http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2012/05/20/david-frum-on-america-s-political-evolution0.html
:unsure:
Yes
Certainly Britain was a better place when we didn't have freaks who had trained themselves since they were 12 for the job as MPs. See no reason why America wouldn't be better with normal people too.
To the video- overall yes but a little voice in the back of my head keeps saying this is the sort of "lots of people who can stop things but nobody who has the power to do things" thinking that leads to fascism. :p
I am constantly pissed off about the college dropouts who worked within the various youth parties and drop out of college as soon as they get a job within government or within the party. It's just sad to think about.
How did we get there, Frum?
Because of assholes like you. You stupid cunt.
Quote from: Scipio on May 27, 2012, 08:28:03 PM
How did we get there, Frum?
Because of assholes like you. You stupid cunt.
Damn straight. Frum was the worst President the US has ever had.
Well, we did have a civil war with drunk uneducated congressmen...
The major problem these days is that a politician must always be "on". Before TV news and the like, people typically only saw politicians at speeches and campaign rallies. People tended to assume and even expected that politicians were always like that. Always giving the other side hell. When actually in office politicians wouldn't make speeches at each other all the time. They would make speeches and debate when Congress was in cession and when they had the floor, but most of the time they would not. Often they were quite cordial with one another, and laws and policies would be hammered out behind close doors. In drawing rooms or offices and such. Today a congressmen never knows when the camera is on him. He's constantly watched and everything they say has a decent chance to be recorded. They can never afford to stop making speeches and debating. As a result he's always "on", always in speech mode, always expected to give the other side hell. It's like trying to write law during the middle of a televised debate.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2012, 08:47:50 PM
Well, we did have a civil war with drunk uneducated congressmen...
The major problem these days is that a politician must always be "on". Before TV news and the like, people typically only saw politicians at speeches and campaign rallies. People tended to assume and even expected that politicians were always like that. Always giving the other side hell. When actually in office politicians wouldn't make speeches at each other all the time. They would make speeches and debate when Congress was in cession and when they had the floor, but most of the time they would not. Often they were quite cordial with one another, and laws and policies would be hammered out behind close doors. In drawing rooms or offices and such. Today a congressmen never knows when the camera is on him. He's constantly watched and everything they say has a decent chance to be recorded. They can never afford to stop making speeches and debating. As a result he's always "on", always in speech mode, always expected to give the other side hell. It's like trying to write law during the middle of a televised debate.
I partially agree with this.The advent of modern news media and the 24/7 news cycle that comes with it has put much more pressure on members of congress. Of course, that's not the whole reason. There are lots of other factors in play.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2012, 08:47:50 PM
Well, we did have a civil war with drunk uneducated congressmen...
The major problem these days is that a politician must always be "on". Before TV news and the like, people typically only saw politicians at speeches and campaign rallies. People tended to assume and even expected that politicians were always like that. Always giving the other side hell. When actually in office politicians wouldn't make speeches at each other all the time. They would make speeches and debate when Congress was in cession and when they had the floor, but most of the time they would not. Often they were quite cordial with one another, and laws and policies would be hammered out behind close doors. In drawing rooms or offices and such. Today a congressmen never knows when the camera is on him. He's constantly watched and everything they say has a decent chance to be recorded. They can never afford to stop making speeches and debating. As a result he's always "on", always in speech mode, always expected to give the other side hell. It's like trying to write law during the middle of a televised debate.
On that I recently read a commentary in German news how political debate in Germany (and the associated scoring of points with the public) has moved away from the parliament floor and into political "talkshows", interviews (that are chronically uncritical) etc.
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2012, 08:34:38 PM
Quote from: Scipio on May 27, 2012, 08:28:03 PM
How did we get there, Frum?
Because of assholes like you. You stupid cunt.
Damn straight. Frum was the worst President the US has ever had.
And you're only half joking.
Increased pressure and the advent of the "career politician." The politicians make a career out of pretending to foresee patterned events while completely failing to look into nuances that completely derail their policies. Since things keep getting passed around from subcommittee to subcommittee, the houses aren't taking enough time to get an adequate number of viewpoints and properly evaluate the effects of legislation.
