Twila brought up an interesting question about whether one should have to pass a test to vote. I don't think it would be right to deprive anyone of their vote, but I have an alternate idea.
The best a democracy can hope for in the long run is mediocrity. That is assured by the one citizen/one vote rule. Whenever someone suggests modifying that rule there is a loud outcry of complaint, but there is no question that some votes are worth more in a qualitative sense than others. Some people vote after a thorough study of the issues, others with only a modest idea of what's going on, some are fueled by slogans and anger, and some have no clue whatsoever. If we wish to have a government that is better than mediocre -- or, in our current situation, a government that is able to function in any way -- we must give more influence to voters who know the most.
Once voting by computer, whether online or in a polling place, is standard, reasonable solutions become possible. I would propose that shortly before an election a bipartisan or non-partisan committee draw up 200 questions relevant to the candidates and issues in the election. When a person has initiated the voting process, he would have one vote. Then he would be presented with 8 of the 200 questions chosen randomly, and for each two questions answered correctly he would receive an extra vote; that is, his votes would count more. For example, if he answered only two questions correctly, each of his votes would count as two. Every person's votes would then have a weight of 1 to 5.
There would be no reason to keep secret the list of possible questions. Indeed, studying the list would improve most people's ability to vote sensibly.
I think this method of weighting votes would work very well until we achieve the ideal - government that is run entirely by computer.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Saturday, November 12, 2011
SheSez: Voting
Before I weigh in on the issues Durf raised, let me just say that voters befuddle me. It seems as though *everyone* has an opinion and yet lots of people don't vote. People say their vote won't make a difference and yet they have strong opinions about efforts to disenfranchise voters. And finally, what about all those people who vote *against* their best interests. That one knocks my socks off. Which brings us to the issue of the uneducated voter and...
Mandatory voting
My take: Very very bad idea
In my perfect world, everyone would educate themselves on the issues and then *everyone* would vote...and, of course, vote like me. I actually do care how people vote. But given that many people do *not* educate themselves on the issues and (sputter) often vote for precisely the issues that will cause them most harm, I actually get down on my atheistic knees and pray that those people do not vote. The thought of making voting mandatory is horrifying. However, the very fact that a person might want to vote is a huge plus in my mind, which leads me to issue #2.
Internet voting
My take: If it will make voting easier, then why not?
I think voting should be easy and that anyone who wants to vote should be able to do so without having to venture out in a snowstorm to a polling place or a mailbox (if that would keep them from voting). So yes, I vote for internet voting.
Pass a Test to Vote
The previous two issues are notable for not being terribly controversial. Missing from this debate is the highly controversial "pass a test to vote" issue. Let me narrow the question: Suppose you could in fact come up with a test that accurately measured whether or not the potential voter had a basic understanding of the issues on the ballot (or even a subset of said issues). Assume further that you were able to eliminate all prejudicial aspects of administering said test. (I realize that this is hypothetical in the extreme, but just go with it for now.) Then would you support a test, the results of which would determine whether or not a person could vote, and on which issues?
Mandatory voting
My take: Very very bad idea
In my perfect world, everyone would educate themselves on the issues and then *everyone* would vote...and, of course, vote like me. I actually do care how people vote. But given that many people do *not* educate themselves on the issues and (sputter) often vote for precisely the issues that will cause them most harm, I actually get down on my atheistic knees and pray that those people do not vote. The thought of making voting mandatory is horrifying. However, the very fact that a person might want to vote is a huge plus in my mind, which leads me to issue #2.
Internet voting
My take: If it will make voting easier, then why not?
I think voting should be easy and that anyone who wants to vote should be able to do so without having to venture out in a snowstorm to a polling place or a mailbox (if that would keep them from voting). So yes, I vote for internet voting.
