Government Myths - Introduction and Index
Permalink
Oct 16, 2004

This post is an introduction and will serve as an index to a series of posts I am doing on myths about the United States Govermental system. It was one post but it grew too long.

It is an important series because the myths I will be addressing are very widespread, and many of them are quite damaging.

Myths:

  1. The US Is A Two Party System, Not A Coalition System
  2. The US is Formally A Two-Party System
  3. The Purpose Of Voting Is To Determine A Winner
  4. My Vote Doesn't Count

    Interlude: Making Sense Of The 2004 Election

  5. "Liberal" and "Conservative" Have Some Sort Of Meaning
  6. Third Parties Are Useless and You Waste Your Vote With Them
  7. The Two-Party System Has No Redeeming Characteristics
  8. Democracy Means I Always Get My Way
  9. Checks And Balances Being Used Implies Broken Government

Permalink
Oct 07, 2004

I was reading somebody talk about the distribution of people who
"agree global warming is an issue" and how it has changed over time,
and it made me wonder where I would fit in.

So, do I "believe in global warming"? Beats me. I guess you could
say I "agree global warming is an issue", but that phrase often is
used to mean "agree human caused global warming" is an
issue. And of course, "agreeing it is an issue" is often taken to mean
"a pressing issue", and I'm not convinced of that, either.

Binary questions about such things are so useless.


Bias In The News

Over the past few decades, psychology has taken great strides towards becoming a real, hard science instead of an "observational science" like history. Cognitive psychology has helped lead the way, since it has been lucky enough to be able to measure things like response times to stimuli for a long time now, but it has proven more difficult to test theories of how minds work on the lowest level.

Read the rest (1489 words)


Permalink
Sep 24, 2004

It was about this time last year that I was finally getting tired of the election.

Observation: Maybe it's just my connection to the weblog world, but the intensity of the election coverage doesn't seem to have gone up much. Which is to say, we've been going full-bore on this issue for over a year now.

If Bush wins this year, are Democrats and the media going to start holding the primaries for 2008, oh, say, February of next year?

How long is it before some candidate actually tries to use election fatigue as part of their campaign, I wonder? I'm not certain how that would work but I'm not sure how half of the current campaigns are supposed to work either so that's hardly a stopper....


Permalink
Sep 16, 2004

So far, barring major changes in policy by Kerry, I still plan to vote Bush on the grounds that the problems I have with Bush are just totally unaddressed by Kerry.

Here's an example: Russia has slid back to a dictatorship and Bush doesn't much care. We aren't looking at a repeat of the Cold War (the USSR lost economically and the gap has only widened), but this is a big deal, because they have nukes.

Read the rest (672 words)


<- Future Posts Past Posts ->

 

Site Links

 

RSS
All Posts

 

Blogroll