OT - Fireworks?

Wayne Mitchell wrote:
"CatNipped" wrote:

We're still allowed write-in votes, and there's the Libertarian
party and others. If enough people would get off their keisters
and vote for these, we might get this "2 party" system out of
power and out on their asses where they belong.

In most cases, any of the above are effectually equivalent to abstention
in terms of effect on the election. Their only real effect is to
rubber-stamp the system and support the status quo. If you are happy to
go to that much work just to abstain, chacun a son gout, I suppose.

But they are NOT merely "abstaining" - they are expressing a genuine
opinion, whether it is popular enough to win or not!


I've done the write-in business quite a few times, but have never found
it the least bit satisfying. I find smaller parties almost as
off-putting as the majors. I vote for non-aligned candidates when I
can, though only in local and state elections.

But latterly, I'm more and more convinced that we shouldn't be voting at
all. After all, what I really want to say is, "None of this is anywhere
near acceptable." I think holding oneself aloof comes the closest to
saying it -- though in practical terms a non-vote doesn't count for a
lot more than a vote.

I suspect there are people in some countries who would be grateful for
the mere opportunity to VOTE, never-mind whether their candidate won or not!

On Jul 5, 2:07*pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:
Wayne Mitchell wrote:
*"CatNipped" wrote:

We're still allowed write-in votes, and there's the Libertarian
party and others. *If enough people would get off their keisters
and vote for these, we might get this "2 party" system out of
power and out on their asses where they belong.

In most cases, any of the above are effectually equivalent to abstention
in terms of effect on the election. *Their only real effect is to
rubber-stamp the system and support the status quo. *If you are happy to
go to that much work just to abstain, chacun a son gout, I suppose.

But they are NOT merely "abstaining" - they are expressing a genuine
opinion, whether it is popular enough to win or not!



I've done the write-in business quite a few times, but have never found
it the least bit satisfying. *I find smaller parties almost as
off-putting as the majors. *I vote for non-aligned candidates when I
can, though only in local and state elections.

But latterly, I'm more and more convinced that we shouldn't be voting at
all. *After all, what I really want to say is, "None of this is anywhere
near acceptable." *I think holding oneself aloof comes the closest to
saying it -- though in practical terms a non-vote doesn't count for a
lot more than a vote.

I suspect there are people in some countries who would be grateful for
the mere opportunity to VOTE, never-mind whether their candidate won or not!

Many these days in *this* country could care less who in other
countries would be
grateful or whatever they are doing, especially if we are paying to
send big bucks
to lovely foreigners who say they are at war with us as a religous
crusade. My
Pollyanna care for other countries inability to vote is directly
proportional to what
I observe going on *here*.

Joy wrote:

Then why do most evolutionary scientists and archeologists seem to agree
that the human species emerged in Africa?

I have no idea. I do know that Australian Aboriginal people have been
traced back at least 40,000 years. Also, I play a daily quiz game, and one
of the questions the other day was, "On which continent do the oldest known
peoples live?" - or something like that. The answer was Australia.

Humans have been around a lot longer than 40,000 years, though. The
paleolithic era lasted something like 250,000 years. I'm pretty sure that
the people who hunted and foraged, and spread throughout the world were
the same, biologically, as modern humans. We did most of our evolving
*into* humans prior to that period.

Aboriginal Australians may have been the first humans to travel by sea
to another place, though - could that be what you're thinking of?

What I usually read about this is that the human species emerged originally
in Africa, and then spread to the Asian and European continents. Eventually,
people crossed the Bering land bridge and then migrated down into the Americas.
For a long time, scientists thought this happened maybe 10 or 12,000 years
ago, but recently, I think, some human fossils - or some evidence of human
life - was found in North or South America that dated back to 19,000 years.
So that is still being debated. Anyway, if people were able travel over the
ocean to Australia 20,000 years *before* that, that's pretty impressive.

Joyce

--
We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth
concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.
-- Louis D. Brandeis

'Ctrl Alt Delete' and start all over?

wrote in message
...
Joy wrote:

Then why do most evolutionary scientists and archeologists seem to
agree
that the human species emerged in Africa?

I have no idea. I do know that Australian Aboriginal people have been
traced back at least 40,000 years. Also, I play a daily quiz game, and
one
of the questions the other day was, "On which continent do the oldest
known
peoples live?" - or something like that. The answer was Australia.

Humans have been around a lot longer than 40,000 years, though. The
paleolithic era lasted something like 250,000 years. I'm pretty sure that
the people who hunted and foraged, and spread throughout the world were
the same, biologically, as modern humans. We did most of our evolving
*into* humans prior to that period.

Aboriginal Australians may have been the first humans to travel by sea
to another place, though - could that be what you're thinking of?

What I usually read about this is that the human species emerged
originally
in Africa, and then spread to the Asian and European continents.
Eventually,
people crossed the Bering land bridge and then migrated down into the
Americas.
For a long time, scientists thought this happened maybe 10 or 12,000 years
ago, but recently, I think, some human fossils - or some evidence of human
life - was found in North or South America that dated back to 19,000
years.
So that is still being debated. Anyway, if people were able travel over
the
ocean to Australia 20,000 years *before* that, that's pretty impressive.

