Difference between revisions of "User:Woozle/tabdump"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→2011-05-21: US gov illegitimacy) |
(→2011-05-21: more links and a dialogue) |
||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
** '''2011-05-20''' [http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/05/party_leaders_agree_on_patriot.php Party Leaders Agree On Patriot Act Extension] | ** '''2011-05-20''' [http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/05/party_leaders_agree_on_patriot.php Party Leaders Agree On Patriot Act Extension] | ||
** '''2011-05-18''' [http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/05/kiss_the_constitution_goodbye.php Kiss the Constitution Goodbye] | ** '''2011-05-18''' [http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/05/kiss_the_constitution_goodbye.php Kiss the Constitution Goodbye] | ||
** '''2011-05-21''' [http://wlcentral.org/node/1780 Omar Khadr Part 3 of 4: The world doesn't get it] | |||
* http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/gahfh/if_i_make_a_mistake_i_lose_my_job_when_the/ - some good discussion | |||
* '''2011-05-20''' [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-20/u-s-fuel-demand-increased-in-april-as-economy-grew-api-says.html U.S. Fuel Demand Increased in April as Economy Grew, API Says]: has some numbers | |||
* '''2011-05-16''' [http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2011/05/solar_farm_near_climax_loosing.html Solar farm near Climax losing money because of property taxes] | |||
* '''2011-05-20''' [http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/05/20/1212835/perdue-criticizes-but-wont-veto.html Perdue criticizes, but won't veto, municipal broadband limits]: at least she said she won't sign it, either | |||
* '''2011-05-20''' [http://www.marxist.com/spain-rebellion-of-youth.htm Spain: The rebellion of the youth] | |||
* '''2011-05-19''' [http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/05/201151917634659824.html Anonymous and the Arab uprisings] | |||
* '''2011-05-10''' [http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2011/05/full-steam-ahead-in-north-carolina-fighting-the-anti-lgbt-constitutional-amendment/ Full Steam Ahead In North Carolina: Fighting the Anti-LGBT Constitutional Amendment] | |||
* '''2011-05-18''' [http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/18/attn-entrepreneurs-mark-zuckerberg-isnt-the-role-model-reid-hoffman-is/ Attn Entrepreneurs: Mark Zuckerberg Isnt the Role Model. Reid Hoffman Is.] | |||
* '''2011-05-21''' [http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/bush-era-tax-cuts-projected-as-largest-contributor-to-public-debt-chart/ Bush-Era Tax Cuts Projected As Largest Contributor To Public Debt]: in case there was any doubt | |||
* '''2010-09-16''' [http://www.portlandtribune.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=128458597113243800 Put voter-owned elections to rest] | |||
===me=== | |||
It sounds like Portland's experiment with public financing was very poorly implemented, and a poorly-implemented trial doesn't really say much (positive or negative) about the system it is intended to test. Ask any scientist. | |||
Surely there are other examples where it was done right, so we could see whether it works or not. The Wikipedia article mentions attempts in several states, but it sounds like they had implementation problems as well... for instance, the loophole that allows a well-funded candidate to opt out is a total ringer, rendering the whole idea moot in practice. | |||
That said, if I could choose one simple thing to change about the election system, it would be some form of penalty for lies or distortions in political campaigns -- e.g. for each lie or distortion about an opponent, the opponent gets twice as much time to respond (minimum 30 seconds per point). If the candidate lies about their own record, then all opponents get that much time. | |||
Has anything like *that* ever been tried properly? | |||
===M. Workhoven=== | |||
I'm not sure how that would work. Distortions are often in the eye of the beholder, and there might be First Amendment issues. Lawyers would argue that people have a constitutional right to be full of shit, and they'd have a point. However, if the candidates voluntarily agreed to abide by the rulings of a bipartisan truth commission, and if they're found to be wrong, have sit in a penalty box or whatever, I think that would be hilarious. But I don't think they'd agree to that. Negative campaigning is too effective. | |||
You're right that opting out of public financing renders to the whole idea moot. But controlling private money is like trying to stop the tide from coming in, it always finds a way. If donators can't give money directly to the candidates, then they'll just put ads on TV themselves on behalf of whoever they want to win. And the Supreme Court says they can. | |||