Pass a Test to Vote
The previous two issues are notable for not being terribly controversial. Missing from this debate is the highly controversial "pass a test to vote" issue. Let me narrow the question: Suppose you could in fact come up with a test that accurately measured whether or not the potential voter had a basic understanding of the issues on the ballot (or even a subset of said issues). Assume further that you were able to eliminate all prejudicial aspects of administering said test. (I realize that this is hypothetical in the extreme, but just go with it for now.) Then would you support a test, the results of which would determine whether or not a person could vote, and on which issues?
Friday, November 11, 2011
He Sez: Voting.
During the last week I read three proposals regarding voting that I'd like to mention and comment briefly upon.
Proposal 1: Make voting mandatory.
My take: BAD IDEA.
Although I have my own ideas about things, I really don't care how people vote. I only ask that they be informed. The solutions to many of our issues, such as global warming, are rather obvious when the facts are known. There are, however, politicians (and even political parties) who thrive on sound bites, innuendoes, and even outright lies. The last thing we need are hoardes of reluctant slogan-drunk zombies stumbling mindlessly to the polls.
Proposal 2: Allow voting over the Internet.
My take: GREAT IDEA.
Note that no-one would be *required* to vote on the Internet, but it would be a terrific option. One positive effect is that it would likely draw the participation of large numbers of young people who care about politics but don't bother to go to the polls. I also think that people who own computers and know how to use them are more likely to be better educated.
I imagine Carl is going to pop up at any moment to say that Internet voting is too subject to tampering, so I'll proactively respond: POOPY-DOOP! Internet voting could be much more secure than our current systems. We do financial transactions and other private business online, after all. Suppose you had a 30-day voting window with voters sending their choices to servers in many states. Each of the servers could transfer all data offline regularly. If someone wanted to influence an election through hacking, where would he start? He'd have more influence by stealing a box of paper ballots from someone's garage.
Proposal 3:
Hmmm, wait, what was Proposal 3? There's mandatory voting, Internet voting, and.... Let's see, the third proposal was, er, um. Golly, I just can't remember. OOPS!
Proposal 1: Make voting mandatory.
My take: BAD IDEA.
Although I have my own ideas about things, I really don't care how people vote. I only ask that they be informed. The solutions to many of our issues, such as global warming, are rather obvious when the facts are known. There are, however, politicians (and even political parties) who thrive on sound bites, innuendoes, and even outright lies. The last thing we need are hoardes of reluctant slogan-drunk zombies stumbling mindlessly to the polls.
Proposal 2: Allow voting over the Internet.
My take: GREAT IDEA.
Note that no-one would be *required* to vote on the Internet, but it would be a terrific option. One positive effect is that it would likely draw the participation of large numbers of young people who care about politics but don't bother to go to the polls. I also think that people who own computers and know how to use them are more likely to be better educated.
I imagine Carl is going to pop up at any moment to say that Internet voting is too subject to tampering, so I'll proactively respond: POOPY-DOOP! Internet voting could be much more secure than our current systems. We do financial transactions and other private business online, after all. Suppose you had a 30-day voting window with voters sending their choices to servers in many states. Each of the servers could transfer all data offline regularly. If someone wanted to influence an election through hacking, where would he start? He'd have more influence by stealing a box of paper ballots from someone's garage.
Proposal 3:
Hmmm, wait, what was Proposal 3? There's mandatory voting, Internet voting, and.... Let's see, the third proposal was, er, um. Golly, I just can't remember. OOPS!
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
He Sez: Assholes.
I think She is overreacting. Was Steve Jobs an asshole/jerk? Certainly. Flaming, at times, as well as unethical. I never liked the man, and I like him even less now that he is dead and details of his life have been released. But I think he was a very interesting person and almost certainly a genius.
Jobs had limited technical skills, but he had an uncanny ability to imagine what people wanted, even before they knew it themselves. He assembled people with the ability to create what he'd imagined, and he built what is today the second richest company in the world. He fought Microsoft when they were the Evil Empire. He gave us the iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, and iWhatever. He was an extremely creative person and a maestro of the magnificent.
