Main Menu

News:

Please be aware of the Forum Rules of Conduct.

Pepper Spray IS a vegetable!

Started by DoctorHarte, November 23, 2011, 10:01:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

DoctorHarte

Just wanted to say, US Congress has declared Pepper Spray to be a vegetable, but I can't seem to find it at the super-market..  ???
New Harte Family: Eros (Vix Tiramora, EC), Nyx (Fronen, BT), Chance (Avernus, DW), Scopuli (Gothica, Colonies)

Old Harte Family: Hyperion (Aurvandil, DW), William (IVF, BT), Katrina (Fronen, BT), Callandor II (Ohnar West, FE)

Gustav Kuriga

It's amazing they find the time to do all this. Considering we have a massive debt, the conflict in Afghanistan (along with helping set up a stable government there), the recent revolution in Libya we helped support, and so on, I'm amazed they find the time to do such important work as figuring out whether pepper spray is a vegetable...

Shizzle


Norrel

Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on November 23, 2011, 10:40:16 PM
It's amazing they find the time to do all this. Considering we have a massive debt, the conflict in Afghanistan (along with helping set up a stable government there), the recent revolution in Libya we helped support, and so on, I'm amazed they find the time to do such important work as figuring out whether pepper spray is a vegetable...
psst
its a joke
"it was never wise for a ruler to eschew the trappings of power, for power itself flows in no small measure from such trappings."
- George R.R. Martin ; Melisandre

Chenier

Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on November 23, 2011, 10:40:16 PM
It's amazing they find the time to do all this. Considering we have a massive debt, the conflict in Afghanistan (along with helping set up a stable government there), the recent revolution in Libya we helped support, and so on, I'm amazed they find the time to do such important work as figuring out whether pepper spray is a vegetable...

Considering the Republicans aren't even open to the slightest form of compromise, I think that if they actually debated such things, it'd actually be a better use of their time. ;)
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

De-Legro

Quote from: Chénier on November 24, 2011, 12:50:43 AM
Considering the Republicans aren't even open to the slightest form of compromise, I think that if they actually debated such things, it'd actually be a better use of their time. ;)

Compromise would possibly allow the current government to actually DO something, which may make them look effective and thus increase their chances of re-election. The opposition here in Australia is doing the same thing, constant negativity and blocking every piece of legislation they can, all on the premise of "holding the government to task and making sure they are accountable" when it is obvious to anyone that can think the reason is purely to hamstring the government to increase their own chance at election. Sure some policies are bad and need to be opposed, but it has gotten to the stage where the opposition party will cripple the country, so long as they are confident they can shift the blame to an "ineffective" government.
Previously of the De-Legro Family
Now of representation unknown.

Chenier

Quote from: De-Legro on November 24, 2011, 12:56:25 AM
Compromise would possibly allow the current government to actually DO something, which may make them look effective and thus increase their chances of re-election. The opposition here in Australia is doing the same thing, constant negativity and blocking every piece of legislation they can, all on the premise of "holding the government to task and making sure they are accountable" when it is obvious to anyone that can think the reason is purely to hamstring the government to increase their own chance at election. Sure some policies are bad and need to be opposed, but it has gotten to the stage where the opposition party will cripple the country, so long as they are confident they can shift the blame to an "ineffective" government.

I know, it's disgusting.

It's not as bad here in Canada, but that's basically because every party not in power has imploded recently. At the federal level, the once upon a time "natural ruling" party, the Liberal Part of Canada, gradually decayed after the sponsorship scandal and is now left in tatters, without a leader after having chewed up four leaders over the last five elections. The New Democratic Party's (new official opposition) leader died to prostate cancer, so there's also a huge void there. The Bloc Québécois got decimated and the leader left as a result, so again, huge void there. Provincially speaking, the Parti Québécois (official opposition) had huge dissent a few months back, many MPs bailed out, two of them are joining to form a new party. An old-time ex-PQ guy who had quite long ago is also forming a new party promising lots of change (details are, imo, intentionally sketchy as he knows people want change, but wouldn't agree on what kind of change). One of the opposition parties is thinking of merging with this new party...

Both at the federal (Conservative Party of Canada) and provincial (Parti Libéral du Québec), the ruling parties stand strong against crippled opposition. But since they have majority governments anyways, the opposition couldn't do !@#$ even if they were organized. Considering our economic situation isn't as bad as the US', I'd honestly happily trade the political context. I'd rather the PLQ be paralyzed than it be allowed to continue screwing us over. And it's fairly clear that if they had a minority government and the opposition wasn't in such turmoil, we'd have the same blind partisanry, considering what I've heard of our various ministers and MPs lately.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

Vellos

Quote from: DoctorHarte on November 23, 2011, 10:01:12 PM
Just wanted to say, US Congress has declared Pepper Spray to be a vegetable, but I can't seem to find it at the super-market..  ???

