Ignorance, Gillard PM, Holidays Approach, Gaming Reviews

[tcpip]

Most regular readers will know I'm an advocate of land tax as a replace for inefficient and unproductive taxes on labour and capital. On a whim, I entered this discussion on a property investment website. Enjoy the results. What I find particularly remarkable is their ignorance of basic economics (like the Law of Rent or the distinction between land and capital) on matters they claim expertise in. Actually I must confess I find this a lot; often people with a strong opinion on a topic like to think they're an expert on a topic. Personally, I prefer to form a strong opinion by reaching "deeply considered convictions", based on reason and evidence, rather than having "deeply ingrained prejudices" from emotions and assumptions.

Julia Gillard became the first ever female Prime Minister of Australia yesterday (that's only taken over one hundred years, *grumble*). It's an acting position whilst Rudd is in Bali (finally a PM who's acting on climate change!) , and one which seems to attract a share of odd events. I've sent her a congratulatory email (the last email conversation we had was a little terse; I was writing on behalf of Labor for Refugees and she was shadow minister for immigration).

Speaking of which, for the second year in a row, I'm desparately trying to organise tickets to Bali again over the break. I've contacted Flight Centre, and they've sent an email confirmation saying their processing the request, but no confirmation yet. Meh. It's been years since I've been to the archipelago, and I really want to see it again. New Zealand is not an option this summer (I think I'll go south for winter). If this doesn't work out for whatever reason maybe a visit to Tasmania is in order; it's been a while since I've seen Murdoch's former Vice-Chancellor, Professor Peter Boyce and we remain in irregular correspondence.

This week I finally managed to finish my review of Earthdawn: Gamemaster's Compendium; it's a huge, stunning book and quite good on the substance level as well. Not so good is the old AD&D module D1: Descent into the Depths of the Earth, which is seriously lacking in style, substance and a purpose for existence. Played another session of Legend of the Five Rings last Sunday with a refitted AD&D Oriental Adventures module. It's going very well, if only I can hack out some overall narrative to the various instances of character development and plot leads.

Comments

[evil-genius.livejournal.com]

"The only woman available is another Clinton?"

Because the first Clinton was such a disaster?

Please defend your implication. Or at the very least explain it.

"Is the female talent pool really that bleak in the US?"
At the highest levels of US polotics, Yes. It really is.

[zey.livejournal.com]

Please defend your implication. Or at the very least explain it.

Most countries which call themselves democracies at least try to have the pretense of ultimate power being given according to political and/or organisational skills -- rather than through birth or marriage in family dynasties.

The Kennedys, the Bushes and now the Clintons?! Get a real fucking democracy up ya. A real democracy involves more than three rich families.

[evil-genius.livejournal.com]

I can see why you might say that about the Kennedy's. What with no less than 10 family members being elected to some kind of political office (7 to what I consider high office).
Additionally they have always been connected to serious money.

Additionally I can see why you would say that about the Bushes. What with the whole father to the son thing smacking of some kind of nasty political birth right. And again the Bushes are dripping in oil money.

But Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton come from anything resembling that kind of money. To call Bill's back ground humble would be a tremendous understatement. Hillary's isn't significantly better. At least not when talking about the Kennedy's or the Bushes.

"Most countries which call themselves democracies at least try to have the pretense of ultimate power being given according to political and/or organisational skills -- rather than through birth or marriage in family dynasties."

The implication being that Hillary is some how lacking in the above qualities. Which is clearly not an accurate assessment. Maybe you should do a bit of research before making such bold claims? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton


Additionally. Since when has being elected to public office NOT been anything but a huge popularity contest? Part ofThe biggest part winning a popularity contest is being familiar to a voter. Bill Clinton is quite easily the best president the US has had in 30+ years. If Hillary is even half as competent as him she is a far better choice than anything the Republicans are offering up.

"Get a real fucking democracy up ya. A real democracy involves more than three rich families."

