on the upside, the democratic party has less representation by former members of the KKK
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Too soon.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Definitely.
And didn't he change his opinions in regards to civil rights?
Is a man only to be remembered for his mistakes, and not for his corrections?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No, he definitely reformed on that front.
(HINT: the link in my post is a mostly positive remembrance of the man)
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I have never truely understood why politicians get such a long career in some states, we obviously dont want the kid with no experiance at all but old men are stubborn and are unaccepting of new ideas. Last I knew John McCain still had to have assistance in using the internet... this, this right here. He cant competently do what you are doing right now, and he is a United States senator. Doctors may serve past thier physical prime but you would never see an elderly surgeon opening someones chest, younger doctors would be better educated and think quicker under the stress of open-heart surgery than an older man with arthritis.
I am thankful for Sen. Byrd's service to our country, and am curious as to who will take such a worn in seat and what will change due to it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: you would never see an elderly surgeon opening someones chest
Patently false.
And your disdain for those who are older and wiser than you ill-becomes you, stripling. Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Using uncommon words to call me a child does not refute the fact that older equals wiser is not a law, merely a decree from those who have attained power and do not wish to be challenged. How many proffesionals outside pollitics have peaked after the age of sixty? waited until they were classified as senior citizen to start a wildly successful company, or published thier first book to positive reviews and high sales after the age of seventy?
An accomplished man of 94 is simply going to do what he did when he was 74, despite what tools are at his disposal and the change of what his methods can do.
Age does not mean intelligent by default, and old age is the enemy of a healthy brain. Ignore that fact if you will, because I am just a mere brat whose fingers type away while my simple mind thinks about how pretty marbles are.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Doctors may serve past thier physical prime but you would never see an elderly surgeon opening someones chest, younger doctors would be better educated and think quicker under the stress of open-heart surgery than an older man with arthritis.
Well, youth certainly doesn't stop one from making silly arguments, that's for sure. How on Earth did a question of reflexes and arthritis come into the question of whether someone who is old can be an elected official?
Sheesh, Achilles, it's really quite simple: age does not mean intelligent by default. Age likewise does not mean stupid or incompetent by default, either.
quote:How many proffesionals outside pollitics have peaked after the age of sixty? waited until they were classified as senior citizen to start a wildly successful company, or published thier first book to positive reviews and high sales after the age of seventy?
And this is pretty odd too, Achilles. Do you think politicians start their careers at that age?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
AH, may you live to be 94, and to experience the scorn of those younger than you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Don't you go bringing empathy and possibility into this discussion either, you walker-jockey!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Age of our representatives in congress is actually a real big concern. Remember strom thurmond? For the last years of his representation, he was essentially senile, guided around by aides and given info on how to vote. We have legislators who take and hold positions and chairmanships and control of various industries and systems they don't understand in the least ("A series of tubes" "The holograms") just for political bargaining power. I don't know how representative Byrd was of that but I am pretty sure he should have retired by now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not all that crazy about S. Carolina's new Senators either.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Rakeesh, obviously politicians begin thier careers very early in life. I simply chafe under the idea that our country is still being led by former KKK members, senile old men, people guilty of vehicular man-slaughter and perfectly intelligent middle-aged men who are ashamed of thier own sexuality. Such people are not the best representives of current day America, they are in fact a motley crew of lackluster candidates whose true campaign strategy is to point into the past and how they really could have done much worse, and to make sure that the only people who oppose them are in fact worse than them. Point in fact, the only threat to Sen. McCain's position is J.D. Hayworth, who refuses to stop interacting and supporting openly racist organizations. Seniority in age or in experiance should not let them hold the office until they die, as a matter of fact having a majority of the senate on regular medications of various effects may very well endanger America, no official cause of death has been given for Sen. Byrd but citing (yes yes, I know) his old age he may have been on mind altering medications for any period of time until his death. Ninety-four years old, with a highly likely situation for heavy medication, how much longer would he have been allowed to hold office? the idea is quite asinine that a citizen who may not even be able to legally drive anymore would be at the helm of problems like censorship, internet laws and wether or not video games make kids kill people. History should always be in the background to be referenced, but in an age where we have found evidence of water on the Moon it is frightening to have our collective fate in the hands of men who dont even have the casual relationship with modern technology to know what a webcomic is without it being explained to them. On a daily basis these veteran politicians are relying on others to filter not the only the information that they find on through the internet, but to even choose what information is accessed simply because the incumbant politicain assumes that they can still do the job the way they did.