Meh. The crowd-control concentration of pepper spray that US cops use is pretty nasty stuff (been sprayed with it myself once), but hardly some great atrocity. Even in the UC Davis incident, the cops appear, from most accounts of the incident, to have attempted to peacefully remove the protesters several times, and only to have used pepper spray after protesters refused to vacate the space. IMHO, protestors do not have a right to obstruct a public service or good (such as a road, a walkway, or a park) unless that specific public service or good is identifiably and directly connected to an active and ongoing injustice (such as lunch counters in the 1960's). Protesting by obstructing a sidewalk in a college town that is overwhelmingly liberal anyways is just childish.

Quote from: De-Legro on November 24, 2011, 12:56:25 AM
Compromise would possibly allow the current government to actually DO something, which may make them look effective and thus increase their chances of re-election. The opposition here in Australia is doing the same thing, constant negativity and blocking every piece of legislation they can, all on the premise of "holding the government to task and making sure they are accountable" when it is obvious to anyone that can think the reason is purely to hamstring the government to increase their own chance at election. Sure some policies are bad and need to be opposed, but it has gotten to the stage where the opposition party will cripple the country, so long as they are confident they can shift the blame to an "ineffective" government.

That's one interpretation. I actually have an increasingly positive outlook on the matter. The reason is that I don't think politicians are idiots. Evil, maybe, but not dumb.

Most politicians recognize that budgets eventually need balancing. Most politicians recognize that there is no way to balance the budget without some kind of political suicide, especially in a nation where the electorate is extremely radical and polar. In such an environment, "compromise" will create primary challenges that result in MORE radical representatives being elected, and MORE protracted stalemate. Thus the optimal strategy for representatives seeking the "best interests of the nation" is to create situations wherein budgets can be balanced without any party (or possibly the other party) being viewed as the group that "did it," whether "it" is tax increases or spending cuts.

That is, with things like the supercommittee and last-minute brinskmanship and apocalyptic deal-making, representatives can make some kind of cut without having to take full political blame, meaning that electorates won't hold them as accountable for disagreeable or uncomfortable policy positions, meaning that they won't elect even more intractable candidates.

Think about it. The supercommittee failing triggered huge spending cuts and a (slightly) more balanced budget, composed almost entirely of spending cuts (the remainder being a few technical points and interest deductions), apparently a Republican "victory." Yet it is evidently a politically costly one, but one that also fulfilled something most people know is true but that is political suicide: the Pentagon's budget needs to go on the chopping block.

Somehow, without compromise, a compromise position happened. Conservative Republicans prevented tax increases, which is apparently the end-all-beat-all of their policy platform, and Liberal Democrats basically got to slash somewhere between $400 and $600 billion from the Pentagon's budget.

Brinksmanship and multi-tiered commitment mechanics with major consequences are a reasonable practice in a political environment where passionate activists un-interested in political necessity (or national welfare?) coincide with competent, ideologically committed but moderate representatives of the electorate, who do care for national welfare.
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

Chenier

If you were talking about the average canadian/québécois MP, I'd say you give them too much credit. Don't really know much about the american elected, though, but I tend to believe that they aren't all scheming geniuses as you seem to suggest they are.

I also doubt that fear for the "greater good" is that much of a cause, else I'd expect a lot of ex-officials to testify to such a thing fairly regularly. Just looks like partisanry to me, though this doesn't mean that the people doing it are stupid.  After all, a lot of money is involved here...
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

Vellos

Quote from: Chénier on November 24, 2011, 05:05:25 AM
I tend to believe that they aren't all scheming geniuses as you seem to suggest they are.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that going bankrupt is bad, but compromise gets you killed by your voters... so you've got to find a way to not go bankrupt without compromising. Answer? A deadly game of brinksmanship. Both sides have nukes, and at least some on both side are probably willing to use them (i.e. let the nation collapse). But through a series of careful aggressions, proxy wars, periodic detente, and political exhaustion, the issue can be resolved. Compromise would be optimal, but compromise leaves you to open to attack.

The world is my prisoner's dilemma.

Quote from: Chénier on November 24, 2011, 05:05:25 AM
I also doubt that fear for the "greater good" is that much of a cause, else I'd expect a lot of ex-officials to testify to such a thing fairly regularly. Just looks like partisanry to me, though this doesn't mean that the people doing it are stupid.  After all, a lot of money is involved here...

