22 Apr 2003 | teddy fuxpin said...

Happy Earth Day, Earth! You don't look a day over 4.55 billion years, plus or minus 1%.

22 Apr 2003 | Smiler said...

Maybe Bush will do something useful on this Earth day and sign all those environmental agreements he refused to sign but everyone else did. No didn't think so.

To be honest I was frankly disgusted that he didn't - Blair should of used this as bargaining power :)

22 Apr 2003 | Eamon said...

Brilliant marketing by Toyota: I just received an information pack on the completely redesigned 2004 Prius not one hour ago.

http://www.toyota.com/newprius/

A new powerplant, a more efficient hybrid system, liftback, 60/40 rear seats, PZEV, bigger, faster... sigh. Sometimes, being an early adopter hurts.

22 Apr 2003 | Don Schenck said...

That 2004 Prius is in my sights, believe me. Although it doesn't have the performance I want ...

... BUT ...

I can buy an older sports car for weekend fun.

22 Apr 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Earth Day should be a national holiday. Seriously. It should be about preserving the environment, working for peace, and embracing diversity.

In fact, I'd like to see a progressive city or town BAN AUTO TRAVEL on Earth Day.

22 Apr 2003 | fajalar said...

Go Terra, go Terra, it's your Earth Day!

Not much is happening until the weekend around here. But today we will be planting a BUNCH of plants in our yard (not using a motorized tiller, Don... doing it by hand tool), and laying down 320 pounds out potting soil in the garden, and whiskey barrels.

22 Apr 2003 | Cam said...

I beleive that the very first version of NCSA Mosaic was released April 22, 1993 so that would make the web browser 10 years old today.

22 Apr 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Faj -- Yesterday, my wife planted some heirloom tomatoes and some gourmet lettuce in our -- yes, you guessed it -- Square Foot Garden.

22 Apr 2003 | fajalar said...

The rest of the veggies go in this weekend. Mostly there are just flowers right now. I bought 4 flats of sweet elisum (mangled spelling to be sure), and that stuff speads.

And Don, we're good friends, call me Fa. :P

(If you haven't seen Midwinters Tale (link above), it is very funny. One of the characters says something to the extent of "Call me Fa," which is, apparently, short for Fadge.)

22 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

oh... were going to create a website about waste water, buy another natural gas car (our write-off runs out soon on the current one), install another double-panned window in the bathroom, build website #4 for a german environmetal agency, recycle all disposable goods except evil goods such as shoes, attend a conference at the Wuppertal Institiute and torture Peters parents into separating thier plastic and glass properly. just the normal shit.

22 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

In fact, I'd like to see a progressive city or town BAN AUTO TRAVEL on Earth Day.
---
Speaking of which, we were just talking about how un-"earth friendly" the autobahn is. Driving however fast you want burns gas like crazy and to top it off, many autobahns have only 2-3 lanes! that has pissed me off from the beginning: the guys in the left lane are driving 190-240 km, in the right lane, maybe an average of 100 km. Youre lucky when you have a third "middle lane" so you dont have to constantly push the gas and slam on the brakes. (and believe me, you have no choice unless you want to get rammed) How un-green of Germany.

22 Apr 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Fa -- *grin* -- thanks for the "heads up" on the movie. I'll catch it this weekend.

22 Apr 2003 | hurley#1 said...

For the first time in my life, I'm getting political.

I'm making a donation to the Democratic Party (not that I've ever registered as a Democrat, or that I agree with their party line, but realistically they're the only ones who can prevent Bush from having a second term as president).

I've written to the national headquarters of the Green Party urging them to refrain from fielding a presidential candidate in 2004 (if the election ends up being another close race, which admittedly seems very unlikely right now, we don't need Ralph Nader handing another 4 years to Bush).

I've also been researching ways in which the hundreds of thousands of people in other countries who marched against the war and against Bush can help ensure that he doesn't get re-elected. Obviously they can't contribute money to the Democratic Party, either directly or indirectly, but there are other organizations that they can legally give money to that might indirectly help bring more votes to a Democratic candidate.