I fail to see how being related to someone who has held high office should in any way disqualify a person from hold said office them self.

[zey.livejournal.com]

The implication being that Hillary is some how lacking in the above qualities.

I'm not going to argue with you whether this or that candidate might have skills or not. It's really quite irrelevant. The fact is, the US system is so insular and undemocratic in practice that more qualified candidates don't get a shot.

Bill Clinton is quite easily the best president the US has had in 30+ years.

So Clinton's the best President there's been since, um, the last time there was a Democrat President? Er, yeah. A bit of a damning assessment, if ever I've heard one ;-).

Additionally. Since when has being elected to public office NOT been anything but a huge popularity contest?

But, you see, it's never been a popularity contest as far as candidature goes. They're judged on the basis of the amount of election fund donations they can raise for the big "Fundraisers". It's essentially a corporate corruption contest: who can put out the most convincingly to corporate lobbyists to get them to sign cheques.

I fail to see how being related to someone who has held high office should in any way disqualify a person from hold said office them self.

Where I fail to see anything special in Hilary Clinton which would make the insular conditions through which she's been thrust into power any less embarrassing.

[zey.livejournal.com]

Because the first Clinton was such a disaster?

I should really address that. Yes, Clinton was "only" horribly fucked up, as compared to Shrub and Bush Snr who were outright and willfully evil.

Untold numbers of Americans forced by thoughtless urban planning into homelessness or living in trailer parks and Clinton's priorities were in pissing money away on the usual foreign wars of convenience. Definitely a fuckhead.

A nation, to be considered a successful one, must be able to provide its citizens with at least its basic needs: food, shelter and clothing. The elephant in the room is that a nation as wealthy as America has actively chosen not to do this and yet has had all this spare money to attack countries on rotation pretty much non-stop for decades.

[evil-genius.livejournal.com]

o.k. it's clear you aren't interested in an intelligent conversation on this topic.

[zey.livejournal.com]

Shrug. Sorry if pointing out the ongoing domestic housing crisis in your country (and the billions spent on war instead) doesn't count as "intelligent conversation" to you. Were you were hoping for some very generic Republican vs Democrat debate or something?

[evil-genius.livejournal.com]

More substance. Less adjectives.

[zey.livejournal.com]

We'll have to differ there then. To my mind, a political debate must be accessible.

In Australia's local political scene, we had an Opposition Leader called Kim Beazley. Smart guy, likeable on a personal level. But the man simply can't communicate effectively with people with passion in a language everyone can understand.

I can understand how a lack of passion might be a survival trait for American politics, where "the best President in 30+ years" greatest achievement was raising the minimum wage from one extremely low point to merely a very very low point. But all too often, a refusal to use non-jargon is used by academics who prefer to hoard their knowledge away from ordinary folk in an elitist way or by those who use it as a means to not have to grapple with issues ordinary people deal with.

I don't know if either of those apply to you, but, you really ought not be so quick to dismiss other peoples views simply because they use ordinary language you're not used to.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Military adventures aside, the period of the Clinton presidency did include a number of positives for the domestic poor. Examples include: increasing the top rate of income taxation and corporate taxation; raising the tax-free status for a number low-level capital gains; raising the minimum wage; breaking up the television and radio oligopolies; introducing leave with job security for pregnancies or serious injuries.

One the negative, one could include the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1997 (which Clinton vetoed twice).

Overall, one would certainly prefer to be a poor person under Clinton's government than those that preceded or followed him.

[zey.livejournal.com]

Yep, as I said, Clinton's priorities were only horribly fucked up as compared to outright evil ;-).

What causes a trailer park isn't the people who end up living there, or even their income or wealth. They're having to bid on what housing exists to be bought or leased and are subject to the laws of supply and demand.

The concept of generations spending their lives living in caravan parks should be shocking to Americans, but, their mainstream media seems so content with the status quo that they merely to use them as the butt of jokes in sitcoms.