- Cassini-Huygens Mission status report

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
. au...
What is the nature of this pollution?

Quite a bit of it is fertilizer and pesticide runoff, but a lot of it is
sewage, as well.

Myself, I
wouldn't call that pollution compared to what comes out of a car's arse.

The problem is that the pollution feeds algae in unbalanced numbers, which
ends up either directly killing stuff (and indirectly the stuff that depends
on *that* stuff), or driving it away.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:47:27 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

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.

Has Switzerland extended the franchise to all women in all elections?
I thought there were differences between cantons, but I'm basing this
on really old information.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

Has Switzerland extended the franchise to all women in all elections?
I thought there were differences between cantons, but I'm basing this
on really old information.

Yeah! Let's bring democracy to Switzerland next! I could use a new watch.

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

Has Switzerland extended the franchise to all women in all elections?
I thought there were differences between cantons, but I'm basing this
on really old information.

Mary

I believe so and I believe it occurred as late at the 1970's because I
seem to remember my aunt and my father (both Swiss citizens - my father
by birth, my aunt by derivation from her parents) having a bit of a
fight over it. My semi-hippy aunt was elated, my father started teasing
his baby sister, and things rapidly deteriorated from there.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Christopher M. Jones wrote:
Charles Buckley wrote:

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?


This is a hilarious point for several reasons.
First because the President of the US is not
technically directly elected even today.

So, you're making your point on the *relative*
degree of indirectness of elections? Have you ever
voted for someone running for the Electoral College?
(I have, but that varies by state).

Second
because America's system of government is far,
far more populist than any in Europe.

And it only took 200 years and a Civil War and any number
of necessary events to coalesce that form of government.
You're not allowing for a transition period. It was difficult
for the US to get states to agree to the Constitution and
that was after the first attempt at a limitted federal government
failed and anarchy was a real possibility. You're expecting
countries with thousands of years of sovereignty to turn around
and give it up with no real issue.

Would you, for instance, agree to the US joining a World Government?
If so, what terms and limitations would you put on it? Can you
expect anything less from people and countries actually doing this?

That the EU is being created is enough of a strain as it is. It
requires a development period.

Some of
the election systems in Europe are so indirect
it makes me wonder if they really should be
called democracies.


This differs from early America in what way exactly?

In any event, the EU
cannot reasonably be called a democratic
institution.

Except for the House of Representatives, that is also a direct
statement of the US until the year 1913 when they allowed the
people to elect both houses on Congress.

Charles Buckley wrote in message ...
Christopher M. Jones wrote:
Charles Buckley wrote:

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?


This is a hilarious point for several reasons.
First because the President of the US is not
technically directly elected even today.

So, you're making your point on the *relative*
degree of indirectness of elections? Have you ever
voted for someone running for the Electoral College?
(I have, but that varies by state).

Second
because America's system of government is far,
far more populist than any in Europe.

And it only took 200 years and a Civil War and any number
of necessary events to coalesce that form of government.
You're not allowing for a transition period. It was difficult
for the US to get states to agree to the Constitution and
that was after the first attempt at a limitted federal government
failed and anarchy was a real possibility. You're expecting
countries with thousands of years of sovereignty to turn around
and give it up with no real issue.

Would you, for instance, agree to the US joining a World Government?
If so, what terms and limitations would you put on it? Can you
expect anything less from people and countries actually doing this?

That the EU is being created is enough of a strain as it is. It
requires a development period.

Some of
the election systems in Europe are so indirect
it makes me wonder if they really should be
called democracies.


This differs from early America in what way exactly?

In any event, the EU
cannot reasonably be called a democratic
institution.

Except for the House of Representatives, that is also a direct
statement of the US until the year 1913 when they allowed the
people to elect both houses on Congress.

May I ask which Charles Buckley is posting here? Are you related to
the former NASA security chief?

Charles Buckley wrote:
Christopher M. Jones wrote:
This is a hilarious point for several reasons.
First because the President of the US is not
technically directly elected even today.

So, you're making your point on the *relative*
degree of indirectness of elections? Have you ever
voted for someone running for the Electoral College?
(I have, but that varies by state).