22 Apr 2003 | Steve said...

I'm going out and making my friends by me beer tonight.

But that's only because my birthday and Eath Day coincide (in fact, I was born on the original Earth Day back in 1970).

Otherwise, I just do the same things I do every day, and try to act reasonably responsibly as much as I can, like taking advantage of recycling where possible, driving my reasonably fuel-efficient car (~27 mpg in the city), not leaving lights on all over the place, etc.

22 Apr 2003 | bully said...

22 Apr 2003 | ~bc said...

Hurley#1, it's not the Green Party's fault Bush got elected. Its the people a) who voted for him, b) the people who didn't vote at all. It's downright insulting for you to blame him on them.

If anything, you should crusade for a more democratic means of voting. I suggest you google "instant runoff voting" and "preference balloting." Also look up the topic on Kuro5hin.org because I remember an indepth story on the topic there. The bottom line is your theory about Nader supporters prefering Gore to Bush II better supports voting reform than thoughtlessly blaming the Greens.

It's especially insulting to the Greens because you're using a forum on Earth Day to boost the Democrats, who only pay lip service to the environment anyhow.

22 Apr 2003 | Steve said...

~bc, it's simple math that Nader cost Gore the election. In both New Hampshire and Florida, if you assuming that only one-third of Nader voters would have voted for Gore (a safe assumption, and probably a conservative one), Gore would have won either state and therefore the election. Nader and his voters are directly to blame for what happened in the election.

But, the blame's shared. Gore ran a crappy campaign, and that's the biggest reason behind what happend. But to say that Nader and the Greens aren't also responsible is just plain wishful thinking at best.

22 Apr 2003 | hurley#1 said...

When it became clear that the election was going to be close, a lot of people urged Nader to pull out in order to avoid giving the edge to Bush. He didn't, and that's when it became clear that he didn't really care about the issues or the subpopulations that the Greens supposedly stand for. If he did, he would have at least tried to avoid any possibility that someone with Bush's ideology would be running this country for four and possibly eight years. The people who claimed that there was "no difference" between Gore and Bush on issues like the environment and social issues were wildly off the mark. Even though my political views tend to be much more aligned with the Greens than any other party, they completely lost my support and respect in the last election. I agree with Steve that Gore was partly to blame, but as he says, it was simple math.

And even if you don't buy the argument that Nader gave Bush the presidency, my main point was that the Greens shouldn't field a candidate next year simply because the stakes are too high to risk siphoning votes away from the Democrats. We've all witnessed what Bush and Company can do; you can imagine what more he could do with another four years.

23 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

It was interesting to hear someone counter recycling. It always seemed like such a pure endeavor - a harmless thing to do. I am not saying I believe everything he said, but he was pretty convincing.
---
interesting. I agree - the guy has some convincing points. Manditory recycling will probably be avoidable for a while in the US, until they run out of space. New England states will be most likely the first to start.

I heard the other day from a guy that builds wind tubines complaining that industries didnt do thier homework before building turbines; after having built one the oldest 20 yrs ago, they are discovering that all life within a ca. 10 meter radius dies. Insects and animals avoid being near these things.

23 Apr 2003 | hurley#1 said...

From an efficiency standpoint - it's more efficient and less costly to manufacture new materials than it is to recycle and reuse

That may be true for some materials from the manufacturer's point of view, but you have to look at the costs through the whole loop. Overall, recycling tends to saves energy and reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. In many communities, reycling is cheaper than waste disposal in a landfill.

Right now, the United States recycles 42 percent of all paper, 40 percent of all plastic soft drink bottles, 55 percent of all aluminum soft drink and beer cans, 57 percent of all steel packaging, and 52 percent of all major appliances. These in fact are the materials that make the most economic sense to recycle.

For more info check out EPA's recycling page.

By the way, the Cato Institute (the source for the claim that recycling is less efficient and more expensive than using new materials) is a libertarian think-tank whose reports tend to be very ideologically biased, so keep that in mind if you read their report.

23 Apr 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Duh, sorry, that link to EPA's recycling page should be:

www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/recycle.htm

23 Apr 2003 | Darrel said...

You want to protect the environment and then try to convince the green party not to run?

