8 Years Isn't Enough?
Posted by Greg at 03:58, 23 Apr 2008I'm kinda confused by the American political system. You guys have this thing of 8 year maximums for presidency. But then you vote Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and now perhaps Clinton (and then Clinton again?). Perhaps it's time to scrap the 8 years...you might even want to look at re-instituting some sort of monarchy and royal family too.
;)
Bookmark/Search this post with
- Greg's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
2 May 2004
2 hours 45 min
At least it won't be Sir Dubya. Can you believe John Howard will be knighted?! I thought the Queen of England would have found him more suited as the court jester.
10 August 2004
3 hours 42 min
I notice on a side bar to that news item that poor Johnny has received the thumbs down. "Wills" will receive the honour instead, joining the other Royals who are Garter Knights.
Pity - I had thought perhaps the Q. might have slipped accidentally with the sword placement while she was doing the deed!
Regards, Kathrinn
2 May 2004
2 hours 45 min
I'm thinking of Sir Robin from Monty Python's Holy Grail. ;-)
12 April 2007
18 min 56 sec
The detonator of the Mexican Revolution was that general Porfitio Díaz had retained power for more than 30 years. But after so many lives lost and blood shed, the victor of that struggle was the PRI, the official party that maintained the control of the presidency through 6-year periods for almost 8 decades. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
2 weeks 10 hours
That is why Obama and McCain have the best chances now.
In the general election, H. Clinton would surely be attacked as another 4 or 8 years of Bill. This could very well work, after H has emphasized her "experience in the white house".
The republicans cannot do this against Obama.
Similarly, attacking McCain as being a copy of the Bush series of characters is fairly weak.
So I predict that the "superdelegates" will ditch H. Clinton.
But the monarchy in Australia is ok, they hardly ever show up, flying is too expensive. And in Canada, it's just not very interesting for royals (or Royals ?).
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
10 August 2004
3 hours 42 min
Australia is actually the only country in the world with a monarch from a country which has been deemed to be 'foreign'!
A while back, in order to get rid of a Senator who was causing them grief, the Parliament decided to chuck her out on the grounds that she held dual Oz/UK citizenship by declaring that the UK was a foreign country. That threw the baby out with the bathwater, as the Queen thus automatically became 'foreign' as well.
Of course, being south of the equator we do all walk around on our heads, so this ridiculous state of affairs is quite understandable!!!
Regards, Kathrinn.
22 November 2004
2 weeks 10 hours
Perhaps a kind and gentle approach is better.
Don't throw them out. Just keep them quiet, like babies, tell them "there there, we love you pretty king", And reduce their allowances gradually.
After all, these families have their own money, but have depended on support from their parents. The parents here are the countries they used to rule.
I propose that these children are given the opportunity to grow up.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
12 April 2007
18 min 56 sec
"I propose that these children are given the opportunity to grow up."
I'm surely no big fan of monarchies, but I do have to recognize I admire the effort Prince Charles has done with his lands. He has tried to adopt a eco-friendly sustainable philosophy to the agriculture, animal tending and architecture. He has even launched a new line of organic produce; bottomline, that's a fine example of a man who is not just sitting idly waiting for the money to being given by mommy. Then again, what else does he have to do with his time, right? ;-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
2 weeks 10 hours
You do realize that Charles receives the usual farming subsidies from the EU?
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
12 April 2007
18 min 56 sec
Didn't know that. Still, is better than the lazy-ass Grimaldi family, receiving money from their casinos, no? :-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 April 2008
1 year 52 weeks
My feelings on HRH Charlie are ambivalent, RPJ.
What I like about him is that he's one of few public figures to suggest we shouldn't outsource everything and should do more of those pesky, dirty jobs (you know, like growing food and actually making stuff) for our ourselves and our security.
After all, we may not have this wonderful, happy and co-operative globalised economy we all presently enjoy forever. ;-)
Matt
22 November 2004
2 weeks 10 hours
Actually, I do think that Charles is making a serious effort at being a good global citizen. He has the means and education, and he has enough brains.
What I said about the EU subsidies he recieves, is not complete. His mom Liz gets these subsidies too. Yes the Queen of England is subsidized by the EU, as they are in the agriculture business.
Most likely, the royal family is not asking for this stuff. Maybe someone from the UK knows better. My guess is that they just cannot defend themselves against the EU machinery.
About the food - there is more than enough capacity to grow grains, vegetables, and produce meat for everyone on earth. Even at reasonable prices.
The problem in Europe is that they have produced so much, they don't know what to do with it. Same with the US and Canada. And probably other big countries.
So my simplistic suggestion is this - let's do this everywhere. Then we have too much food everywhere. Let us store the durable stuff in case of bad harevsts. The non-durable stuff, and the really old durables, we make into Diesel fuel. That works too, you know. You can compress chickens to make diesel.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
12 April 2007
18 min 56 sec
I don't know about that. Can you ask a farmer in Brazil or Habana, who doesn't own a tractor and depends of the variability of rains, to produce as muchs as their counterparts of rich countries like the US or the UK?
And the other problem is that those same farmers in Brazil have realized there's much more money planting oil palms that wheat or rice. That's one of the reasons there's a shortage of basic foods lately. This didn't happen overnight, it was a slow process that began 5-10 years ago.
I think we could all agree that the ideal would be for every country to be independent in their capacity to feed their population. Sadly we're a long way to accomplish that.
And we as a consumer have run too spoiled: we demand having things like strawberries and oranges ALL YEAR, and we don't care if they come from Florida or from across the globe, we want them with the same low price, because otherwise we will go to the next store and you'll lose a costumer. I think what's happening is that the system we built is presenting us with the check for the tab we opened 30 years ago, when we all thought we understood the rules of this game calle globalization.
Obviously we didn't.
And yes, earthling, I have read about these plants that can convert any knd of organic waste into usable oil or bio-diesel. I think it is imperative to begin building these plants at a mass scale so we can recycle our garbage more efficiently.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
2 weeks 10 hours
The productivity of a field of grain in northern Europe of Canada or the USA is 2 or 3 times what it is in Asia or South America.
That is because of technology, sure. But it is also because the farmers are more educated and have better tools.
If we educate the farmers in the low productivity countries, and give them the right tools, the world will be awash in food. It is not that difficult, we can feed everyone.
And I don't think that farmers in South America or in Africa or in Asia are any more stupid than in Europe or in the Americas.
My point is that densely populated, highly industrialized countriese like Germany, Netherlands and such places, produce more food than they know what to do with. Really, Germany is a net exporter of food. Holland is so densely populated that you would think it is one city. But they are a big exporter of food.
So they dump the excess in international markets, in particular in Africa. Thus they ruin the business of low tech farmers there.
So I say, let us improve farming practices in the poor places. Then they will have a food surplus very soon, in 5 or 10 years, and they can then sell it as diesel.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
12 April 2007
18 min 56 sec
Improving farming tehcniques and education in developing countries is paramount. In fact, they should be considered a matter of national security in countries like the US and the EU.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
1 May 2004
42 weeks 3 days
That the Neo-Cons won't leave. And it wasn't till after FDR died during a 3rd term that the Constitution was changed to make it a Max of 2 terms.