The difference between, say, the electoral college
and, say, the process of selection of EU ministers
are enough to put them in completely different
categories. In the case of the electoral college,
there is over 2 centuries of history showing that it
works, that for the most part it does represent the
opinion of the electorate, and that on the rare
occasions when it fails to do so it does so, for the
most part, "gracefully". On the other hand, the EU
bureaucracy is so far removed from the will of the
electorate that it passes beyond humor.


Second
because America's system of government is far,
far more populist than any in Europe.

And it only took 200 years and a Civil War and any number
of necessary events to coalesce that form of government.
You're not allowing for a transition period. It was difficult
for the US to get states to agree to the Constitution and
that was after the first attempt at a limitted federal government
failed and anarchy was a real possibility. You're expecting
countries with thousands of years of sovereignty to turn around
and give it up with no real issue.

You seem to be under the impression that I am
in favor of the EU or of some EU-like entity.
I do not know where you would get that, but I
am most decidedly not.


Would you, for instance, agree to the US joining a World Government?
If so, what terms and limitations would you put on it? Can you
expect anything less from people and countries actually doing this?

Again, I don't see where you get this.


That the EU is being created is enough of a strain as it is. It
requires a development period.

I'm not sure of your meaning here. If you mean
that the EU needs some time to develop after it
has become a single nation, I would say I reject
that. If you are saying that the notion of the
EU and its foundations need to develop until they
are suitable before they are put into practice,
then I might agree with that.


Some of
the election systems in Europe are so indirect
it makes me wonder if they really should be
called democracies.

This differs from early America in what way exactly?

Again, the details matter. That the electoral college
is nominally "indirect" belies its strong directness
under the vast majority of circumstances. The
level of indirectness that I take issue with are things
such as the electorate having very little say in their
"choice" of representatives. The Prime Minister
system, for example, I dislike for precisely that
reason. Systems where people vote for parties and
those parties choose the list of representatives I
dislike for the same reasons.


In any event, the EU
cannot reasonably be called a democratic
institution.

Except for the House of Representatives, that is also a direct
statement of the US until the year 1913 when they allowed the
people to elect both houses on Congress.

Not at all. The system was less populist, and
slightly more federal, but still very much
democratic. Not least because the House and the
President were elected, constituting, at the
absolutely slimmest estimation, half the federal
government. Moreover, before the Seventeenth
amendment went into effect fully 29 states had
popular nomination of Senators. Compare and
contrast with the EU as it exists today and as
it would be if the proposed constitution where
adopted.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...
Systems where people vote for parties and
those parties choose the list of representatives I
dislike for the same reasons.

Isn't that what your president does? Your whole Cabinet is unelected.

Neil Gerace wrote:
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...

Systems where people vote for parties and
those parties choose the list of representatives I
dislike for the same reasons.

Isn't that what your president does? Your whole Cabinet is unelected.

The cabinet is not comprised of "representatives".
Besides which, the vast majority of all federal
employees are not elected. But that does not mean
we live under an undemocratic government. What
matters is that authority and accountability
ultimately rests with elected officials (and thus
with the electorate). At least it would without
the hampering civil service regulations we have
now.

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

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...
Systems where people vote for parties and
those parties choose the list of representatives I
dislike for the same reasons.

Isn't that what your president does?

Not in the least.

Your whole Cabinet is unelected..

Correctly so. For one thing, they aren't supposed to represent anyone,
particularly in a legislative fashion. Moreover, they are specifically
tasked with carrying out the will of the President, so they should be
appointed by him. Third, they are confirmed or denied by the Senate, which
is an elected body.

Florida, until recently, had many elected Cabinet officials. For example,
the Florida Secretary of Education often publically ridiculed the Governor's
education plan, and because she was directly elected, the Governor was
powerless to do anything about it, thus damaging his ability to do his job.
Worse, since a majority of the cabinet *was* elected, they could directly
override the Governor; the Governor was the public symbol of Florida
government, which means that *he* was held directly responsible for problems
even when the actions of his Cabinet were directly contrary to his will. In
short, the system acted like a bunch of mini-governors. How well would a
parliamentary system act if every minister had much of the authority of the
Prime Minister, and a majority of ministers could override the Prime
Minister (who had no veto power against them)?

It's hard to get things done when everybody insists on being the chief, and
nobody wants to be an indian.