Bwahahahahahaha!

Funny shit.

The democrats are marginally better than the republicans in terms of environmental issues. Bush, of course, is quite bad, regardless of his political leanings, so one could argue anything is better than bush.

As other's have said, if you TRULY believe that the greens got Bush elected, then you need to start rallying to reform how we do elections in this country. The green party is the only party that truly puts environmental issues up front. I'm not convinced that they are necessarily well rounded yet, but I'm all for a four-year 'let's clean up the place' president.

If you truly care about that, look in to instant run off voting.

23 Apr 2003 | SU said...

It was interesting to hear someone counter recycling. It always seemed like such a pure endeavor - a harmless thing to do. I am not saying I believe everything he said, but he was pretty convincing.

Recycling just adds, at most, a few stopping off points for materials before they eventually make their way to the landfill in another form. And when compared to the vast amounts of industrial waste that is generated annually, consumer recycling hardly seems like a drop in the bucket. What we really need is a new paradigm.

That said, I'm not going to stop recycling or buying recycled goods. Every little bit helps, at the least, slow down the crowding of local landfills.

23 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

you got that from me SU. fess up.

23 Apr 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Well, the Greens don't know how to compromise, which means that a Green president wouldn't accomplish anything anyway because all of his or her proposals would be rejected by Congress. We live in a multi-issue world, and the environment is only one of many competing priorities. The people who vote Green tend to be mostly college students or well-educated, well-off professionals, who can afford to view protecting the environment as their #1 priority because their daily needs are being met. Other people who are struggling to survive, out of work, or can't afford health care have different priorities.

23 Apr 2003 | Darrel said...

Well, the Greens don't know how to compromise, which means that a Green president wouldn't accomplish anything anyway because all of his or her proposals would be rejected by Congress.

And congress knows how to compromise? ;o)

Of course, the solution is to vote for Green congressfolk as well.

Other people who are struggling to survive, out of work, or can't afford health care have different priorities.

The green party focuses on environmental issues, but also on the lower end of the income spectrum. For those struggling to survive, the Green party has a lot to offer them:

greenparty.org/values.html

The biggest problem with the Green party is that they are average Schmoes. None of them have the stature and verbal skills that the slick, experienced dems and reps have.

The one advantage of the Greens, of course, is their total lack of any corporate financing. Of course, that would quickly change once they got into office, but at least they're starting with a clean slate, unlike Bush, who's about as dirty as they come in terms of ties to dirty-energy money. (BTW, somewhat related, many people believe that Bush won the election due to his strong pro-coal stance allowing him to win votes in the mid-eastern states.)

23 Apr 2003 | hurley#1 said...

The green party focuses on environmental issues, but also on the lower end of the income spectrum. For those struggling to survive, the Green party has a lot to offer them

Maybe so, but why do most low-income people vote for Democrats instead?

That was the thing that irked me the most about Nader and his supporters. They went ahead and took the risk of giving the election to Bush despite knowing the harm that a Bush presidency would likely inflict on low-income people and the environment -- the very people and issues that the Greens say they care about. Few of the people who voted Green would feel much direct negative impact themselves from Bush's policies, so they didn't stand to lose much if he won and they could afford to stick to their ideology. It just seems so hypocrytical.

23 Apr 2003 | JF said...

That was the thing that irked me the most about Nader and his supporters. They went ahead and took the risk of giving the election to Bush despite knowing the harm that a Bush presidency would likely inflict on low-income people and the environment -- the very people and issues that the Greens say they care about.

People should vote for who their believe in, not defensively to try to prevent someone less desirable from winning. If we all vote defensively, nothing is going to change. We'll just end up settling for the best of the worst instead of trying to get the best of the best. Besides, if we vote defensively, we'll never end up with who we really want -- we'll just end up with someone we'd prefer over someone else. Just my 2 cents.

23 Apr 2003 | hurley#1 said...

People should vote for who their believe in, not defensively to try to prevent someone less desirable from winning.

