ACORN

[Zippyy]

Quantity over quality.

Democrats (or anyone) engaging people in Democracy by Registering them to Vote.

FRAUD.

Maybe after work I'll count up all the words in that tripe that have no discernible meaning, and are only there to stir up emotion.

Bottom line (unless there is a bottomer line): Voter registration drives are not responsible for what the registrants put on their forms, and that author does not believe in suffrage.

[Jester]

Obama has the least amount of experience of any POTUS candidate ever.

Not quite. He's only not the lowest, he's probably not even in the bottom quintile. 7 years as a state senator, followed by 3 as a US senator, gives him 10 total years of legislative experience. That's longer than 14 elected presidents, counting only pure years served. Among candidates, I assume the ratios would be similar, although perhaps not. Now, there are some obvious gaps in that count (John Adams' relevant experience is hardly summarized by such a time count, for instance), but it does show that Obama is not exceptional.

And, in any case, it hardly seems to matter. Other factors having to do with personality, talent, and historical context seem to almost totally eclipse experience as a relevant factor in determining the success of a presidency.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/In...ience.html

-Jester

[Zenda]

Pete "You made a claim, that some *we* forced third world children to become sick processing our toxic wastes. I asked you to give some proof of the claim. I repeat, put up or shut up."

Now, I could answer this in your own words...

"I'm sorry if it bothers you, but you'll just have to deal with it or ignore me."

... but you already confirmed what I said, so what proof do you need? You even went a step further, saying that we sell our waste. Personally I don't think we are that bad, generally spoken, but exceptions do ofcourse exist.

Anyway, take a look here. It may not be proof for the exact things I said, but it shows enough. Btw, with 'we' I was referring to all industrialized nations, but it appears that was a bit too generalizing.

"Of the 170 parties to the Convention, Afghanistan, Haiti, and the United States have signed the Convention but have not yet ratified it."

Then again, you can bet that Dutch companies were among the first to use their US' offices to handle the more problematic waste, after we ratified the Basel Convention.

[kandrathe]

Not quite. He's only not the lowest, he's probably not even in the bottom quintile. 7 years as a state senator, followed by 3 as a US senator, gives him 10 total years of legislative experience. That's longer than 14 elected presidents, counting only pure years served. Among candidates, I assume the ratios would be similar, although perhaps not. Now, there are some obvious gaps in that count (John Adams' relevant experience is hardly summarized by such a time count, for instance), but it does show that Obama is not exceptional.

And, in any case, it hardly seems to matter. Other factors having to do with personality, talent, and historical context seem to almost totally eclipse experience as a relevant factor in determining the success of a presidency.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/In...ience.html

-Jester

Not all experience is equal. For example, experience as a governor of a State does better qualify someone to be the POTUS. Here is a more objective measure of the more recent history. I don't think we need to go back and compare Obama to Abe now do we? I doubt Abe would have done the things that Obama did to attain his State legislature job. As for raw talent, would you point to something exceptional that Obama has done in his 10 years of legislative experience?

[Jester]

Not all experience is equal. For example, experience as a governor of a State does better qualify someone to be the POTUS. Here is a more objective measure of the more recent history.

Quantification does not equal objectivity. By what objective measure is time in a state legislature worth exactly as much as a year of military service, but each is only a third of the value of a year in the US senate? The numbers are, as he admits, plucked out of thin air. Change the weightings, especially on the value of state legislative experience, and the rankings would change dramatically.

(Afterthought: The spreadsheet makes no distinctions as to the size of the state in question for Governors and state legislators. It ought to be relevant that, in Obama's case, Chicago, Illinois is a major city in a major state, whereas Palin's experience as Governor of Alaska is obviously not comparable to, say, Reagan's experience as Governor of California?)

(Afterthought no. 2: Should all years of military experience be counted equally? Wouldn't command, and especially high rank command, be the relevant measure? How about education? Does being a superb student in a relevant program at a great university not count more than being bottom 'o the class at Nowhere Community College? The objections go on.)

I don't think we need to go back and compare Obama to Abe now do we?

That has 3 basic problems.

1) It's not what you said. You said all presidential candidates *ever*. I was arguing with what you actually wrote here:

Obama has the least amount of experience of any POTUS candidate ever.

2) That's a very small sample size, being less than a quarter of all major presidential candidates.

3) It just so happens to leave out most of the best, yet least experienced, candidates in history.

-Jester

Afterthought: As for exceptional things Obama has done in his time as a legislator, I'm not looking to shill for Obama. He's not all that with a cherry on top, and surely every candidate could use more experience and better credentials, especially young ones. I'm just contesting your statement, which appears to be correct only if you use specious measures.

For the interested

[--Pete]

Hi,

... but you already confirmed what I said, so what proof do you need?

