Palpatine in '08

[LochnarITB]

As for the reaction over here. Media and people alike are struck with Obama-laria. We're all completely smitten by his apparent eloquence and wisdom.

I wish that was the case over here. I wish they were commenting on his intelligence or saying that his leadership will bring us out of difficult times into prosperity or that he will smooth relations between the USA and the rest of the world. Instead, every commentary is on how wonderful it is that we have elected a black man and nothing about whether we have elected the best man. It makes me angry. Rather that demonstrate how far we have come, it shows how far we still have to go. The color of his skin should not have mattered. Women, Hispanics, Asians - what other groups do we still have to check off the list to show we have embraced equality? Elevating any group's status does nothing to assuage past inequities and just swings the pendulum which eventually swings back to the next. I have a dream... that nobody is ever judged by anything other than the person inside.

[Jester]

A number of issues divided the industrial North from the agrarian South.

... among them being the morality of keeping over a third of their population as slaves.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

The Ninth and Tenth are still in force, last I checked, unless the Constitution has been amended since then.

Well, the 3rd is alive and well, but the 9th and 10th have been pretty much destroyed by the commerce clause. It's all fine and good to give the left-overs to the people and the states, but it's thin gruel when there are no left-overs.

The break isn't north/south, but it has been growing slowly in this direction for about forty years.

As I look at the map, it looks more like the coasts and the hinterlands, although there is a North-South gradient in the East.

Now that IED's have become as common as houseplants, I expect that we will see a sustained series of McVeigh like events. Most of the countermeasures against them are far too annoying to the American public to be implemented. (We do need to talk, in the flesh.) Pessimist, I know, but I welcome being wrong in this case. I really hope I am wrong. Really.

I agree with you, completely. And especially about being wrong. The capability for an individual to destroy have become too great and too simple for peace of mind or a sanguine outlook.

--Pete

[Zenda]

In reply to post #16 by Pete

"Who can vote is determined by the states. Who can be in congress is determined by the federal government."

Since this was about Alaska, does that state allow voting by convicted felons? If so, it's still strange:)

"However, if you want to intelligently discuss American politics and actions, it would be helpful if you at least had some knowledge of the American character."

I was just expressing my feelings about the matter. No attempt at intelligent discussions on this subject was intended. But since you bring it up, any real knowledge on Iraq society wasn't required to judge the people over there, wasn't it? Lack of knowledge seldom stops people from posting, and there is nothing wrong with it unless they refuse to accept that.

Besides, your 'American character' is not as strange to me as you might assume. Did you know that we (Dutch and Americans) started out in the same way, as rebellious colonies? It's no longer common knowledge here, but we too used to idealize civil violence, as long as it was directed against authorities that we didn't like (opportunism is a Dutch invention, I think). That's why the Netherlands was the first country in the world to recognize the USA, because we had been in the same situation only 200 years earlier. There is even reason to believe that your Declaration of Independance was based on a earlier, now mostly forgotten, Dutch paper (link). The biggest difference between us is that we have stopped being proud about it a long time ago.

[Jester]

That's why the Netherlands was the first country in the world to recognize the USA, because we had been in the same situation only 200 years earlier.

Morocco was the first country to recognize US independence.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/ar/91857.htm

-Jester

[Jester]

I wish that was the case over here. I wish they were commenting on his intelligence or saying that his leadership will bring us out of difficult times into prosperity or that he will smooth relations between the USA and the rest of the world. Instead, every commentary is on how wonderful it is that we have elected a black man and nothing about whether we have elected the best man. It makes me angry. Rather that demonstrate how far we have come, it shows how far we still have to go. The color of his skin should not have mattered. Women, Hispanics, Asians - what other groups do we still have to check off the list to show we have embraced equality? Elevating any group's status does nothing to assuage past inequities and just swings the pendulum which eventually swings back to the next. I have a dream... that nobody is ever judged by anything other than the person inside.

