- Cassini-Huygens Mission status report

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...
If the EU member nations actually had enough confidence
in Democracy and shared enough common ground then maybe
they could actually group together as a single nation.

That would require them to *trust their citizens*, which is tantamount to
letting the rabble rule instead of the aristocracy.

The EU is not comfortable with the outrageous ideas
of freedom, populism, and free market economies.

Hell, they're *still* waiting for the "Great Experiment" to collapse. Which
might happen, but only because there were too many people who adopted a
European outlook.

Regardless of whether it merges into a more coherent
single nation or not, so long as it has those
roadblocks it will continue to do less well than the
US.

So much potential being ****ed away because of those roadblocks.

The US is the powerhouse that it is because we worried more about
getting
things done than feeling good about doing them. Without a social safety
net,
we *had* to produce.

I prefer to distinguish between true social safety
nets and wealth redistribution programs.

Point = Jones

The US is a powerhouse precisely because it
encourages, rewards, and *allows* entrepreneurship
and hard work.

Curiously, I recall reading an article, I'd swear it was in Scientific
American, about business and government. A joke Reagan told (which was
repeated ad nauseum on TV) goes like this: What's the difference between a
big businessman and a small businessman? A big businessman is what a small
businessman would be if the government would get out of his way. I mention
that interlude because it reminded me of the article, which talked about
government obstacles to starting a business, and how they have changed over
time. The authors investigated several dozen countries. Turns out,
especially in the last ten years, it's far faster and cheaper to start
businesses in Russia, China and even Nepal than in the US. On average, in
the US it took more than 240 days from starting the process to hanging the
"open" sign, while in Bangladesh it might take as little as two weeks. The
US is well on it's way to joining the EU.

The US is a powerhouse precisely
because Americans tend to believe that the best way
to achieve prosperity and comfort is to work for it,
not to have it handed out to you from the state.

That is no longer true- fortunately, it was true long enough that there is
enough inertia for business to survive.

I started my own, and it seems to be surviving. Florida is not a business
friendly state any longer. My own father is giving up his licenses here
because so many new regulations take effect July 1 that he can't make a
profit. For example, worker's comp- now, the owner of a sole-proprietor
construction firm (as of July 1) is considered an employee for purposes of
coverage, UNLESS the firm has a net worth of at least 20 million dollars
(plus other factors). How many guys working by themselves out of one truck
in the construction industry is going to have that kind of net worth? As an
alternative, the sole proprietor can choose to form a corporation or limited
liability company AND have their construction license changed to that
company. However, that means more fees for the state AND increased ability
for the state to inspect the books.

Part of my business helps people form business organizations. In order for a
limited liability company to qualify for a construction license, it has to
have a net worth of at least ten thousand dollars, of which there must be at
least five thousand dollars in cash in a bank account in the name of the
LLC. Most of the guys who do, say, masonry or drywall work don't have a
total net value including their tools of 10K$, much less have 5K$ in cash.
The government has effectively put them out of business.

What it means is that a lot of people will work illegally, thus actually
*decreasing* tax revenues. But I'm certain the workers comp insurance firms
are congratulating themselves on getting this law changed.

In my case, I have to have three more employees before I need to pay for
worker's comp. That isn't going to happen. On the cool side, I also get to
perform marriages, which I did my first one last night, to someone who it
turns out has a lot of mutual friends with my parents from where we lived 20
years ago. Small world.

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
. au...

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...

The EU is not comfortable with the outrageous ideas
of freedom, populism, and free market economies.

It appears that whoever decided in the USA to pay farmers not to plant
crops
isn't exactly right alongside the idea of a free market either.

Before the US ****es and moans about French farm subsidies, we need to
eliminate our own, first.

Pennies for anti-smoking campaigns, $$$ for tobacco subsidies. Hell,
McDonald's qualifies for advertising subsidies for its french fries under
the "agricultural products foreign promotion" plan. McDonald's and the
tobacco lobbies provide more campaign funds than the anti-smoking advocates.

Damn, I *am* starting to sound like OM...

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
. au...

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...

You do realise how long it was between the foundation of the
US and the time they started direct elections of the President and
Senate, don't you?

The president still isn't directly elected, and women got the vote only
after some other countries had already seen the light.

And look what happened since women got the vote- WW2, nuclear bombs, DDT,
Love Canal and Madonna...

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
. au...

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

Not to mention the French
farmers would have to actually *farm* for a living instead of spending
their
time vandalizing McDonald's.

Look in your own back yard first. Doesn't the USA pay some of its farmers
not to plant crops, while elsewhere people are starving?

Hell, the US pays dairy farmers to dump milk in order to keep the prices
high, so the dairies can make a profit.

I was under the impression that supply and demand should control both the
supply and price of milk, but the supply of dairy farms as well.

Then there is the bovine rDNA to increase milk yield- what the hell for,
when it's already being dumped? A solution for a problem that isn't even
imaginary.