We clearly have a case of miscommunication here, so let me clarify. You posted:

I will comment on the following, though.

"Most industrial countries have stringent environmental laws. Most developing countries do not.
Most industrial countries have stringent worker safety laws. Most developing countries do not."

Let's see how we deal with this 'unfair' situation, for example regarding Mercury. It's a poisonous and volatile liquid in pure form, and has to be dealt with under strict and costly regulations, here. So, we dump our Mercury containing waste in countries like Bangla-Desh, telling them they can make a profit by recollecting that precious metal, and create 'recycling industry jobs'. That way, we can keep our own country clean and help in their development, at the same time, isn't it? However, we don't tell them in advance how expensive the proper equipment will be. They end up doing it by manual (child) labour in open air, and the result is a lot of sick people over there, and a ruined soil. Sure, you can blame them for taking the deal, but did anyone really expect them to prefer starvation?

Now, there are two parts to your post. There is the factual part, that the industrial nations ship a lot of their waste to third world countries for recycling, that much of this waste is toxic, and that the third world countries often do not have the safety procedures in place to handle the waste thus causing damage to the workers who are often underage. None of these do I disagree with, for they are all commonly know facts.

It is the other part, the implication that somehow this is the fault of the industrial nations, that some "we" has this big conspiracy to poison the children of Bangladesh, that I take exception to. Now, if this implication was unintentional, perhaps due to your uncertainty in the nuances of English, then I apologize for misunderstanding you and jumping to the conclusion that you were making a political, in addition to a factual, statement. But if my interpretation of your statement is correct, then I repeat, prove it. Not that the third world countries are processing the waste, for that's a given, but that there is some kind of intentional malfeasance behind it all.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

ACORN does let voters register (nothing illegal) but apparantly also registers non existing people.

That is fraud.

On another point:

"Let voters register."

Since when does any body but the state people live in "let voters register." Who is ACORN, and how is their authority in "letting people register" valid? It is incredibly easy to register to vote, if you get off your sorry arse and do it. Unless, of course, you are not eligible in the first place. Then, you have to resort to other means.

Do you understand what you wrote?

Did you understand what you meant, but not quite get the words right?

Occhi

[eppie]

That is fraud.

On another point:

"Let voters register."

Since when does any body but the state people live in "let voters register." Who is ACORN, and how is their authority in "letting people register" valid? It is incredibly easy to register to vote, if you get off your sorry arse and do it. Unless, of course, you are not eligible in the first place. Then, you have to resort to other means.

Do you understand what you wrote?

Did you understand what you meant, but not quite get the words right?

Occhi

Because I was not sure how this procedure was going (I asked several times) I expected ACORN to 'lobby' with people that otherwise would not go and vote to convince them to do. Which to me does not sound illegal (but you are write about the bad English).
Then the part about the registering dead people I still don't understand. In my (too small) knowledge I see this as a problem of the system (the state or so) where people register. In other words if they cannot distinguish (don't have any kind of database) between eligible and not eligible voters the system is wrong. I am sure this is not the case but if somebody could explain it to me that would be great.

Another question is about who to vote for; do you have to specify who you are planning to vote for once you register, and if not how did this article MEAT placed get the percentages of Obama and McCain voters. Doing a poll among dead people and children somehow doesn't seem right.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Because I was not sure how this procedure was going (I asked several times) I expected ACORN to 'lobby' with people that otherwise would not go and vote to convince them to do. Which to me does not sound illegal (but you are write about the bad English).
Then the part about the registering dead people I still don't understand. In my (too small) knowledge I see this as a problem of the system (the state or so) where people register. In other words if they cannot distinguish (don't have any kind of database) between eligible and not eligible voters the system is wrong. I am sure this is not the case but if somebody could explain it to me that would be great.

Another question is about who to vote for; do you have to specify who you are planning to vote for once you register, and if not how did this article MEAT placed get the percentages of Obama and McCain voters. Doing a poll among dead people and children somehow doesn't seem right.

Go to Google, type in 'ACORN voting fraud', read a few of the articles.

--Pete

[Jester]

They end up doing it by manual (child) labour in open air, and the result is a lot of sick people over there, and a ruined soil. Sure, you can blame them for taking the deal, but did anyone really expect them to prefer starvation?

Just from a strictly game theory point of view, if they prefer A to B, and we prevent them from taking option A, isn't that making things worse for them, rather than better? (A of course being taking the waste recycling deal, B being starvation.)

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Just from a strictly game theory point of view, if they prefer A to B, and we prevent them from taking option A, isn't that making things worse for them, rather than better? (A of course being taking the waste recycling deal, B being starvation.)

Interesting question. Of course, also a bit misleading.