Is there any actual evidence that members of Congress as a whole drink less now than they did in the 1950s?
Quote from: Scipio on May 28, 2012, 08:50:42 AM
And you're only half joking.
Well, the pronunciation half of any given speech wasn't him...
Quote from: dps on May 28, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
Is there any actual evidence that members of Congress as a whole drink less now than they did in the 1950s?
Everybody drinks less in America than they did in the 50s, don't see why Congress would necessarily be an exception. IIRC, the 1830s were the peak for US booze consumption, averaging out to 5-6 drinks a day per man, woman, and child, and it's been downhill ever since, with a couple of small upturns (German breweries at the end of the 19th C. and then the 1970s).
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 28, 2012, 12:48:28 PM
Increased pressure and the advent of the "career politician." The politicians make a career out of pretending to foresee patterned events while completely failing to look into nuances that completely derail their policies. Since things keep getting passed around from subcommittee to subcommittee, the houses aren't taking enough time to get an adequate number of viewpoints and properly evaluate the effects of legislation.
There have been "career politicians" for a very long time.
We still have drunk uneducated Congressmen.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 28, 2012, 09:59:20 PM
Quote from: dps on May 28, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
Is there any actual evidence that members of Congress as a whole drink less now than they did in the 1950s?
Everybody drinks less in America than they did in the 50s, don't see why Congress would necessarily be an exception. IIRC, the 1830s were the peak for US booze consumption, averaging out to 5-6 drinks a day per man, woman, and child, and it's been downhill ever since, with a couple of small upturns (German breweries at the end of the 19th C. and then the 1970s).
I was under the impression that alcohol consumption among Americans as a whole had risen since the 1950s, not declined, but I can't seem to find any figures on it one way or another. Where did you get your info?
Quote from: dps on May 29, 2012, 02:58:54 PM
I was under the impression that alcohol consumption among Americans as a whole had risen since the 1950s, not declined, but I can't seem to find any figures on it one way or another. Where did you get your info?
A documentary called something like "Alcohol in America" that I downloaded circa 2004... I've since deleted it, but I keep the factoids upstairs. :goodboy: I remember them saying that the average per capita consumption in the 1830s was about 5 drinks a day.
I think you may be right to the extent that alcohol consumption increased a fair amount in the 60s and 70s and then leveled off...with spirits taking a huge hit since the 80s and wine increasing in turn.
Also, I remember that the idea that Prohibition increased consumption is a myth. It was moderately effective at reducing total alcohol consumption, and alcohol-related ailments dropped significantly.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 29, 2012, 05:55:00 PM
Also, I remember that the idea that Prohibition increased consumption is a myth. It was moderately effective at reducing total alcohol consumption, and alcohol-related ailments dropped significantly.
I believe you are correct. Alcohol consumption dropped quite a bit after the Volstead act. In the the 1920's it steadily rose but never surpassed the pre-prohibition level until prohibition was rescinded.
Another booze-related factoid I recall is that underage drinkers account for about a quarter of total US alcohol sales.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 29, 2012, 06:18:21 PM
Another booze-related factoid I recall is that underage drinkers account for about a quarter of total US alcohol sales.
I could see a quarter by volume but a quarter by cost would be harder.
Why does the world insist on treating David Frum semi-seriously when he wrings his hands about the very problems he personally created? Is it because he's a Canadian?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 29, 2012, 06:29:46 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 29, 2012, 06:18:21 PM
Another booze-related factoid I recall is that underage drinkers account for about a quarter of total US alcohol sales.
I could see a quarter by volume but a quarter by cost would be harder.
Yeah, it may have been units. The price of a single glass of Joan Robinson's finest could probably get you into 18-pack territory for Natural Ice.
Quote from: Scipio on May 29, 2012, 06:50:12 PM
Why does the world insist on treating David Frum semi-seriously when he wrings his hands about the very problems he personally created? Is it because he's a Canadian?
Stay with the topic.