I totally agree in principle, and that's the way I've always voted, but I think this was a special case. Sometimes voting defensively for the "least bad" candidate makes sense if the stakes are high enough. Otherwise you end up having to live with the worst-case scenario. When you know that the person you really want to win isn't going to win because he's a niche candidate, and when you think that one of the two top candidates is potentially dangerous to the causes you care about, I think it makes sense to vote defensively.

I happened to vote for Al Gore in the last election because I believed in him (I've met him a few times and covered him fairly frequently when I worked as a journalist), so I personally wasn't voting defensively in this case.

23 Apr 2003 | ~bc said...

Sometimes voting defensively for the "least bad" candidate makes sense if the stakes are high enough

Bottomline is this: no one owns your vote. You are the only one that controls it. Additionally, you have no right in a democracy to tell someone how to vote, or whether to run or not run for office. It's against the whole idea of a democracy, and it's absolutely insulting to those you "don't deem worthy" of running, no matter what the circumstances. This country has fallen so far from democracy, and towards duopoly that if someone doesn't take a stand we mind as well appoint a king and be done with it.

Greens don't compromise
What exactly do you base this on? Not running for President doesn't sound like a compromise at all... have you ever actually spoken to a member of the party, or one of its candidates? You'll quickly see they're normal humans, not Greenpeace radicals. In fact the environment is only one of their ten platforms. They are as much for universal health care, true democracy, freedom of speech and addressing poverty as they are for cleaning up the planet. Do a little research and pretty soon you might agree that the Democrats should have been the party to step aside. Besides, they already had someone else running from their party: Bush.

23 Apr 2003 | Darrel said...

Maybe so, but why do most low-income people vote for Democrats instead?

My understanding is that most low-income people don't vote.

As for why people don't vote for 3rd parties, in general, I imagine there are several reasons. One being the reason you're citing...feelings of 'stealing' votes from the two main parties. Another reason is that 3rd parties have a lot less money, a lot less PR, and a lot less visibility. I'm sure there are many, many other reasons that really don't have much to do with the actual ideologies of any of the parties.

As for you considering Nader irresponsible by letting bush win, well, that's flawed logic. If a person cares about an issue, that's why they run. You are simply propogating the problem of an election system that favors two parties when you attempt to blame 3rd parties.

It just seems so hypocrytical.

No more hypocrytical than your stance. I know it's hard for most people to understand the flaws in the election system, but they're there.

And now that I've read JF's comments, all I can say is that he said it better than I could have.

Hurley, your rebuttal to JF's comments is defeatist. Voting defensively means that we will forever only have two parties. The system won't change with just two parties.

23 Apr 2003 | Steve said...

Random responses:

Re: Nader not caring about the possibility of tilting the election to Bush. This ignores the fact that this is precisely what Nader wanted to do. I'd have to spend some time hunting various archives for articles from 2-3 years ago, but he stated on more than one occasion that his true reason for running was to revive the progressive movement by destroying the Democratic party. He had a fantasy that if the Democrats were embarassed by a loss, the party would implode and a great deal of progressives would come running to the Greens or some other new party.

Of course, this ignores the fundamental issue that there is not a progressive majority in this country, the country is indeed on the moderately conservative side taken as a whole, and that someone who agrees with you partially is a better alternative than someone who does not agree with you at all. Demands of ideological purity, such as Nader and many progressives demand of the Democratic Party, is in my opinion wholly ineffective - you make big change in small increments, not in whole sweeps, since people are frightened of big change - and infantile.

Re: not voting defensively. We make choices like this all the time in life, so why not in voting? A lot of people complain about the quality of candidates but do little to get involved in the process of selecting candidates. That's where the decisions get made, and that's where people need to get involved. Yes, I prefer to vote for who I really want and try to do that as much as I can. But, there are times where you simply have to make the best choice out of the available alternatives. Just like in pretty much every facet of life. Democracy is pragmatic, not idealistic, and voting should be approached that way.

23 Apr 2003 | Darrel said...

we mind as well appoint a king and be done with it.