One of the precepts of game theory is that the players are aware of the costs of all possible outcomes. Another precept is that the players are the ones to stand to win or lose. Who are the players? Are they the governments of the nations that do the recycling or are they the actual workers? Because it seems to me that the governments are the ones with the information and the recyclers are the ones paying the price.

The workers would not have the option to recycle if their governments did not allow the materials in, and they would not be in danger if the government passed and enforced safety regulations. These are matters that the government of those nations, and not the workers, control.

Since the governments make the decision, it is not between starvation and recycling, for the government officials are not in danger of starvation. It is a choice between hard currency and the loss of a few lives, of which they have a surplus. Establishing and enforcing safety regulations would reduce the profit, which is the first consideration to the decision makers.

The workers themselves are the ones with the decision to recycle or starve, but does any rational person really think those workers are fully aware of the dangers of what they are doing. It wasn't that long ago that every kid in the USA had a little vial of mercury to play with, that people bought lead for weight and bullets, that brake shoes were made of asbestos and many did their own maintenance, that people used benzene and gasoline to clean greasy parts. These were all going on in an affluent, fairly well educated society, because the dangers were not widely known or appreciated. Does anyone really think that an illiterate child in a third world country really knows or understands the risks?

So, while your game theory question seems simple, I think there are great levels of complexity hidden there, and the answer is not that easy.

--Pete

[Delc]

Then the part about the registering dead people I still don't understand. In my (too small) knowledge I see this as a problem of the system (the state or so) where people register. In other words if they cannot distinguish (don't have any kind of database) between eligible and not eligible voters the system is wrong. I am sure this is not the case but if somebody could explain it to me that would be great.

There are a lot of people in the US who are convinced that computers will steal their souls if they even touch them. So our voting process continues to be a largely manual process (the actual voting itself, along with the counting and registration). In Minnesota you can register at the polls, and as far as I know all you need is a driver's license, which is easy enough to fake.

[vor_lord]

There are a lot of people in the US who are convinced that computers will steal their souls if they even touch them.

I realize this is partly humorous, but aversion to computerization of voting is hardly exclusive to the computer illiterate.

Shall we discount the fact that a vast majority of technology and computer savvy users oppose computer vote counting at present? If we want to consider real voting fraud, let's start opening up a "central" computer database where results could be modified with much greater ease.

[kandrathe]

I realize this is partly humorous, but aversion to computerization of voting is hardly exclusive to the computer illiterate.

Shall we discount the fact that a vast majority of technology and computer savvy users oppose computer vote counting at present? If we want to consider real voting fraud, let's start opening up a "central" computer database where results could be modified with much greater ease.

Done. I hope you are all happy with my selections.

[Zenda]

Pete "Not that the third world countries are processing the waste, for that's a given, but that there is some kind of intentional malfeasance behind it all."

Be it malfeasance (nice word, never used it before) or not, it surely is intentional. Such things don't happen by themselves. But the reason is money, as usual. It's about waste products that cannot be recycled in a 'economic viable' way, and our companies are expected to reduce costs so they can our keep prices low, not? But if you prefer to call it development aid, go ahead.

Jester "Just from a strictly game theory point of view, if they prefer A to B, and we prevent them from taking option A, isn't that making things worse for them, rather than better?"

I think that Pete already gave a good answer, but I'd like to add this...

Why should those people have to choose between those choices? If this is the way it's supposed to be, how come they didn't die out before we had so much waste? The point is that we created, or at least help to sustain this situation because it's better for us, and not for them. Simply because we *need* workforces with low demands for dirty jobs like this.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I realize this is partly humorous, but aversion to computerization of voting is hardly exclusive to the computer illiterate.

Shall we discount the fact that a vast majority of technology and computer savvy users oppose computer vote counting at present? If we want to consider real voting fraud, let's start opening up a "central" computer database where results could be modified with much greater ease.

I'm hardly computer illiterate and that is precisely why I'm opposed to most forms of electronic voting. What I would consider a viable solution is a touch screen voting machine that prints out a filled in ballot and presents it to the voter. The voter then verifies the ballot and turns it in like any other paper ballot.

To a large extent, that method eliminates most of the problems. Since there is a paper ballot, most computer fraud is eliminated. The ballot can be hand counted or electronically scanned. The 'hanging chad' and 'blue ink' problems don't happen. The main remaining problems are with absentee voters (I'm one) who still need to mark some kind of ballot and the traditional voter fraud techniques that date back to Tammany Hall if not the Articles of Confederation.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Be it malfeasance (nice word, never used it before) or not, it surely is intentional. Such things don't happen by themselves. But the reason is money, as usual. It's about waste products that cannot be recycled in a 'economic viable' way, and our companies are expected to reduce costs so they can our keep prices low, not?

