I think the reverse it true. At least in America, people have a visceral distaste for parties and really want to believe they are the source of all political evil, but I believe that the erosion of parties since the 70's has led to the rise of extremist candidates. Party bosses used to select more moderate candidates that could appeal across party lines in the general elections. As candidate selection has become more democratic, extremists have begun to win. I think this also goes too far with the pox on both their houses. I think one party in particular has taken the lead in reducing issues to misleading slogans, leading to great electoral success. That's not a problem of the parties, it's lazy voters.
Sorry to veer so far from Java, but I thought a counterpoint was needed. On Saturday, August 25, 2012 8:52:30 AM UTC-4, JessHolle wrote: > > We elected the idiots, yes. > > Of course, position statements on patent law haven't exactly been > front-and-center in campaigns. > > In general, US elections have more to do with > > 1. Appealing to enough special interests to get loads of money to > inundate the masses with campaign ads > 2. Forming an *image *(not substance) that connects with their base > and a few independents > 3. Repeating terse, almost meaningless 60-second blurbs ad nauseum > > Deeper discussion is too time consuming. It's also too dangerous to the > candidate as they might actually talk about the real complexity of issues > rather than simple, pat answers. No pure party line fully holds water when > one takes a deep look at any issue. Instead, real solutions tend to be > complicated, nuanced, and involve some mix of ideas from a variety of > sources -- something no US political party will really tolerate today. > > I think Mickey Edwards (author of 'The Parties Versus the People') might > be on to something ( > http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/edwards_08-21.html) > urging: > > - No closed, single-party primaries but rather a primary taking all > candidates from all parties with the main election being a runoff between > the winners > - Today's closed primaries produce extremist candidates from all > parties > - Huge reductions of party power and party separation in Congress > - Right now if you don't tow the party line you get no power in > Congress, party-purity reigns supreme > > -- > Jess Holle > > On 8/25/2012 6:09 AM, Jan Goyvaerts wrote: > > Since when are laws concerning IP making much sense ? Since when is the > law a synonym for justice ? That must be a long time ago now... > > Absurd yes - but it's Legal Absurdity. And therefore, if they don't > comply to The Law, they're criminals. And will be punished. But if they > comply, they'll pay $1bn. And will be punished too. Nice, this Legal > Injustice. > > But to be honest, didn't *we* elect those idiots voting those absurd > laws ? So maybe the law is such a mess because we'd rather not use our > brains at the election. > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Ricky Clarkson > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Oracle case: Can you write a library that provides compatibility with >> someone else's library? >> >> Samsung case: Can you copy your competitor's handling of finger-to-screen >> events? >> >> The Oracle case was clearly more relevant to programmers. >> On Aug 25, 2012 4:07 AM, "Fabrizio Giudici" >> <[email protected]<javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >>> I completely fail to understand why we (and the rest of the blogosphere) >>> have spent hundreds of emails discussing the Oracle vs Google suite, as >>> something that could menace Android and thus the freedom to innovate, while >>> almost nothing has been said about the Apple vs Samsung, which is just a >>> proxy for Apple vs Google. BTW, Oracle has lost (at least the first round) >>> challenging on technical stuff, I mean something related to the >>> *implementation* of a VM, Apple has won on "pinch to zoom", which is 100x >>> absurd. My only explanation is a prejudice against Oracle (added to a >>> previous prejudice against Sun), which seems much stronger than the >>> prejudice against Apple. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager >>> Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." >>> [email protected] <javascript:> >>> http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Java Posse" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected] <javascript:>. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Java Posse" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <javascript:>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/BuPyY7573bcJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