I thought we already did!? Having a son of an ex-president become president by swinging some questionable votes in a state that his brother governs with some help from the state that candidate was governing...well...it's hard to not say that there's *something* smelling like a family aristocracy there. ;o)
;o)

You'll quickly see they're normal humans, not Greenpeace radicals.

And that is what I think their biggest problem is. I think people have been conditioned to NOT want normal people running their country. Normal people? They're crazy! We need well polished politicians I tell you!

23 Apr 2003 | hurley#1 said...

have you ever actually spoken to a member of the party, or one of its candidates?

I have two friends and a few acquaintances who have run for various offices on the Green Party ticket, and a lot of my other friends voted Green in the last presidential election, so yeah, I'm pretty familiar with the Greens and their platform.

23 Apr 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Hurley, your rebuttal to JF's comments is defeatist. Voting defensively means that we will forever only have two parties. The system won't change with just two parties.

Like I said, voting defensively only makes sense in special cases. If, in 2004 it becomes clear from the polls that Bush is going to win by a large margin, then I think it would be great for the Greens to field a candidate for president, and I might even vote for that person.

My understanding is that most low-income people don't vote.

Yes, but when get-out-the-vote campaigns are effective and sign up a lot of new votes, the Democrats do very well. Get-out-the-vote organizations are required to be non-partisan and they aren't allowed to influence the voters, they're just supposed to get them signed up to vote.

23 Apr 2003 | Steve said...

They are as much for universal health care, true democracy, freedom of speech and addressing poverty as they are for cleaning up the planet.

There are plenty of Democrats who support the same things. And, Democrats are much more in line with those goals than Republicans. The idea that those two parties are the same is a complete fallacy, and is an outgrowth of all-or-nothing idealists who demand they get their way, that people toe to ideological purity, or they're going to take their ball and go home. Fundamentalists are not always religious nor conservative.

Do a little research and pretty soon you might agree that the Democrats should have been the party to step aside. Besides, they already had someone else running from their party: Bush.

This is exactly what Nader was publicy advocating, and this is exactly the problem I have with many Greens and Nader supporters. If anyone thinks Bush is the same as any of the Democrat candidates, in 2000 or 2004, they are frankly either so blinded by their ideology they can't see straight or just plain ignorant.

For better or for worse, this country's system has evolved to two parties. You have to work with the hand you're dealt. So try to work within the system as best possible. Wishing it were another way doesn't make it so. Even if I would want a very progressive person in the White House, it makes more sense for me to choose the more progressive of two alternatives that have a shot at winning than casting a wishful thinking vote. In my opinion. People can do whatever they wish with their votes, but they can't deny their role in what happens as a result of that choice.

23 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

Bush won because many liberal republicans voted for him. He got the right-wing, the middle and much of the left-wing rebublican vote too. Some friends of mine who voted for him say they are disappointed in the results thus far but I think it has mainly to do with his education reform promises which so far havent gotten much attention. Of course the US voting system is flawed, not to mention outdated, but Bush was elected. There is a major semi-to-ultra conservative populaton in the US. So dont blame Nader. Two party systems are not very productive.

23 Apr 2003 | Chris said...

I think a lot of you are in fantasyland if you think Gore winning in 2000 would have a material difference in the world today. Al-Queda started planning 9/11 while Clinton was President, there is no reason to believe Gore or anybody else being President would have changed that course of events. After 9/11 Gore would have to invade Afghanistan and go after Al-Queda, just as Bush did. It's mostly the same people in the intelligence and defense communities either way - so the Iraq issue would have come up too. Gore may have been more willing to play footsies with UN that Bush was, but ultimately Gore would have to face the fact that the UN could or would not contain Saddam and we would have to. In the meantime, how many more thousands of innocent Iraqis would have died under Saddam's rule?

The differences between the two major parties are minor, and many of those differences get compromised away in Congressional committees anyway. Until we have viable 3rd parties, every election will be a choice among the lessor of two evils. And we won't get viable 3rd choices until we have real reform in the election system - something like the instant runoff voting as discussed above. And lets face it - the two controlling parties have zero motivation to change anything that will ultimately hurt their ability to maintain power.