As for doctors, I generally agree with She. Some are arrogant and some have god complexes, especially males. Medical schools today are including more training in forming good relationships with patients. But patients have to share some responsibility, because they often treat doctors as people who are somehow above us. Twila is a great example of an ideal patient, because she asks questions that need to be asked and she forces doctors to behave appropriately - that's why I always take her with me to a medical appointment.
Jobs had limited technical skills, but he had an uncanny ability to imagine what people wanted, even before they knew it themselves. He assembled people with the ability to create what he'd imagined, and he built what is today the second richest company in the world. He fought Microsoft when they were the Evil Empire. He gave us the iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, and iWhatever. He was an extremely creative person and a maestro of the magnificent.
As for doctors, I generally agree with She. Some are arrogant and some have god complexes, especially males. Medical schools today are including more training in forming good relationships with patients. But patients have to share some responsibility, because they often treat doctors as people who are somehow above us. Twila is a great example of an ideal patient, because she asks questions that need to be asked and she forces doctors to behave appropriately - that's why I always take her with me to a medical appointment.
Odd Days: The Man Massage (...speaking of underwear)
When I had my first massage many years ago, I didn't have to make any decisions. I walked in and was greeted by a strong-looking woman who led me to a room and told me to strip. My momentary discomfort at being naked in front of a stranger vanished quickly. I am, after all, a product of the 60s.
Over time, massage has moved into the mainstream, and with its legitimization have come choices. Many choices. For example, you can choose to leave all of your clothes on. Seriously. Another choice is: masseur or masseuse. In fact, if you unthinkingly request the first available massage appointment, you might well draw a man rather than a woman.
Somehow I tootled along, having the occasional massage and remaining oblivious to the possibility that I might one day unexpectedly meet a man in that tranquil room.
Fortuitously, I was not blindsided. The first time a man came into the picture, I was booking massages for a (good) friend and me. The receptionist volunteered that two massage therapists were available, one male and one female. Since I was doing the booking, I said, "I'll take the woman and my (good) friend will take the man." Then I had to break the news to my (good) friend. She said, "Well, actually, I'd prefer the woman." And I said, "Oh darn, I've already booked you with the man. You don't mind, do you?"
More recently, I went to Ohio to take my sister to a massage therapist. I could tell she was in dire need and I was willing to make the trip provided I could get an appointment too. So I called the female owner of a high class Columbus massage place and asked for two slots. She knew my sister so she booked us at our preferred time.
When we arrived, the receptionist told us that the owner (female, remember?) will be giving one of us a massage and *Jason* would take care of the other. I gasped. Then I turned to my sister and with my eyes, I told her she should take the guy. She's lots younger and is supposed to do what I say, even if I only say it with my eyes. So she said, "Oh I'm sure you'll like Jason."
And then there he was! I gasped again, smiled tremulously, turned my back and whispered to the receptionist, "Don't your massage therapists have to be at least 18 to work on naked women?"
She assured me Jason was old enough, whereupon Jason led me to the tranquil room. The stress was building. I had a decision to make and I had to make it fast. Pretty soon he would be asking me if I wanted him to work on my glutes. I couldn't waver, I had to decide...underwear or no underwear. ACK!
Over time, massage has moved into the mainstream, and with its legitimization have come choices. Many choices. For example, you can choose to leave all of your clothes on. Seriously. Another choice is: masseur or masseuse. In fact, if you unthinkingly request the first available massage appointment, you might well draw a man rather than a woman.
Somehow I tootled along, having the occasional massage and remaining oblivious to the possibility that I might one day unexpectedly meet a man in that tranquil room.
Fortuitously, I was not blindsided. The first time a man came into the picture, I was booking massages for a (good) friend and me. The receptionist volunteered that two massage therapists were available, one male and one female. Since I was doing the booking, I said, "I'll take the woman and my (good) friend will take the man." Then I had to break the news to my (good) friend. She said, "Well, actually, I'd prefer the woman." And I said, "Oh darn, I've already booked you with the man. You don't mind, do you?"