I think that most politicians have at least some notion, however misguided, that they are acting, ultimately, for the good of the nation. Not all, but most.
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

De-Legro

Quote from: Vellos on November 24, 2011, 05:32:56 AM
It doesn't take a genius to realize that going bankrupt is bad, but compromise gets you killed by your voters... so you've got to find a way to not go bankrupt without compromising. Answer? A deadly game of brinksmanship. Both sides have nukes, and at least some on both side are probably willing to use them (i.e. let the nation collapse). But through a series of careful aggressions, proxy wars, periodic detente, and political exhaustion, the issue can be resolved. Compromise would be optimal, but compromise leaves you to open to attack.

The world is my prisoner's dilemma.

I think that most politicians have at least some notion, however misguided, that they are acting, ultimately, for the good of the nation. Not all, but most.

I guess one of my main problems with this is that all they do is perpetuate the situation where such actions are necessary, that is if I am even willing to buy into the notion that it is a round about way of accomplishing something, which I'm not entirely convinced of, and certainly isn't the case in the Australian system.

The end result is that such actions are constantly required, meaning the compromise result may be satisfactory but not optimal, and take far longer to arrive at which in many situations only results in the end compromise needed to be sufficient to dig you out of an even bigger hole. Look at the debt crisis in Europe, had nations like Greece been willing to take austerity measures MONTHS ago when other nations first started pushing for it, then would they need to be making such serious cuts now?
Previously of the De-Legro Family
Now of representation unknown.

egamma

The main problem with the American system of government is the two-party system, which is reinforced at pretty much all levels of government by winner-take-all systems. A proportional voting system would ideally produce 4 or more political parties, each with less than 30% of the votes, and political parties will have to at least get one other party to go along with whatever they're proposing.

Zakilevo

Vote for Ron Paul!

I think Congress also decided to put Pizza as a vegetable as well. The reason behind it was because people are trying to make kids eat more vegetables and Congress thought why not put Pizza into the vegetable family so schools can continuously supply kids with Pizza. They are not helping Americans with their obesity problem.

Silverhawk

If I am right, then tomato paste was declared a vegtable by congress for school lunches. But as european I don't pay much attention to the news on the other side of the ocean so I might be wrong.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; In practice, there is.

Chenier

I trust that most politicians in Canada probably think they are doing the greater good. And that the vast majority of political candidates are convinced of it.

However, in systems like the states where there is no electoral spending cap, then my trust in said politicians lowers quite considerably. It can easily become more important to satisfy the people funding your campaign than the people you are supposed to work for. After all, even if you screw them over, you can still get them to vote for you with good ads. Or at least not make them vote for the other.

I also don't buy your notion that all solutions must be publicly loathed by all parties in order to only be reached by hidden compromise. Fixing a few root problems by causing a wide array of other ones could have been better delt by simply being gutsy and doing the right thing to begin with. Many governments get themselves elected by promising measures that are generally considered unpopular, after all. Nor do I, from the little I know, consider that "compromise" to be a good deal: even many of US' richest were saying: "tax us more!", and there's none of that. It's trading one half of the solution for the other half, doesn't bring anyone anywhere.

As for bankruptcy being bad... As any economic event, nothing bad for everyone. At least, in their head. There are plenty of people around that believe that the government is evil incarnate, and while they may not wish it to completely fail, the temptation to push it to the edge in order to force it to cut it's spending could be of interest. The rich would then benefit from the lowered taxation, as they can pay for all the public services they lost anyways.

Furthermore, whenever I watch videos of parliament, what I see is nothing like what you describe, or how De-Legro seems to describe. Because unlike in the states where the ruling party doesn't have a majority in both chambers, in Canada the tories have a majority in both the lower and upper chambre, and in Québec the liberals have a majority in the lower chamber (got rid of the useless upper chambre). Both parties have a majority that allows them to do whatever the hell they want, be damned the public opinion and the opposition's stances.

Yet, we see the exact same kind of partisanry in there than we hear about in the states, where they lack any power whatsoever to influence government policy. They bicker, they oppose just to oppose, they accuse the government of doing things they do or did themselves, and basically just try to make it sound as if they have the perfect solutions and that the government is bringing ruin to everyone (though it's true).

Just as the republicans are doing. Except that since they have the power to actually block the project, then it's all really a cunning plan of compromise by well-intended do-gooders who want to save people from their misguided selves? I have a hard time believing that.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron