The Elites
-
Chandi was of course a complete failure - a good similarity to James Earl Carter - the wrong man for the wrong job. William of Orange was born a Prince - he did not acceed to the Kingship accidently without previous experience per se but through marriage and even then he was not a real pivotal point in history taken in isolation. Lincoln was at his heart a political animal - a successful attorney - and if not for his wife would have been much more active in national politics at a earlier period then he did. I thought that you would have mentioned Harry Truman as he was the only example I could think of that even remotly fit the bill. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
Rather than reply based on internet factoids which can spun this way and that way just look at it from a logical perspective. If you include us grubby unwashed in the equation of power you have a much larger pool of labour to select from. It gives you that much better chance of finding the best person for the job
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
-
Rather than reply based on internet factoids which can spun this way and that way just look at it from a logical perspective. If you include us grubby unwashed in the equation of power you have a much larger pool of labour to select from. It gives you that much better chance of finding the best person for the job
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
JWood wrote: Rather than reply based on internet factoids which can spun this way and that way just look at it from a logical perspective My wife has a degree in History and a minor in Library Sciences. History and discussions thereof are a big part of our lives - also a big interest. Internet factoids usually play no role Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
[transmission jammed]
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
Have you seen Space Balls? :rolleyes: -- Ich bin der böse Mann von Schweden.
-
JWood wrote: I think basically we have a country that is run by elites. yep JWood wrote: The privaledged few who can run for high office are either rich or extremely well connected. yep. you can't run a campaign that costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars any other way. JWood wrote: I think there should be a more concerted effort to allow anyone to gain high office. i can't imagine any scheme that would allow it to happen. money and connections will always find a way to influence elections. ...unless... people are chosen at random to fill government positions. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
I favor a lottery system, where qualifications - education, experience, criminal history, etc - are evaluated to generate a list of eligible candidates. This list would probably encompass most of the population, if the selection criteria are not unreasonably set. The available slots would then be filled as needed by random selection. Every 4 years we'd have a routine election in which winners may be granted a release for good behavior if a majority votes to let him/her out of office to resume fishing. Some arrangement would, of course, be needed to compensate the victims chosen for economic losses while away doing public service, but I'm sure something can be worked out. One necessary filter, however, would be to disqualify anyone who actually wants to rule. Will Build Nuclear Missile For Food - No Target Too Small
-
JWood wrote: Rather than reply based on internet factoids which can spun this way and that way just look at it from a logical perspective My wife has a degree in History and a minor in Library Sciences. History and discussions thereof are a big part of our lives - also a big interest. Internet factoids usually play no role Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
Alright my historical interpretation is: William of Orange - was elected as minor prince of the Low Countries, to King of England. Through his neglect of England he more or less brought about the most amazing transformation - the Glorious Revolution. An elected parliament was in firm control, and there was no turning back for England from that point on. Compare this with the French struggles with democracy. Ghandi - I don't know how you can call the independance of India a tragic failure. I guess it depends on your point of view. Granted only a very enlightened empire to allow the kinds of things that Ghandi engaged in at the time, but none the less I would say it was significant. Lincoln hated in his time, praised through out history as a great orator. Everyone knows he was raised in a log cabin, and rose to be the president of the United States - a as a modern day analogy, imagine someone rising from the white trash trailer parks to become president. (Nixon aside)
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
-
Alright my historical interpretation is: William of Orange - was elected as minor prince of the Low Countries, to King of England. Through his neglect of England he more or less brought about the most amazing transformation - the Glorious Revolution. An elected parliament was in firm control, and there was no turning back for England from that point on. Compare this with the French struggles with democracy. Ghandi - I don't know how you can call the independance of India a tragic failure. I guess it depends on your point of view. Granted only a very enlightened empire to allow the kinds of things that Ghandi engaged in at the time, but none the less I would say it was significant. Lincoln hated in his time, praised through out history as a great orator. Everyone knows he was raised in a log cabin, and rose to be the president of the United States - a as a modern day analogy, imagine someone rising from the white trash trailer parks to become president. (Nixon aside)
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
JWood wrote: William of Orange - was elected as minor prince of the Low Countries, to King of England. Through his neglect of England he more or less brought about the most amazing transformation - the Glorious Revolution. An elected parliament was in firm control, and there was no turning back for England from that point on. Compare this with the French struggles with democracy. Yes but this had little to do with William per se. The flow of events would have followed a similar path no matter who was ruling at the time. This was a very turbulent time as far as emerging technology and a better educated populance was emerging all over the Europen continent at the time. But to give William of Orange credence as one of the "best" leaders certainly isn't warrented here. JWood wrote: Ghandi - I don't know how you can call the independance of India a tragic failure. Well it isn't independant quite yet in Western terms but that was not the point of my argument anyway. The goals and ideals espoused by Ghandi have not and can not come to frutation in a country with such limited resources compared to the population. Its kinda like the hippie generations mantra taking root and goverening American politics. JWood wrote: Lincoln hated in his time, praised through out history as a great orator. Everyone knows he was raised in a log cabin, and rose to be the president of the United States - a as a modern day analogy, imagine someone rising from the white trash trailer parks to become president. (Nixon aside) Actually at the time of Lincolns birth a large percentage of the population lived in similar circimstances. In actuality Lincoln was a well to do member of his society. If not for the Civil War his presidency would probabply have be rather unremarkable. His oratory skills were noted and honed in the court rooms as well as his noted powerness as a teller of tales. This was not unknown in American politics - look at David Crockett, Sam Houston et al for examples. As far as rising from poverty or near so to attain the presidency this was not uncommon long ago - it would propbably be impossible now but this is not germane to the discussion of leaders more or less becoming great due to an accident of history. I would be curious as to see your list of the top 10 historical leaders that changes history such as Alexander the Great - Genhis Khan - Napolean Bonoparte - Julius Caeser - Adolph Hitler - Richard the Lionhearted -