23 Apr 2003 | hurley#1 said...

I think a lot of you are in fantasyland if you think Gore winning in 2000 would have a material difference in the world today.

Wait, you're saying that Al Gore would have done all this?

I don't think so. Gore pulled his environmental punches as vice president under Clinton because Clinton was the boss, not him. But that doesn't mean that if Gore were president he would be relaxing environmental laws, putting industry-friendly officials in charge of scientific review committees, and basing his climate change policy primarily on input from oil and coal companies. There are enormous differences between Bush and Gore on many issues, not just environmental, and if you can't see them you're just blinded by ideology, as Steve said above.

23 Apr 2003 | Steve said...

There's nothing inherently good or bad about two-party systems, and nothing magical about multi-party systems, so it's a reach to say that two-party systems are not very productive or that a viable multi-party system is going to do us any good.

Italy has a vibrant multi-party system. The've had somewhere around 50 governments in the 58 years since the end of the war. Tough to get much done with that sort of turnover.

Germany has a viable multi-party system. But, no one in Germany (or West Germany) has held any real national power other than the SPD or the CDU/CSU. And it's not like Germany is a hotbed of innovation and governemntal momentum these days. In fact, the SPD is held back in part by the fact that they can not get very aggressive with needed labor reforms because they have to hold the Greens in the coalition to keep the government.

The Netherlands, also a multi-party system. Been dominated by one party for decades, with brief interruptions.

I could go on and on. Israel. Japan - which as I've argued before isn't really a democracy in the first place, but has many of the mechanisms even though the same party has run things pretty much every day since the American provisional goverment left in the late 40s or early 50s.

In fact, I'd argue that the countries that probably have been most effective about dealing with change from an industrial to post-industrial world are countries that are, for all intents and purposes, two-party systems. UK, US, Canada, Australia (at least, if I remember right, Australia is essentially two-party). France is in better shape than most of the rest of the Continent, at least among large countries, and has been a de facto two-party system for the last several decades - sure, there are other parties, but has anyone other than the Gaullist conservatives and the Socialists held power or influence of any import? Has the transition always been smooth for the two-party countries? No. It hasn't been smooth for anyone. It's a difficult, wrenching period we're going through, on a par with the huge upheaval that occurred during the Industrial Revolution starting 200 years ago. And representative government by its very nature very ugly, inefficient and dissatisfying, and the last choice you'd ever make for getting things done quickly and well. But it beats the hell out of any of the alternatives.

That's not to say that there aren't serious flaws in the system and that there shouldn't be efforts to fix things. I personally would favor an electoral system like the Germans', where you vote both for your local representative and your party preference, and seats are issued based on the results of both those votes. Variations of instant runoff voting are also worth investigating. But if we suddenly had viable third parties and a multi-party Congress in the States, it's not like things would magically get better. They certainly wouldn't get more efficient - quite the opposite - unless the US decided to drop its traditional separation of powers and stopped investing the executive with a great deal of autonomy. And that is never going to happen, whether there are two parties or 100.

Saying there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans (or Labor and the Tories, etc.) is ludicrous. Are there areas of overlap between them? Sure. They're national parties and are going to reflect that; someone who's conservative by New England standards (and probably Republican) is often going to be more liberal than someone who's liberal by Southern standards (and probably Democrat). And of course both parties are grouped more in the center. I hate to break it to all the right-wing theocrats and all the progressives out there, but the huge, vast majority of the population lives pretty close the center. For the last few decades, I'd say that the majority of the American population lives a little bit to the right of the center, although pinning it down that tightly is overly simplistic (if there is a viewpoint most Americans have, it's to be left alone, both economically - the view more associated with Republicans - and socially/privately - the view more associated with Democrats). But that doesn't erase the fact that there are key differences between the parties. Just look at the way the two approach the environment, minimum wage, health care, abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, consumer protection, tort reform, international relations, defense spending, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Fantasies that transforming or killing off either the center-left or center-right party - and the fringes of both parties, and the people who sit further left or right and outside the parties both desperately want to do so to each party and make it "more" or "properly" Democrat or Republican - are just that, fantasies. The population simply isn't going to go for a highly progressive or highly conservative government.