And Rivka, if your only response will be to ignore my arguments, why not ignore the entire thing and not respond at all?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I simply chafe under the idea that our country is still being led by former KKK members, senile old men, people guilty of vehicular man-slaughter and perfectly intelligent middle-aged men who are ashamed of thier own sexuality.
You can chafe under the idea all you like, but it's not really very accurate. We're being led by the people we choose, by human beings. Some of `em are pretty crappy. Blaming it in whole or in part on age...well, that's a pretty odd prescription for the problem.
quote:...he may have been on mind altering medications for any period of time until his death.
Any elected official may be on mind altering medications right now. Constantly. In fact, it's a guarantee that there are hundreds of elected officials, right now this instant, across the country, who are on mind altering medications.
You know what lets them hold office until they die? Elections.
quote:History should always be in the background to be referenced, but in an age where we have found evidence of water on the Moon it is frightening to have our collective fate in the hands of men who dont even have the casual relationship with modern technology to know what a webcomic is without it being explained to them.
I'm more technically savvy than the 'average joe', under 30, and I am not even remotely frightened by being led by someone who doesn't know what a webcomic is. C'mon, Achilles, this age paranoia of yours is more than a little silly, because the reasons you offer up in support of it are so far consistently silly.
Blanket generalizations: bad. It's a pretty simple guideline. Some old people are stupid and living way in the past. Others aren't.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i'm on a mind altering medication right now. caffeine!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think we get the elected officials we deserve. WV apparently wanted a nonogenarian as their representative.
If you don't live in West Virginia, your opinion on their Senators doesn't matter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If you don't live in West Virginia, your opinion on their Senators doesn't matter.
Why not?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Quite literally, you don't get a vote.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That just means that I don't have a vote. It doesn't mean that my opinion doesn't matter. I can, for instance, heavily sway the voting habits of people living in other states. And have. Also, whether or not your opinion is directly actionable in an electoral sense does not prevent it from mattering, else you could wave away anyone's commentary on a supreme court justice by saying that their opinion doesn't matter.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure, you can talk, but what you say or think doesn't matter.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Unless, you know...
quote:I can, for instance, heavily sway the voting habits of people living in other states. And have.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Interesting how the opinions of a bunch of people that didn't live in California mattered in the Prop 8 vote, though. And that was about a law that didn't apply to their state. A senator can make decisions that apply to the whole country and yet we don't matter.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Sure, you can talk, but what you say or think doesn't matter.
I don't know how much they should matter, but surely the opinion of people and organizations outside of West Virginia should matter at least a little to who will and won't be Senator from that state. West Virginia is not, y'know, Hawaii, an island. It's surrounded by its neighbors, who have some reasonable interest in who is elected from that state. People in that state have some interest in who is elected to represent them and will deal with other state elected officials.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Not opinions perse, but definatly gobs and gobs of Jesus cash. It still bugs me that prop H8 is just 1337 for hate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Sure, you can talk, but what you say or think doesn't matter.
I already addressed that. Do you not get the concept? Do I need to restate it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
To the subject changers:
-------
For the actual Senators, this is something I've thought about. I think several of our representatives from states not mine are abysmal examples of pond scum. However, I think that the people of those states have the right and, moreover, are actually CORRECT to elect the pond scum if that's who they really want. If the people in those states want to elect drooling morons, then they should elect their very favorite drooling morons.
I can certainly write how I think the various candidates are drooling morons, but no, the people in the other states don't get a say. It isn't their Senator. They can elect their own senators and hope they pick someone who is both what they want in a legislator and sufficiently compentent enough to get things done.
