NPR opposing direct democracy
Morning Edition had an lovely interview interview this morning. They had a discussion with a disgruntled [color=red]lobbyist/ex-legislator[/color] who wants to get rid of the referrendum process because "special interests" are hijacking the process. He was never challenged by the interviewer. I guess democracy is great until Democrats start losing jobs. Yes, the referrendum process often has stupid irrational outcomes but I wouldn't say our normal processes are much more rational and are certainly less responsive. The defense of Davis ignores the fact that he is a much resented machine politican. My brother is a union official and a Green Party member who was essentially coerced into helping him get re-elected, I suspect he's happy to see the evil bugger get his.
*edit sloppy vB
Easy Griff...I listened to the same interview, and I don't think he nor NPR were necessarily Democratic propagandists.
The United States is a republic, not a true democracy. If we were a true democracy, nothing would ever get done.
Maybe because I'm not from California, I don't get it. But it seems like the anger towards him is a bit misdirected, i.e. they're blaming the wrong guy.
And IMO, the recall process in California is too easy to get going. While I'm all for "for the people, by the people," tougher standards are needed for a recall there.
The problem with the referendum process is that the wrong kinds of things become law - because the general mass doesn't pay attention to all the details. The reason they elect politicians is so that they can do that kind of legwork.
As an example, in California, referendums pretty much banned all new taxes unless they were approved by voters, yet scores of other initiatives have passed that require that a certain percentage of the state's budget be given to a specific cause - afterschool programs, for example. It makes balancing the budget impossible - you can't really raise revenue, and there's a lot of stuff you simply can't cut.
This isn't to say that the idea of giving freedom to the people is a bad thing, just that it's problematic, and should be watched closely. Read The Federalist Papers for a more nuanced approach. Remember, originally, the people didn't even elect their senators - it was the electoral college.
Originally posted by hermit22
Read The Federalist Papers for a more nuanced approach.
:) My sympathies were always with the anti-federalists. 13 weak and independent states... it was a nice dream while it lasted. In all honesty, I'm not much of a democrat, prefering government play a minimal role. To me, the interesting thing is that NPR, which really is the voice of the establishment Dems, would verbalize its self interest so openly, since despite its quality, state funding for it would, sensibly, be eliminated under a bare-bones budget process. *ouch* that was quite a sentance.
yeah, who wants quality anyway?
I do but NPR always sounds like it comes from god forsaken place like.....like.....Lake Wobegon.:D
At least NPR is now mostly supporting itself having weaned itself from the government dole. Here in Europe we Anglophiles are subjected to the whims of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The BBC gets its funding from a manditory annual tax on all tv sets in Britain in the amount of $100 or so. They are so flush with money that they employ over 20,000 people. What most of these people do to earn their money is beyond me. In all fairness, the BBC does produce some good programming but at an unnecessary high cost. :(
Holy <b>smokes</b> that is a big tax.
This is a good time to start a capitalism vs socialism debate, isn't it? :)
Actually it's more like
$180 per year.
Holy <b>smokes</b> that is a bigger tax.
You know, "holy smokes" is a great saying. much more interesting than "holy cow." But then there are all the Robin spin offs, great potential. "holy doublecross Batman." "holy watertight Batman" "holy beefsteak tomato Batman..."
Just what have you been smoking?:D
Holy burnt falafel Griffman!
$180 is probably the nearer figure. I confess that I was lazy and didn't look the exact amount up when I wrote the blurb. An astounding and I think outrageous amount, nevertheless.
How is the BBC TV tax collected? Is it attached to cable fees? What about on-air broadcast receivers only? Do you get a TV tax bill in the post each year?
Sounds scary...
If you want more information on the tax, just go to Goggle and type in BBC Tax Television. You will get more information than you probably will ever want or need. I understand that hoards of tax collectors run around Britain pounding on people's doors demanding the tax. They assume that you have a tv--guilty until proven innocent. Ugh:thumb: :thumb:
That explains the Trigger Happy TV/Dom Joly bit where he has this detection device, and he's supposed to be a TV inspector, and he walks up to some random person in the park and claims that the person's walkman is registering on the device and must be a TV of some sort. (Hilarity ensues.)
[COLOR=indigo]I lived in England for quite some time.
My mother would send me a TV guide in the mail, and I would highlight the regular series on the little grid in the middle and send it back. Three weeks later, I would receive VCR tapes from home filled with those TV shows (I remember Space: Above and Beyond was my favorite for a while...). We didn't get charged the tax on the TV.
You don't have to pay the TV tax on all TV's in Britain. Just the ones that receive broadcast and cable signal. ;)
However, there is a tax on every window screen and door knob (the round variety, not the door LATCH) in/on your home, assessed per year by the local council.
[SIZE=1]Edit: If I could type I'd get a real job.[/SIZE]
Batman and Robin about to be pan fried:
Holy Oleo Batman!
Robin, I didn't know you could yodel.
I know it's late but I had to reply.
Holy belated wierdness, Pete! You gots it. I'm not the only smokey falafel eater danglin out here...whew.