And I think I've now take the record for longest SVN post.

24 Apr 2003 | p8 said...

"The Netherlands, also a multi-party system. Been dominated by one party for decades, with brief interruptions."

True, but the dominating party never had a majority so they always had to make a coalition with another party (either on the left or on the right). So in the 2000 elections (we don't have presidential elections) Bush would still have to make a coalition with Nader or Gore to get the majority. I think this gives much more power to people. Bush would have to implement some of Nader's points to get a majority with Nader (so Bush probably would have made a coalition with Gore).

Also in a multi-party system there is a lot more competition. So a party that is in the opposition has to prove itself against other parties and not just depend on the failing of the ruling party. And what about overlapping points of view in a two party system like big business owning politics? This can never change if both parties don't really mind. A third party could fill this gap.

In a two party system it seems to me that the ruling party can get arrogant. In a coalition people have to make compromises and listen to other people's point of views.
So Bush can get a lot of things done but, still representing a minority (25%?), are those things for the good of the majority? Or would a coalition divided by two possible solutions choose the best solution for the country? Well, not in the Netherlands where a budget proposal proposed by the two biggest parties actually made the economy a lot worse.
But I think this has more to do with long term views not really counting in politics and total incompetence (two leaders who have to rule this country but haven't studied economy).

Last year we had a new party that got 19% of the votes and became part of the coalition. (It wasn't a stable party but that's another story). Now a lot of parties have taken over some of their viewpoints.

I like being able to choose in a multi-dimensional system (not just left vs. right, but also liberal vs. non-liberal, establisment vs. anti-establisment,..etc) I don't know if I still would vote if we had a two party system (choosing between the lesser of two evils).

24 Apr 2003 | hurley said...

I personally would favor an electoral system like the Germans', where you vote both for your local representative and your party preference, and seats are issued based on the results of both those votes.

Do you mean you can vote for a local rep from one party even though your party preference is different? That would be great -- I wish we had a system like that in Canada, where I live now. We had a provincial election here a couple of weeks ago, and it was my first experience voting in a parliamentary system. It felt weird to go in and vote for someone I knew virtually nothing about, simply in order to give a vote to the party that I preferred to run the province's government. You can't vote directly for the premier you want, unless you happen to live in his riding (electoral district). All the media attention and campaigning were focused on the candidates for premier; if the local candidates did any campaigning (other than the ubiquitous posters on every utility pole), I wasn't aware of it.

In Vermont, where I lived before moving here, I typically voted for a variety of Republican, Democratic, and Independent local representatives; a Republican senator (Jeffords, now independent); a Socialist for U.S. Congress (Bernie Sanders); and in most cases the Democratic candidates for governor and for president. I don't have that kind of leeway in Canada. If I prefer one candidate over another at the provincial level, I have to vote for the local rep of his party, even if I don't like that local rep. I don't know yet how it works for the national elections, but I guess I'll find out next year when Jean Chretien steps down.

24 Apr 2003 | Don Schenck said...

While we debate the United States' voting system, don't forget Earth Day and this: According to Environmental Protection Agency estimate, 250 million computers will be retired over the next five years.

That's a lot of hazardous waste.

24 Apr 2003 | pecker said...

24 Apr 2003 | hurley#1 said...

This will be interesting

It already happened, and it's called New Hampshire.

24 Apr 2003 | pecker said...

Must be nice there.

24 Apr 2003 | Steve said...

Good arguments in favor of multi-party politics, p8. And many of them are the reasons that, overall, I prefer parliamentary systems - which usually trend to the multiparty, although not always (Canada, UK) - over the system the US has. But, personally, I think the benefits you noted are more a function of it being parliamentary than multiparty. Even if the US had many, many viable parties, the very structure of the government set up in the constitution and the separation of powers would mean that things would still work vastly differently than they do in a country like the Netherlands or Germany. It would probably be closer to France, which also has a strong, independent executive.

In short, as I mentioned earlier, multiparty systems are not a panacea.