In a utopian world where injustice is quickly recognized and immediately purged from everyone's mind, sure, you'd be right. However, since the history of the US presidency is 43 consecutive white, straight, christian(-ish) men, I think it's probably fair to offer some measure of applause over race. Obama the first example to make substantial, rather than just theoretical, any progress against a pattern deeply associated with the worst historical blight on the US' record, the legacy of racial discrimination. It's all well and good to be high-minded and post-racial, but perhaps one might want to wait for at least one president from each historically excluded category (non-white ethnicities, women, gays, non-christian religions, atheists...) before you start lecturing people over it.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

... among them being the morality of keeping over a third of their population as slaves.

Yep. So?

--Pete

[LochnarITB]

before you start lecturing people over it.

It was not a lecture. It was an observation and a wish for better. Your post was, however, a lecture about how I was wrong to not accept the hoopla that seems to indicate that his election can somehow start to make up for the oppression during those 43 presidencies. It can't be done since most of those who were hurt the most are no longer with us, nor are the ones that did the hurting around to do the making up. Also, my complaint was that every commentary I saw offered up was regarding his skin color (he is biracial, by the way), not just "some measure", every one. It was the sole focus. Then, you offer up that we need to wait for one example of each category to be president before we can focus on the person and not the package they are wrapped up in? Give me a break. I have more hope for humanity than that.

[Jester]

Hi,
Yep. So?

--Pete

Might be relevant if you're going to critique a "might makes right" morality on the part of the Northern States.

-Jester

[Nastie_Bowie]

Hi,
By "few decades", you do mean 219 years, don't you? Corruption in politics in this country is a tradition going back to the founding of this country.

Actually, think it through. If Ted Stevens had withdrawn from the election, it would have defaulted to the Democrat contender who would have held the office for six years. By continuing to run, if he wins and then gets kicked out of the Senate (which is pretty well a forgone conclusion) then (by law) there will be another election, an election that the Republicans have a decent chance to win. From that viewpoint, by staying in the race he is doing the only thing that makes sense from the partisan viewpoint.

--Pete

I think the governor appoints a replacement. They were talking about this on the radio, yesterday. You are right if he quits before the election, it defaults to the democrat.

[Jester]

It was not a lecture. It was an observation and a wish for better. Your post was, however, a lecture about how I was wrong to not accept the hoopla that seems to indicate that his election can somehow start to make up for the oppression during those 43 presidencies. It can't be done since most of those who were hurt the most are no longer with us, nor are the ones that did the hurting around to do the making up. Also, my complaint was that every commentary I saw offered up was regarding his skin color (he is biracial, by the way), not just "some measure", every one. It was the sole focus. Then, you offer up that we need to wait for one example of each category to be president before we can focus on the person and not the package they are wrapped up in? Give me a break. I have more hope for humanity than that.

Leaving the rest of it aside (I think we'll have to agree to disagree here), there's probably a media issue driving much of this. If CNN comes out and runs a full day of programming on "Our new, intelligent, informed, diplomatic, charismatic president was clearly the best man for the job," they'll be spending the next eight years mired in accusations of partisanship. On the other hand, they can talk about the "historic event" (I've always wondered what an ahistoric event was...) of the first president to break the mould, which is not disputable from a partisan standpoint. The partisan press and commentary sites are more oriented towards the political issues, since that kind of thing doesn't apply to them.

Over in London, while there is certainly no lack of commentary on his race, perhaps the biggest 2 foci are that he's not Dubya, and that he'll have to do something about the financial crisis. So, maybe I'm just hearing things from a different place, but I'm not getting the sense that Obama-the-President is getting ignored for Obama-the-black-guy.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think the governor appoints a replacement. They were talking about this on the radio, yesterday. You are right if he quits before the election, it defaults to the democrat.

The governor appoints a *temporary* replacement, and even that is a matter of dispute. The election to replace the Senator is not a matter of dispute, it is a matter of Alaska law.

--Pete

[Kevin]

I think the governor appoints a replacement. They were talking about this on the radio, yesterday. You are right if he quits before the election, it defaults to the democrat.