No. The way you phrase it, we're right back to the "big bad industrial nations" conspiracy theory. And that is what I've asked you to support, and you haven't. The reality, as I see it, is that some places have found a way to make a little money by scavenging. It's not good, but it's not *evil*. It's just part of the reality of an imperfect world.

But if you prefer to call it development aid, go ahead.

Don't put words in my mouth, I'm quite capable of speaking for myself.

Why should those people have to choose between those choices? If this is the way it's supposed to be, how come they didn't die out before we had so much waste?

Because we gave them, and continue to give them, the modern medicine that reduces the infant mortality rate by more than an order of magnitude. Combined with the old habits and customs, and the lack of an infrastructure, that results in an unsustainable population.

The point is that we created, or at least help to sustain this situation because it's better for us, and not for them. Simply because we *need* workforces with low demands for dirty jobs like this.

Again with the *we*! Who is this *we*? Our governments? Our industries? Some Committee to Poison Third Word Children? WHO?

Blaming individuals and organizations for market forces is ignorant and stupid. It leads to the idea that, somehow, these forces can be directly controlled. And that leads to aberrations such as communism with the types of results Eastern Europe has demonstrated all too well.

So, yeah, it is deplorable that kids are dying recycling toxic waste. #$%& happens. It's not a conspiracy, it's economics. The solution is not social reform, it's economic development. And there are no evil overlords, just harassed businessmen.

We agree on the facts. It's your socialist world view I deplore.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Why should those people have to choose between those choices? If this is the way it's supposed to be, how come they didn't die out before we had so much waste? The point is that we created, or at least help to sustain this situation because it's better for us, and not for them.

Poor people don't have many choices, especially those who are subsistence hunter/gatherer/farmers. From the beginning of life, let alone the human species, bad choices resulted in death. There are poor people who choose to sift through garbage dumps for "treasures" which is unhealthy, and also the opposite choice might result in death by starvation. There are poor people who choose to process, reprocess, recycle, or in other ways mess around with heavy metals, chemicals, and other dangerous substances and die from it, but on the other hand if they choose not to do so, they might also die from starvation. We might not make the same choices that they do, and maybe they do not know it will kill them. I feel bad that people starve, or are killed by their repressive governments, or die due to ignorantly messing around with dangerous materials. But, I really can't do too much about it unless I want to go be an environmental missionary or something.

Simply because we *need* workforces with low demands for dirty jobs like this.

"We" don't have anything to do with it. Our governments have set environmental, and worker protection laws that prevent us from having anything to do with it. Now, there is supply and demand. If there is a demand for something, then someone("us" who have protections or "them" who do not) will figure out how to supply it. And, those who demand it, will seek to pay the lowest price for it, and if that happens to be from another country without environmental or worker protections, then that is how we get to the situation we have today. If all countries decided to implement the same environmental and worker protections that we do, then the one who have the demands will need to pay higher prices that factor in those costs. "We" as consumer will pay a higher price for whatever the manufacturers needed the stuff for. And, consequently, "they" who have no protections will now lose their jobs to "us" because all costs being equal, the manufacturers will choose the closest source.

[--Pete]

Hi,

And, consequently, "they" who have no protections will now lose their jobs to "us" because all costs being equal, the manufacturers will choose the closest source.

Not to mention that our technological advantages maker us more productive, and thus make our products cheaper. I think we've come full circle in this discussion.

Reminds me of the old saw: "Every real world problem has a simple, easy to understand, WRONG answer.";)

--Pete

[eppie]

So, yeah, it is deplorable that kids are dying recycling toxic waste. #$%& happens. It's not a conspiracy, it's economics. The solution is not social reform, it's economic development. And there are no evil overlords, just harassed businessmen.

We agree on the facts. It's your socialist world view I deplore.

--Pete

This has absolutely nothing to do with socialist world view. Take the example of the ships. The people that sail these ships on shore know exactly what happens. The only reason they keep doing it is because they can get away with it and because they don't give a s**t what happens to these children. And how would you as a consumer do something against this? Don't use anything that was ever transported by ship? (I am thinking free market that regulates its self here)
It is true, there are many bad things happening, so many that we often don't have time to solve all these things, but they are happening. It has also nothing to do with conspiracy, it is just simple crime possible because of vague international law (right). You know that usually these ships sail e.g. under the flag of some small middle american country, owned by eastern European holding which has it share holders form all over the world etc.,etc.

Dumping waste in eg lake Michigan was also a question of not having to pay for the recycling....and people kept doing it right until it was illegal and heavily enforced, but long after everybody knew how bad it was for our health. People are still dumping waste illegaly......when nobody saw you doing it it didn't happen right? The only problem is the vague laws and the absence of those laws.....but it is done 100% intentional.