Joyce

It's been a long time since I was told this, so I don't remember word for
word. At any rate, it is my understanding that there is definite evidence
that the Aboriginal people, who still exist, have been in Australia for at
least 40,000 years. I don't believe there is any other race, or group of
people, anywhere, with that long a definite history in one place.

At any rate, I've heard that some scientists are now questioning the idea
that all humans originated in Africa.

Joy

In ,
john sumner typed:
"Yowie" wrote in
:

We (Australia) have an entirely different voting system to yours.
First of all, all citizens here HAVE to vote, you will be fined if
you don't. Second, we have a preferential system where you can vote
for all the minor parties you like as a protest, and yet *still*
express your preference for one of the two major parties. And the
added sweetner for voting for minor parties is that a) they often
end up holding the balance of power and are therefore far more
influential - as a seat - than one seat from either of the two major
parties and b) if they get over a small percentage of the vote (I
think its 1%, coudl be wrong on that), they get their
application-to-run-for-parliament fee (about $500) back. Our Prime
Minister is the head of the party that got the majority of seats in
the lower house, or, its a minority governement, the leader of the
party with the most number of seats in the minority government. The
populace doesn't directly elect the PM.

Yowie

Yowie what would happen if you refused to vote or pay the fine? would
they throw you in jail.

I don't know. I suspect it would be debt collection type stuff first. Then
they'd take you to court for failure to pay. And would no doubt do a
pay-garnish or a asset collection before throwing you in jail. Only i fyou
'can't' pay would you go to jail (IANAL) It isn't a 'huge' fine, more like a
traffic offence type fine IIRC.

You HAVE to submit a ballot paper. Whether you choose to make that vote a
/valid/ vote is up to you. There have been campaigns in the past to submit
an invalid vote (the technical term is an 'informal' vote), and there have
been campaigns int he past (now illegal) to trick people into casting what
they think to be a valid vote, but is actually an invalid one.

Yowie

"Yowie" wrote in
:



I don't know. I suspect it would be debt collection type stuff first.
Then they'd take you to court for failure to pay. And would no doubt
do a pay-garnish or a asset collection before throwing you in jail.
Only i fyou 'can't' pay would you go to jail (IANAL) It isn't a 'huge'
fine, more like a traffic offence type fine IIRC.

You HAVE to submit a ballot paper. Whether you choose to make that
vote a /valid/ vote is up to you. There have been campaigns in the
past to submit an invalid vote (the technical term is an 'informal'
vote), and there have been campaigns int he past (now illegal) to
trick people into casting what they think to be a valid vote, but is
actually an invalid one.

Yowie

Thanks yowie for the info

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:16:28 -0400, Wayne Mitchell
wrote:

wrote:

We hear about these crimes all the time now, but does that
really mean they happen significantly more than they used to,
when we believed it was safe - or safe enough to allow your
kids a reasonable amount of freedom?

Even if we could show that such incidences were on the increase, it
would not follow that our children are significantly less safe. If the
number of abductions and attacks by strangers were to double, that would
mean that instead of having to be out there for 500,000 years in order
to have an even chance of being victimized, a child would now only have
to be out there for 250,000 years.

You have a source for that figure?

Casady

Richard Casady wrote:

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:16:28 -0400, Wayne Mitchell
wrote:

If the
number of abductions and attacks by strangers were to double, that would
mean that instead of having to be out there for 500,000 years in order
to have an even chance of being victimized, a child would now only have
to be out there for 250,000 years.

You have a source for that figure?

That wasn't intended as a substantive figure, merely an indicative or
ballpark figure.

Neither the USDOJ nor the FBI separate out the so-called "stereotypical"
(AKA "stranger danger") kidnapping figure, so we have to go back to a
study called NISMART-2 that was done for the year 1999 and which
identified 115 cases reported nationally that year. There were 72.4M
children under 18 in the US in the census year 2000. That would mean
one abduction for every 630,000 child-years. So a child would have a
50/50 chance in about 315,000 years.

--

Wayne M.

"Wayne Mitchell" wrote in message
...
Richard Casady wrote:

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:16:28 -0400, Wayne Mitchell
wrote:

If the
number of abductions and attacks by strangers were to double, that would
mean that instead of having to be out there for 500,000 years in order
to have an even chance of being victimized, a child would now only have
to be out there for 250,000 years.

You have a source for that figure?

That wasn't intended as a substantive figure, merely an indicative or
ballpark figure.

Neither the USDOJ nor the FBI separate out the so-called "stereotypical"
(AKA "stranger danger") kidnapping figure, so we have to go back to a
study called NISMART-2 that was done for the year 1999 and which
identified 115 cases reported nationally that year. There were 72.4M
children under 18 in the US in the census year 2000. That would mean
one abduction for every 630,000 child-years. So a child would have a
50/50 chance in about 315,000 years.

--

Wayne M.

Which means absolutely nothing if your child is one of the 115.

Joy

don't know, but they drive my cats wild, all the loud noise








michael lane



























**
**