More recently, I went to Ohio to take my sister to a massage therapist. I could tell she was in dire need and I was willing to make the trip provided I could get an appointment too. So I called the female owner of a high class Columbus massage place and asked for two slots. She knew my sister so she booked us at our preferred time.
When we arrived, the receptionist told us that the owner (female, remember?) will be giving one of us a massage and *Jason* would take care of the other. I gasped. Then I turned to my sister and with my eyes, I told her she should take the guy. She's lots younger and is supposed to do what I say, even if I only say it with my eyes. So she said, "Oh I'm sure you'll like Jason."
And then there he was! I gasped again, smiled tremulously, turned my back and whispered to the receptionist, "Don't your massage therapists have to be at least 18 to work on naked women?"
She assured me Jason was old enough, whereupon Jason led me to the tranquil room. The stress was building. I had a decision to make and I had to make it fast. Pretty soon he would be asking me if I wanted him to work on my glutes. I couldn't waver, I had to decide...underwear or no underwear. ACK!
Monday, November 7, 2011
SheSez: When is it ok to be an asshole?
Sorry for the language, but "jerk" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
I've been meditating on our (society's) penchant for cutting certain undeserving individuals a lot of slack. I'm not talking about the fact that we are so easily star-struck by the likes of...Lindsay Lohan? What disturbs me more is the canonizing of the mediocre misanthrope.
Take Steve Jobs, for example. Wozniak did the tech work, Jobs did the marketing. Wozniak tried to spread the wealth among peripheral participants. He gave his money away from the get-go. Jobs stole from his partners, taunted and lied to his employees, and apparently enjoyed wielding his power and influence in ways that would humiliate and defeat friend/relative/acquaintance/competitor/whomever. And yet everything good about Apple now seems to be associated with Jobs.
Even in his personal life, Jobs was a hypocrite of the highest order. And a jerk. What grates are the reverential murmurings in the media that describe the man as a genius, while brushing off his malevolent nature as the quirkiness of a great mind.
Bah humbug! Dare I say it? The world would have been just fine had Steve Jobs never walked the earth. I never wished him ill, but seriously, what did he actually contribute? He was a jerk.
Perhaps you could care less, but let's take an example that is closer to home. Your doctor. Do you revere him or her? Even if not, do you cut her/him lots of slack? Is it ok for your doctor to treat you like skunk poop? Or to keep you waiting for two hours?
A few years ago, I asked my father's neurologist a technical question about my father's stroke and the neurologist responded, "If I tell you the answer what makes you think you will understand it?"
If it had been I lying in that hospital bed instead of my father, I would have fired that doctor's ass. I refuse to be terrorized and disrespected by an entire profession, members of which (in my experience) can't tell a Form 1040 from credit card application.
In the unlikely event I die as a consequence of demanding respect from an arrogant doctor, then I'll die a happy woman. That's because Durfee will sue his ass!
I've been meditating on our (society's) penchant for cutting certain undeserving individuals a lot of slack. I'm not talking about the fact that we are so easily star-struck by the likes of...Lindsay Lohan? What disturbs me more is the canonizing of the mediocre misanthrope.
Take Steve Jobs, for example. Wozniak did the tech work, Jobs did the marketing. Wozniak tried to spread the wealth among peripheral participants. He gave his money away from the get-go. Jobs stole from his partners, taunted and lied to his employees, and apparently enjoyed wielding his power and influence in ways that would humiliate and defeat friend/relative/acquaintance/competitor/whomever. And yet everything good about Apple now seems to be associated with Jobs.
Even in his personal life, Jobs was a hypocrite of the highest order. And a jerk. What grates are the reverential murmurings in the media that describe the man as a genius, while brushing off his malevolent nature as the quirkiness of a great mind.
Bah humbug! Dare I say it? The world would have been just fine had Steve Jobs never walked the earth. I never wished him ill, but seriously, what did he actually contribute? He was a jerk.
Perhaps you could care less, but let's take an example that is closer to home. Your doctor. Do you revere him or her? Even if not, do you cut her/him lots of slack? Is it ok for your doctor to treat you like skunk poop? Or to keep you waiting for two hours?