But if one state wants to elect a thug and another a moral trash heap, then clearly they can and should have that thug or trash heap as their representatives.
Think of it as a variation on states' rights. They do exist, and the most basic one is the only people whose opinions about Senators matter are the people who get to vote for them.
Kind of like how it's mildly interesting what Germany thinks of who we elect as President - although not necessarily for the reasons they might hope it's interesting - but it doesn't matter.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You do know that US Senators make laws for the whole country, right? That a Senator from some idiot state who elects idiots can hold up, for example, unemployment benefits for people in my nice not idiot state.
Our President doesn't get to make laws in Germany.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm sorry you can't understand the concepts behind my explanation. Maybe if you read it again.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Kind of like how it's mildly interesting what Germany thinks of who we elect as President - although not necessarily for the reasons they might hope it's interesting - but it doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter to what? The vote count? Well, that's certainly true. But that's not the only definition of 'matter', which is the point I think some folks are trying to make. In fact, no one is even trying to say an outsider's opinion should matter as much or even nearly as much as a voter's opinion. They're just rejecting the absolute statement that their opinion simply doesn't matter, that's all.
As for the subject change, well katharina, that is a pretty topical example of ways in which outsiders opinions can matter, isn't it?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Yeah, you're missing the ENTIRE field of international relations. Everything every country does does impact other countries. It's so obvious I don't know why I'm saying it.
The same applies to state governments. Of course it matters. States are not bubbles. The policies and budgets and governments the states next to mine matter a lot.
I think your definition of "if you can't vote, you're opinion doesn't matter" is silly simple.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure, people can talk, and there's all sorts of noise, but ultimately, if you don't legally get to vote on it, then your opinion doesn't matter.
Maybe the issue here is how I am using "matter".
It's the difference betweeen "I want you to listen to me" and "You MUST listen to me". Unless you legally have a vote, then all you have the power of persuasion and hope someone whose opinion gets the "MUST" stamp notices you.
It doesn't mean your words can't make a difference. It means you have to persuade and beg for them to make a difference.
When your opinion really matters, you don't have to beg for an audience. You have a right to affect the outcome, rather than request an extension of the privilege from those who do have the rights.
------
Of course, the flip side of it is that the responsibility for the result rests entirely on the people who got to vote. Everyone else may have banged their drums and shouted their opinions, but if they affected the outcome, it is because the people with the rights to vote in that election decided to let them (or else did not vote, which means they failed in their responsibilities).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Except it does matter. Just as a simple example, people outside of Arizona are reacting to Arizona's recent laws on illegal immigration. And, whether they are right or wrong to do so, they have the right to do so.
If a state consistently elects racists by a wide margin, I am going to treat the people from that state as largely racists. I'm also going to pressure my representatives to treat the people of that state and the state itself as supportive of racism. And it is my right to do so.
Places I don't have a vote in have the right to elect whomever they want without my direct interference, but I have the right to both attempt to indirectly influence who they vote for and to react as I deem appropriate to whom they choose to represent themselves.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
If the state next to mine starts to elect crazies, and they start spilling into and making a mess of my state, then I absolutely have the right to affect the outcome of their next election.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nope, you don't have the right, unless you are a citizen of that state. You CAN, if granted the privilege, and you can be very persuasive and loud and eloquent in your requests, but you don't have the right.
---
You DO have the right to elect your own officials and charge them with some state-to-state negotiations, and you have some rights to sue under federal law. But you don't have the right to directly affect the outcome of their elections. Elect your own Senator.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:When your opinion really matters, you don't have to beg for an audience. You have a right to affect the outcome, rather than request an extension of the privilege from those who do have the rights.