Governor appoints a replacement and then 2 years later a special election is held to elect a new senator to serve the other 4 years. This is actually closer to what happened in MO with the Carnahan vs Ashcroft election. Mel died, but was left on the ballot because there was not time to get another candidate on the ballot. The gov actually appointed his wife and 2 years later another election was held that she won. Though I may be remembering something wrong (I should just look it up but no time right now). It may have been that a special referendum or something was passed to allow the wife to take the appointment until the special election could be held, but I seem to recall the gov actually appointing the seat.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Governor appoints a replacement and then 2 years later a special election is held to elect a new senator to serve the other 4 years. This is actually closer to what happened in MO with the Carnahan vs Ashcroft election. Mel died, but was left on the ballot because there was not time to get another candidate on the ballot. The gov actually appointed his wife and 2 years later another election was held that she won. Though I may be remembering something wrong (I should just look it up but no time right now). It may have been that a special referendum or something was passed to allow the wife to take the appointment until the special election could be held, but I seem to recall the gov actually appointing the seat.

Right and wrong. The history is right and the processes is right for Missouri but not for Alaska. The details of the process vary from state to state and are covered by state, not federal, law.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Might be relevant if you're going to critique a "might makes right" morality on the part of the Northern States.

If I were going to do that, then it might indeed be relevant. Since I didn't then it isn't. I don't consider "might makes right" a moral question. I consider it a basic fact of history. Read Machiavelli.

--Pete

[Kevin]

Hi,
Right and wrong. The history is right and the processes is right for Missouri but not for Alaska. The details of the process vary from state to state and are covered by state, not federal, law.

--Pete

Well my answer was actually referring to the direct quote and something Jester had said earlier in that Missourians didn't really elect a dead man. It was made pretty clear what your vote for Carnahan meant (I even voted for the dead man since I was in MO at the time and I had issues with Ashcroft) and I see by rereading that I really muddied it up.

That is what I get for posting at work while I'm waiting for some scripts to finish running so I can check them but not wanting to start in on other work so I post at the lounge. :)

But to keep the waters muddy I did read/hear that the Alaskan process isn't much different from the MO process. It's my understanding they will still do a 2 year temp appointment and have a special election if Stevens is booted after he is elected.

[Jester]

Hi,
If I were going to do that, then it might indeed be relevant. Since I didn't then it isn't. I don't consider "might makes right" a moral question. I consider it a basic fact of history. Read Machiavelli.

--Pete

Already have. Just pointing out that there is another level of power dynamics to the story, beyond just the power-grubbing federal government infringing on state sovereignty.

-Jester

[Zenda]

In reply to post #25 by Gnollguy

"Morocco was the first country to recognize US independence."

I heard differently, but that was a long time ago so you may be right. Still, we were second then, and the first of the colonial powers.


In reply to post #36 by Gnollguy

"I even voted for the dead man since I was in MO at the time and I had issues with Ashcroft"

Voting for dead people and convicted felons, of whom you know they will never get the job, just because you don't want other candidates to have their chance? Is that common practice over there? If so, maybe many of you deserve the circus that poses as your elections :glare:

[Frag]

Forum Rules - The Lurker Lounge

Read them guys, and while the exact descriptions under the two rules I'm about to invoke aren't specifically applicable, they certainly do seem to common-sense apply:

<span style="color:#FF9900">Keep on topic.
<span style="color:#FF9900">Avoid hotbutton issues.

The OP posted a bit of humor and we're now far off-topic covering flamebait.

If you have some respect for those who abide by the etiquette here, please take it to whispers or stuff a sock in it.

Cheers,
~Frag B)

[--Pete]

Hi,

Just pointing out that there is another level of power dynamics to the story, beyond just the power-grubbing federal government infringing on state sovereignty.

Yes. Over the course of my life, I've read well over a thousand pages just on the causes of the American Civil War. But I thought that regurgitating all that would be a little much for a post, even on Lurker's. Especially since the topic was the history of the difference between federal and state laws. In addition to slavery, I left out a whole bunch about foreign relations, import and export restrictions, the development of the industrial revolution, the effects of mechanization on an agrarian society, the conflicts of regional religion, methods of assessments for taxation, the incorporation of a huge influx of immigrants, nepotism at the federal level, the consequences to the land of cotton as the primary cash crop, the economics of slavery as opposed to migrant workers, etc. Find me a publisher and I might write you a book;)

--Pete