-
Kerry has around 600 million listed - partly because they included the assets of his very rich wife (Heinz Ketchup fortune). If he wins you will see Heinz ketchup in every government cafeteria and eatery. And why are you posting as anonymous - are YOU an member of those elitist b*****ds? ;P
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
Sorry, I changed my email address, which meant that I was not automatically logged in. (I tried to repost after I logged in, but then I couldn't delete my anonymous post for some strange reason.) ---------------------------------------------------------- "We know that reason is the devil's harlot, and can do nothing but slander and harm all that God says and does." - Martin Luther, Christian Reformer
-
JWood wrote: William of Orange - was elected as minor prince of the Low Countries, to King of England. Through his neglect of England he more or less brought about the most amazing transformation - the Glorious Revolution. An elected parliament was in firm control, and there was no turning back for England from that point on. Compare this with the French struggles with democracy. Yes but this had little to do with William per se. The flow of events would have followed a similar path no matter who was ruling at the time. This was a very turbulent time as far as emerging technology and a better educated populance was emerging all over the Europen continent at the time. But to give William of Orange credence as one of the "best" leaders certainly isn't warrented here. JWood wrote: Ghandi - I don't know how you can call the independance of India a tragic failure. Well it isn't independant quite yet in Western terms but that was not the point of my argument anyway. The goals and ideals espoused by Ghandi have not and can not come to frutation in a country with such limited resources compared to the population. Its kinda like the hippie generations mantra taking root and goverening American politics. JWood wrote: Lincoln hated in his time, praised through out history as a great orator. Everyone knows he was raised in a log cabin, and rose to be the president of the United States - a as a modern day analogy, imagine someone rising from the white trash trailer parks to become president. (Nixon aside) Actually at the time of Lincolns birth a large percentage of the population lived in similar circimstances. In actuality Lincoln was a well to do member of his society. If not for the Civil War his presidency would probabply have be rather unremarkable. His oratory skills were noted and honed in the court rooms as well as his noted powerness as a teller of tales. This was not unknown in American politics - look at David Crockett, Sam Houston et al for examples. As far as rising from poverty or near so to attain the presidency this was not uncommon long ago - it would propbably be impossible now but this is not germane to the discussion of leaders more or less becoming great due to an accident of history. I would be curious as to see your list of the top 10 historical leaders that changes history such as Alexander the Great - Genhis Khan - Napolean Bonoparte - Julius Caeser - Adolph Hitler - Richard the Lionhearted -
This is all suposition and subterfuge - you are just making counterpoints to things that are highly open to interpretation. I gave you my interpretation and I am not going to defend it - that is all you get.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
-
I think basically we have a country that is run by elites. The privaledged few who can run for high office are either rich or extremely well connected. In many cases they are not really good at anything other than looking good for the camera and saying the lines written for them by speachwriters. I think there should be a more concerted effort to allow anyone to gain high office. Thank you. I am JWood and I approved this message.
My neighbours think I am crazy - but they don't know that I have a trampoline. All they see my head bobbing up and down over the fence every five seconds
JWood wrote: I think basically we have a country that is run by elites. The privaledged few who can run for high office are either rich or extremely well connected. In many cases they are not really good at anything other than looking good for the camera and saying the lines written for them by speachwriters. I think there should be a more concerted effort to allow anyone to gain high office. Not really true, at least not universally. For example, I live in a district (District 7 of Indiana, essentially downtown Indianapolis) that is represented by an elderly black, Julia Carson. I dont' personally like her because she more liberal than Teddy Kennedy. However, she is far from elite, far from rich and only connected to the people in her district (except for those of us who would like to see her not elected). She started out poor, and frankly still is. Her political roots are working as an administrator in a welfare office here in town. Her real strength is that she is accessible, you can stop by her office and you'll feel welcomed and be helped if possible. As to not really good at anything other than looking good I am friends with an individual who is trying to unseat a popular but liberal Republican. The challenger is a "lab rat", chemist, at Eli Lilly here in town. This guy works his chemist job during the day, meets with any group that will listen in the evening, and, "works" pastors and ministers so he can speak to congregations. Hard working guy, 3 or 4 kids, spending his own money to do something he believes needs to be done. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy Me "Kerry is a girl's name." Conan O'Brian "I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are." J.F.Kerry
-
JWood wrote: I think it says that the odds are stacked against anyone that uses it. they are. federal funding limits the amount of money you can spend to a relatively low amount (around $40M this year). Bush is going to spend something like $200M. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Hey, isn't Bush funded by money from big oil? Do you think maybe, just maybe, the cost of gasoline has risen so high in order to fund the 2004 Bush campaign? Kinda makes you think, don't it?