*shrug* I can agree with most of what you're saying, except that you're defining 'matter' in what seems to be a very narrow way.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I can because there is nothing denying me the privilege to head on over to the offending state and start playing politics. Maybe it's not an explicit right, but there is nothing preventing or even discouraging me to do so.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is a combination of several explicit rights: the right to interstate travel and the right to free speech.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
White Whale, we are not (here) talking about state senators, we are talking about US Senators. They make laws for the country not just their own states. The Senator from Idaho has as much impact on the people of Illinois as he does the people of Idaho.* I don't get to vote for him but he has as much direct impact on my life as the Senators I do get to vote for.
*generally speaking not including weird backroom deals and pork.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
ah, okay. That's even more obvious. The point stands for both, though, I think.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, If you are using "matter" to mean "can vote or directly dictate how others vote", then, yeah, you're right. But with any other definition of the word matter, I don't see how what you are saying makes much sense.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
White Whale, your argument would work to some extent for the people in other states whose opinion mattered for the Prop 8 vote.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
How can people in the state directly dictate how others vote any more than people outside the state?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: ah, okay. That's even more obvious. The point stands for both, though, I think.
But if your words make the slightest difference in the election, it will be because the people whose opinions truly matter granted you respect/brain space and took your words into account. Which is a privilege.
It is your right to speak. It is not your right to make voters listen, which means if they do, you have been granted a privilege. When the hurlyburly's done, the opinions of the individual voters are the only ones that matter.
quote:How can people in the state directly dictate how others vote any more than people outside the state?
When people in the state CAN do is vote in the election, and therefore affect the outcome of the election directly.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Tell that to all of the powerful lobbyists.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How can people in the state directly dictate how others vote any more than people outside the state?
I'm not saying that they could. I'm saying that, by the only definition I can think of where what kat is saying makes sense, people who "matter" have to be able to direct affect the results of an election. Thus, they either can vote themselves or determine the votes of others. I'm not asserting that anyone can determine the votes of others.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Whatever happens outside the election, no matter how large the sturm and drang, only the election itself counts. Everything else is noise.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Whatever happens outside the election, no matter how large the sturm and drang, only the election itself counts. Everything else is noise.
errr...so, what the elected official does after being elected and how people react to that is just noise?
That just doesn't make any sense to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You deliberately misunderstood. Your problem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
kat, if all you are trying to say is that people outside the state don't get to vote for the senator from a particular state, I don't think anyone is disputing that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Whatever happens outside the election, no matter how large the sturm and drang, only the election itself counts. Everything else is noise.
Great, and I can (and have) influenced people's votes in states not my own. I can easily do the same in this circumstance (if I have not already). So even by your own artificially constrained metric of how my opinion matters or does not matter, I can show how it matters, and you're still wrong.
Is that understandable for you?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've actually come up with a way that someone outside a state can directly influence the election. Say, the candidate did something that would disqualify them for the post they are seeking, but this was not public knowledge. If someone from another state dug into this and exposed it to the proper people, what they did would "matter", even using kat's extremely limited definition of "matter".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Using uncommon words to call me a child does not refute the fact that older equals wiser is not a law, merely a decree from those who have attained power and do not wish to be challenged. How many proffesionals outside pollitics have peaked after the age of sixty? waited until they were classified as senior citizen to start a wildly successful company, or published thier first book to positive reviews and high sales after the age of seventy?
An accomplished man of 94 is simply going to do what he did when he was 74, despite what tools are at his disposal and the change of what his methods can do.
Age does not mean intelligent by default, and old age is the enemy of a healthy brain. Ignore that fact if you will, because I am just a mere brat whose fingers type away while my simple mind thinks about how pretty marbles are.
Uuuh Isaac Asimov? JRR Tolkeen?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Asimov died at the age of seventy-two, and aside from any short-stories his success was found between the ages of thirty and thirty-eight.
Tolkien had already written The Hobbit before the age of thirty-two, and the LOTR trilogy had been fully published when he was fifty-three. Neither example counters my statement.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Grandma Moses?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Goethe completed Faust (generally considered to be the greatest play written in the German language) when he was in his 80s.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Its been rare in human history for people to live into their nineties and rare for people to make any contribution that is remembered long after their death so it is not in the least surprising that their are few great works around from nonagenarians. There are however many noted people who continued to make great scholarly and creative contributions until their deaths.