In Florida, we also have the sugar subsidy, but that is less of a problem
because the sugar growers also make nice targets for Everglades pollution.
While the sugar fields *do* cause some pollution, it pales in comparison to
what, say, the city of Miami causes- but the city carries many more votes
than the sugar farmers, so guess who gets the bill?

Not that they don't deserve some of the cleanup bill, but just try to get
the cost fairly distributed.

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Neil Gerace wrote:

The president still isn't directly elected, and women got the vote only
after some other countries had already seen the light.


To say nothing of when blacks got the vote (in practice, as opposed to in
theory).

Mind you, many European countries as well came to full democracy rather
slowly. Even setting aside the issue of votes for women, things like
property-ownership qualifications were slow to disappear. It took most
of the 19th century, if memory serves, for Britain to enact a series of
reforms that ultimately extended the vote to all adult male citizens.

Plus there's the small matter of a few intervening years
from time to time on the Continent when Democracy wasn't
exactly the norm.

As for Women's Suffrage, that's an interesting subject.
One thing people shouldn't ignore with regard to the US
is that many states enacted voting rights for women
long before the federal constitution did. Several
states gave full suffrage to women in the 19th century,
for example. Also, I think it's worth pointing out that
the often close alliances of women's suffrage groups with
temperance movements made giving women the vote a harder
sell than it ought to have been. Indeed, support for
both women's suffrage and temperance peaked at about the
same time, with ratifications of the 18th and 19th
amendments less than 2 years apart.

As for Europe, most of Europe didn't give women equal
voting rights until the 1910s or later (roughly the same
time the US started doing so). France and Italy, for
example, didn't given women the vote until 1945, when
Allied forces helped them reconstruct democratic
governments.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
. ..
In Florida, we also have the sugar subsidy, but that is less of a problem
because the sugar growers also make nice targets for Everglades pollution.
While the sugar fields *do* cause some pollution, it pales in comparison
to
what, say, the city of Miami causes- but the city carries many more votes
than the sugar farmers, so guess who gets the bill?

What is the nature of this pollution? I am aware that in our major sugar
cane state, Queensland, growers fire their cane and it causes the mandatory
smoke. I think it's a great spectacle. Is that what you meant? Myself, I
wouldn't call that pollution compared to what comes out of a car's arse.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...

As for Women's Suffrage, that's an interesting subject.
One thing people shouldn't ignore with regard to the US
is that many states enacted voting rights for women
long before the federal constitution did. Several
states gave full suffrage to women in the 19th century,
for example.

I don't doubt you, but it couldn't have been very early in the 19th century,
as South Australia claims it was the fourth place in the world to give women
the vote. That was in 1894.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:52:01 +0800, "Neil Gerace" wrote:


I don't doubt you, but it couldn't have been very early in the 19th century,
as South Australia claims it was the fourth place in the world to give women
the vote. That was in 1894.


Maybe it was the 4th place to do it and keep it that way. At the time of the
signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, 4 colonies/states "gave"
women voting rights- Massachusetts, New Hamphire, New Jersey and
New York. By the time the U.S. Constitution was written (1787), all
but New Jersey had revoked women's suffrage. New Jersey finally revoked
it in 1807.

Wyoming Territory granted suffrage to women in 1869. Utah Territory followed
in 1870, only to revoke it in 1887. Idaho granted it in 1890, when it became a
state. Colorado approved it by popular vote (among the men, of course in
1893.

Wyoming, Idaho and Colorado couldn't be the first three places in the world
to permanently allow women to vote, could they?

Dale

"Dale" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:52:01 +0800, "Neil Gerace"
wrote:


I don't doubt you, but it couldn't have been very early in the 19th
century,
as South Australia claims it was the fourth place in the world to give
women
the vote. That was in 1894.


Maybe it was the 4th place to do it and keep it that way. At the time of
the
signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, 4 colonies/states "gave"
women voting rights- Massachusetts, New Hamphire, New Jersey and
New York. By the time the U.S. Constitution was written (1787), all
but New Jersey had revoked women's suffrage. New Jersey finally revoked
it in 1807.

Wyoming Territory granted suffrage to women in 1869. Utah Territory
followed
in 1870, only to revoke it in 1887. Idaho granted it in 1890, when it
became a
state. Colorado approved it by popular vote (among the men, of course
in
1893.

Wyoming, Idaho and Colorado couldn't be the first three places in the
world
to permanently allow women to vote, could they?

South Australia's women's suffrage rights for their lower house included all
women right from the start, not just whites or those with a certain amount
of property.

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
. au...


What is the nature of this pollution? I am aware that in our major sugar
cane state, Queensland, growers fire their cane and it causes the
mandatory
smoke. I think it's a great spectacle. Is that what you meant? Myself, I
wouldn't call that pollution compared to what comes out of a car's arse.


Neil,

These days, the majority of the Qld crop is harvested green - not so many
big burns any more.

Brian