So instead of trying to control the money, I thought it would be better to just make the campaigns cheaper. Make 'em shorter and give the candidates free but equal air time. Air time is the most expensive part of any campaign, so maybe that would eliminate the need for politicians to spend all their time fundraising. And don't let 'em opt out! | |||
And if outside groups want to buy ad space for 501 ads, then legally you have to let 'em. But at least force them to announce who they really are. So instead of hearing, "This ad was paid for by the group 'Citizens who care about small children and puppies for Candidate John Smith,'" The audience would hear, "This ad paid for by the BP Oil Company for John Smith," which would probably do more harm than good. Right now, they can hide behind some fictional citizens group with a name they just made up, and that's inherently dishonest. | |||
===me=== | |||
It's not the most elegant solution, but it would stop a lot of the nonsense that is happening now. | |||
Seems to me that "free speech" at some point needs to be balanced by a freedom of protection from bad information, if someone can show that damage has been done by the bad information (or will be done if the information is not corrected) -- especially if the remedy is to correct the information, rather than to exact some kind of punitive fine. There is precedent for this, e.g. libel, defamation of character, truth-in-advertising. (Truth-in-advertising laws *surely* should apply to paid political announcements.) | |||
I'd go even further and suggest that political speech should be considered a form of contract, with all the legal repercussions. | |||
===M. Workhoven=== | |||
Hmmm. Maybe there's an enterprising lawyer out there who can make a test case for this. I'd love to see a dishonest politician sued for libel and slander. | |||
But politics is weird, because you can't sue the government, or by extension a government employee, for defamation that causes loss of income over some law they passed, as long as the law is constitutional. If you could, then Wall Street could sue the president over every new business regulation, arguing that he broke a campaign promise to strengthen business and the economy. If they could, every politician would go to jail! | |||
Unlike a product on TV that advertises you can cure herpes with magnets or whatever, politics is a very subjective thing. It's practically a politician's job to present a distorted picture to the voters to make themselves look as good as possible and their opponent look as bad as possible. As Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics." It's one thing for them to say that they have evidence their opponent worships Satan. But as long as their carefully cherry-picked statistics are technically true, then what can you do? Especially when politicians have underlings who can secretly start a whisper campaign that their opponent worships Satan. And then say something like, "I think many voters in my district think it's a legitimate question whether my opponent worships the Dark Lord, but other than that I have no comment." | |||
===me=== | |||
I doubt that such standards could be applied *now*, under present laws. Hypothetically, however... | |||
1. A politician running for office is not yet a government employee, so I don't think the "suing the government" argument applies. I would extend that to incumbents as well, since they're not yet in the term of office for which they are offering you promises. | |||
2. I'm not suggesting that suits could be filed over *any* harm, just harm that resulted specifically from inaccurate statements made and discovered while campaigning. (Other laws theoretically come into play when a politician lies while in office -- impeachment, recalls, and so forth -- though that hasn't been working so well lately, which is another problem.) | |||
At the very *least*, we should be seeing some serious time and energy spent explaining why campaign promises were broken, and trying to convince us not to sue for breach of promise. | |||
3. My whole point is that it should *not* be in a politician's best interest to present a distorted view in order to manipulate people. That is a huge part of what is wrong with the system right now. | |||
4. All too often, "we" (or enough of "us" to decide the election) swallow facts that are not just distorted but *factually untrue*, because they sound believable. This should matter. This should be very, very harmful to a candidate when it is discovered, and provide steep incentive for them to avoid doing it at all costs. It should be so harmful that they would even avoid technically-true distortions, lest the court find that the "common understanding" of what was said was factually wrong. | |||
==2011-05-20== | ==2011-05-20== | ||