ~fershure is: the more ominous it gets, the further I withdraw from a maya-gone-Insane ... and attend a few more..
of a species free of such deadly virii. Will attempt to preserve My sanity -vs- crocodile-tears over a doomed species--even 'my own'. (There's no joy in 'helping' cowards.)


Luck, to all.
New I am less pessimistic
Although the RWNJ tendency over here is loud, it's also not all that popular.

True, in the affluent South East corner (i.e. London and the M25 sphere, reaching out to Surrey and Kent) it's particularly noticeable, but the other 45(ish) million people don't live there.

There's a significant difference between what you see on the web and what you see at the ballot box. The only reason Labour lost the last election was because they fucked things up spectacularly and, in particular, Gordon Brown was revealed to be an utterly incompetent megalomaniac, clinging onto power long past the point at which he should have conceded.

His handing of the poisoned chalice to Alistair Darling, who got the unenviable job of cleaning up Brown's fuckups (long story short: Brown borrowed and spent like a mofo (not necessarily bad), but didn't tip it into as much capital investment as he should (definitely bad), flogged the gold reserves off in a monumentally stupid way, and then deregulated the banks and looked on aghast as the banks did what banks do when you don't regulate the shit out of them) was also particularly disgraceful.

The Cameron/Clegg ConLib coalition is not particularly compelling. Their best asset - Vince Cable - oscillates between being laser-accurate and correct, and saying really fucking stupid things. Osborne is out of his depth. Cameron has a significant gravitas shortfall. Clegg will say anything to stay elected. And the cabinet is a bunch of nobodies.

We will elect a Labour government in 2015, because reality tends to the liberal, and British people, despite being a pack of arses quite a lot of the time, are fundamentally in tune with this. We have this gestalt of "fairness" (an ill-defined concept, but we know it when we see it and vice versa) and backing the underdog, which I think counterbalances nicely with our willingness to be selfish wankers.
New Do you have periodic "redistricting" to scramble the deck?
Over here, national congressional districts are redrawn after the decennial census. Unfortunately, even though the districts end up having the same number of people, usually the incumbents (of both parties) determine where the boundaries are. What that means is there's usually bargaining to keep most of the minority incumbents in office (to gain their support), while the majority draws the lines so that they win a few more marginal districts to increase their majorities. Sometimes, though, the majority simply rams through the changes they want and the ones they think they can get away with (see Texas and DeLay).

This means they have a larger majority in the House of Representatives than they "should", but it makes the majority fragile to demographic change or relatively small changes in views of the electorate. It makes "wave" elections more likely.

So while over here the Republican's have a ~ 33 seat majority in the House (when they should be in the minority) - 17 needed to flip the majority, by 2016 or 2020 or 2024 they risk having a ~ 40+ seat minority and having a tough time getting it back. Especially if their attempts at disenfrancisement are slapped down... Non-partisan redistricting in California changed the game there - it would be nice if something similar became a universal system.

I don't recall hearing about "redistricting" in the UK. Do similar things happen there, or is the population so stable that it's not needed? How are House districts done there?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Not really
There are boundary changes, of course, but they're not a big deal - evolution, not revolution.

We have a separate commission that looks after this process.

Example of their work:

http://consultation....proposed/eastern/

New That map is entirely too reasonable
--

Drew
New Same thing happens in Oz, too.
Our electoral commission is also federal and independent. It also has teeth and can't be bought by politicians.

I know it would be "un-American" to centralize all the election stuff like the UK and Aus does, but it sure would solve a lot of problems. :-/

Wade.
Just Add Story http://justaddstory.wordpress.com/
New ya ever stop to think that it is anger at party in power
that flips the seating? It was the anger against the democrats that put the repos in charge not redistricting
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New It wasn't one thing.
Lots of people were angry that the Republicans blew up the economy. Lots of people were angry that a black man had been elected president.

Without the way that DeLay and his compatriots changed district lines in 2010, the damage would have been less.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Also, on the subject of The Right In Britain
Here's a summary from the comments section of The Independent:

http://www.independe...rupt-9037099.html

The right in Britain is conservative in thinking, wanting no change to the status quo they believe was Britain in the time of the British Empire. Of course, their view requires themselves to be wealthy capitalists with a seat in the House of Lords to prove it - certainly not one of those lazy, dirty people that have to work for them or face immediate sanctions and penury. Women in the kitchen, poor people in the workhouse (or despatched to Australia) and foreigners somewhere else.

Then we come to nationalists - patriots if you are of an American-dream type of disposition. They see the cause of their importance entirely wrapped up in the flag of the country in which their mother gave birth to them. Anyone not born in their own country is obviously inferior to them and deserving of everything that might befall them.

Next we get to fascists, who are merely nationalists that like to impose their self-importance on others by bullying or, preferably, by state (their state) sanctioned aggression and torture. Wearing of uniforms is de rigour, as are aggressive-looking flags meant to look big, butch and tough.

Then we get to what popular parlance still describes as nazi. This is someone that believes the way their country should be run/controlled is exactly the same as a fascist, but takes the whole idea of their self-importance one step further by hating and wishing harm on anyone they can see (or even just imagine) is not exactly the same as they are. Different colour, different language, different religion, different sexual persuasion, different education or different ideology all mark you out as someone that "deserves" to suffer and be thrown out, or away, especially if you are more intelligent than they fear themselves to be.

     For those who deem it a duty to talk to RWNJs - (Ashton) - (22)
         Re: For those who deem it a duty to talk to RWNJs - (pwhysall) - (11)
             Thanks. - (Ashton) - (10)
                 Re: Thanks. - (pwhysall) - (9)
                     Wretched.. that the homogenization (all issues) has spread - (Ashton) - (8)
                         I am less pessimistic - (pwhysall) - (6)
                             Do you have periodic "redistricting" to scramble the deck? - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                 Not really - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                     That map is entirely too reasonable -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                         Same thing happens in Oz, too. - (static)
                                 ya ever stop to think that it is anger at party in power - (boxley) - (1)
                                     It wasn't one thing. - (Another Scott)
                         Also, on the subject of The Right In Britain - (pwhysall)
         A microscopic fraction of people are paid for comments. - (Another Scott) - (9)
             Re: If logic and evidence could convince people, ... - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                 I blame the wimmens. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                     Yup, it's the women. - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                         What are they guarding it *from*? - (drook) - (1)
                             Yup, you got it. - (Andrew Grygus)
                 I always preferred Yates' formulation of that: - (jake123)
             Proving a negative.. - (Ashton) - (2)
                 Good point. But... - (Another Scott) - (1)
                     Think you're right about the Kochs - (Ashton)

Cloaca Cola... oh, that was sooo good.
62 ms