24 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

go Steve! go P8! good posts.

Chris, no one is questioning the fact that the US has been much more unilateral than other countries in the past 50 years. Its nothing new for the US. But Bush has given new meaning to the word. I think its clear that Bush being elected had nothing to do with 9-11. But having him in office has done nothing but stir up the hornets nest. The UN has become defunct because international laws which are constantly broken are no longer "laws", and the US is not the only country guilty of this. The founders of the UN intended it to be something different than it is today.

Why have we toppled Saddam now and not back when he gassed his own people and invaded Kuwait? If its because "rogue nations" such as Iraq are a new threat and need to be disposed of, then youve got a long list ahead of you. Dont think wars will be fought "fairly" - governments are only too happy to allow hard-to-target terrorist cells fight thier wars for them. (Just look at Pakistan)

25 Apr 2003 | Jessa A. said...

I see we've got some nice long messages on here that I dont have the energy to read. I thought I would put my two cents in, even though I doubt any of you care.

I just wanted you all to note that Earth Day is mostly a load of crap. It just pisses me off that most people that go to these Earth Day celebrations that they have, don't even know why they are there. If you watch Penn and Tellers show "Bullshit" on Showcase you could see what a dam joke this is. People will just show up to some Earth Day celebration and sign petitions that they don't understand and they can't even answer simple questions like"why are you so passionate about saving the Earth?"

Don't get me wrong; I am all for conserving energy and reducing pollution, but if you think that we are killing the planet or that there will be no trees left for your childrens children, you have another thing coming.

27 Apr 2003 | Mathew said...

OK Jessica...care to elaborate on the other thing which we have coming? You are entitled to your views, but it would be nice to hear why you feel the way you do.

30 Apr 2003 | Jessa A. said...

Mathew, I am just saying that the Earth is billions of years old and humanity is but a tiny speck in it's history. People are so arrogant that they believe that the planet, which has survived for billions of years is going to be destroyed by us.

Also, regarding my comment about there being no trees left for our children's children, you do know that logging companies replant trees that they cut down. Yes trees are taken out to make way for industrial and urban areas. But if you have ever been to the Canadian Shield you'll see that there is definetly no shortage of trees. Oh, and don't forget that the government, by law sets out crown land where no one can build on are cut down trees from.

30 Apr 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Timber is a crop.

And lay off the all bold. Please.

01 May 2003 | hurley#1 said...

I don't think anyone seriously thinks humans will "destroy the planet." What's more likely is that eventually we might wipe ourselves out by making the planet uninhabitable by humans -- this is actually a common pattern in nature, in which dominant life forms pollute their environment so much that they can't live in it anymore. The ecological phenomenon known as succession functions in that way: an abandoned field in New England will soon sprout aspens, birch, and pines, all of which require lots of light to survive. Eventually the pines take over and shade out everything so much that no pines can grow underneath them (except where there are holes in the canopy). Other more shade-tolerant species move in to take their place.

What's frustrating is that, unlike the pines, we can foresee the likely impacts of our behavior and we know what to do to avoid them -- but in most cases we don't act accordingly. It's like we see the hole in the road but we fall in it anyway. Blame it on human nature, capitalism, or whatever; I think we're genetically hard-wired to favor short-term self-interest over long-term public interest. Culture is mostly about transcending our animal instincts, and I hope the next big step in the cultural evolution of humans will be the development of the notion of environmental stewardship. But it's probably just wishful thinking.

Happy May Day.

03 May 2003 | Jessa A. said...

Sorry Don. I didn't know you had a problem with bold. Didn't mean to offend you, but lighten up buddy.

Well, hurley, my original point was along the same lines as yours, actually. I was just pissed off because some people who support all the extreme environmentalist views don't even know what they are supporting. These organizations bend facts to make it look like we are in a much worse situation than we are. And yes, some of these people do think that we are killing the planet. That is the problem I have with them. It's fine when you have an opinion that you can justify by being informed, but some of these people are just going around petting trees for no reason. And I'm sorry, are you comparing us to trees?

04 Nov 2003 | Osoyoos B.C. said...