A few years ago, I asked my father's neurologist a technical question about my father's stroke and the neurologist responded, "If I tell you the answer what makes you think you will understand it?"
If it had been I lying in that hospital bed instead of my father, I would have fired that doctor's ass. I refuse to be terrorized and disrespected by an entire profession, members of which (in my experience) can't tell a Form 1040 from credit card application.
In the unlikely event I die as a consequence of demanding respect from an arrogant doctor, then I'll die a happy woman. That's because Durfee will sue his ass!
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Odd Days: My Underwear
I don't know what it is with me and underwear, but we seem to have an uneasy relationship. This relationship is on my mind because I just returned from a short trip. Trips always make me think about my underwear.
Why? Well, once I prepared for a trip and, as usual, meticulously packed everything I might need several days in advance. I almost always start early so I won't forget anything, but on this particular occasion I forgot to pack any underwear at all. It was a disturbing discovery.
Then there was the time I visited my father and apparently left a pair of black lacy underwear under my sister's bed (where I had been sleeping). The underwear was returned to me in an unmarked package containing only the underwear and a note: "Thanks for the good time!" I think he was hoping Durf would open it.
More recently, I have been trying to travel light. So rather than carry a laundry bag, sometimes I stick my dirty underwear in the pocket of my jeans -- to be removed for laundering purposes when I return. But on occasion I decide to wear my jeans a second time, having forgotten what was in the pockets. When I subsequently empty the contents to see what's in there, I am frequently not alone. Makes for an awkward moment.
Ah, I've just unburdened myself of a dirty little secret.
Why? Well, once I prepared for a trip and, as usual, meticulously packed everything I might need several days in advance. I almost always start early so I won't forget anything, but on this particular occasion I forgot to pack any underwear at all. It was a disturbing discovery.
Then there was the time I visited my father and apparently left a pair of black lacy underwear under my sister's bed (where I had been sleeping). The underwear was returned to me in an unmarked package containing only the underwear and a note: "Thanks for the good time!" I think he was hoping Durf would open it.
More recently, I have been trying to travel light. So rather than carry a laundry bag, sometimes I stick my dirty underwear in the pocket of my jeans -- to be removed for laundering purposes when I return. But on occasion I decide to wear my jeans a second time, having forgotten what was in the pockets. When I subsequently empty the contents to see what's in there, I am frequently not alone. Makes for an awkward moment.
Ah, I've just unburdened myself of a dirty little secret.
He Sez: FAIL.
My blogging about secrets got off track very quickly. I was taken aback to learn that liberal attitudes about keeping promises are so prevalent, and I reacted with indignation instead of logically and, perhaps, more kindly. It was a blogging FAIL, and I only barely addressed Twila's original question about keeping a secret received from a person who subsequently died.
Twila's original premise listed perceived disadvantages, all of which outweigh any of the advantages she listed, IMO. It might seem reasonable and even important to release a secret in the scenario she described, but even she admits to the possibility that the consequences could be grave.
Twila mentioned that copyrights expire, and I think that's a good way to handle secrets. Feel free to reveal any secret 120 years after you hear it.
Twila's original premise listed perceived disadvantages, all of which outweigh any of the advantages she listed, IMO. It might seem reasonable and even important to release a secret in the scenario she described, but even she admits to the possibility that the consequences could be grave.
Twila mentioned that copyrights expire, and I think that's a good way to handle secrets. Feel free to reveal any secret 120 years after you hear it.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
He Sez: Secrets, Part 2.
This conversation has, I guess, ended, with the consensus being that the only way you can be sure something will not become public is to never reveal it. Most people seem to think that it's up to them whether to reveal something someone told them in confidence. Others even think that if someone tells you something and asks you not to tell anyone, it really means that they do want you to tell someone. I am surprised, shocked, and disappointed.
Convenient morality.
You can be sure that I will never tell any of *you* a secret.
Convenient morality.
You can be sure that I will never tell any of *you* a secret.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)