J.S. Bach, for example, dictated his final Choral while on his death bed at the age of 65.
Albert Einstein continued to publish original scientific studies well into his 70s.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Tolkien had already written The Hobbit before the age of thirty-two, and the LOTR trilogy had been fully published when he was fifty-three. Neither example counters my statement.
Sure, AchillesHeel, go ahead and cherry-pick your rebuttals like this while ignoring the many other statements and examples that highlight the mistaken claims you're making.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Albert Einstein continued to publish original scientific studies well into his 70s. "
This is somewhat misleading. The bulk of Einstein's original work of importance was done before he turned 35.
Physics is definitely a field dominated by young people, as even where you can find important work done by people past the age of 40, it is usually a continuation of work that they started in their 20's.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
AC, your points don't need refuting. They are [poorly thought out opinions of a young man, not facts, not truth.
Truth as you see it doesn't equal actual truth, you know, not always.
I love how your bridle at any mention or comment about your age being a factor whenever you make a comment, yet feel it is fine for you to rant about older people.
Not all young people are boneheads, and not all old people are ridged and inflexible. Considering the AVERAGE life span of a person was considerably lower than it is today it is not unusual that most of a person's work of note was done before age 60. However, not only is life expectancy higher now, but more and more of those people are in better health as they age than ever before.
But don't allow actual facts to sway you. I am sure that your WEALTH of experience is more valid. Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
My argument is not about people older than myself, my argument is that choices made by the American govt should not be left to the elderly such as a ninety-four year old man or anyone else whose inherant health risks endanger thier ability to think clearly or to respond effectivly under pressure. Being above the age of seventy-five makes that a point of worry for me. As to the idea that longer life-spans will increase the regularity of proffesionals finding thier greatest success later in life I ask a question, if you were a proffessional making more than 100,000 dollars a year regularly as early as thirty-five when would you want to retire? very few people with the will and the way to retire young would pass it up, and they certainly wouldnt practice all the way into thier eighties just for fun.
And yes, I do happen to agitate slightly when a persons counter point is a one sentence remark attempting to befuddle me and under-developed brain. And notice that while some of my iterations havent exactly been copy and pasted from a scientific journal that I have not resorted to sarcasm as my solitary rebuttal.
My concern is matters of great urgency and importance being left in the hands of people who do not have proper connection to our current state of affairs to handle them properly due to either health or simply the inability to access information competently. Sen. McCain cannot use the internet, therefore if information is not relayed to him through personal contact, a phone or printed document he must rely on an intermediary to access potentially volatile and and important information dealing with our govt. In this information age this man who deals with what happens to our country cannot regularly form his own opinions without an aide navigating the internet for him, or more foolish yet a United States senator simply does not utilize the greatest tool for knowledge that humanity has ever created at all. Instead he just votes according to what he is told and what he feels like without investigating subjects himself.
In no field aside from political office is being above sixty-five an absolute positive, and I cant understand why. By that age most other proffesionals have retired after so many years of difficult and lucritive work, or been surpassed by younger generations with a greater education in processes that the elder themselves may have observed come into common practice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: In no field aside from political office is being above sixty-five an absolute positive, and I cant understand why. By that age most other proffesionals have retired after so many years of difficult and lucritive work, or been surpassed by younger generations with a greater education in processes that the elder themselves may have observed come into common practice.
You really can't understand why? Politics is, in part, about building networks of personal power. It takes time to do so. Connections matter, for better or worse. It's really quite simple. It's not a product of some sinister plan to discriminate against the young by uplifting the old and feeble, it's just the nature of the business.
As for McCain and the Internet, really, how much real research do you imagine politicians do of their own at that level, AchillesHeel? They've all got people to do that for them. Evaluating the trustworthiness and cleverness of the people who report to them is more valuable than having the latest Firefox plugins.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I understand they couldn't decide if they wanted a cross or an eternal flame as Byrd's tombstone.. so they combined the two.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)