Podcast for 4-16-2012

[MrBogosity]

[mp3]https://bogosity.podbean.com/mf/web/j6vikz/BogosityPodcast-2012-04-16.mp3[/mp3]


Co-host: Jonathan Loesche

Libertarian candidate special:

Debates:

• South Carolina http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exep0tHbQ18
• Florida http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRsr0VCb8wU
• Georgia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nreumAId020
• Texas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg7ryvUh9oo

Roger Gary http://rvgary2012.com/

Scott Keller http://www.keller2012.com/

Leroy Saunders http://saunders2012.org/Home_Page.php

James Ogle http://usparliament.org/google2012.php

Carl Person http://carlperson2012.com/

Gary Johnson http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

• Appearance on Stephen Colbert: http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/mon-april-2-2012-gary-johnson

R. Lee Wrights http://wrights2012.com/

• 30-second spot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agu1mGhaJB0
• Million Vote March: http://www.millionvotemarch.com/

This Week's Quote: "The two-party system has given this country the war of Lyndon Johnson, the Watergate of Nixon, and the incompetence of Carter. Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life-rafts." —Eugene McCarthy

[FSBlueApocalypse]

Hey Shane

I thought I had sent you the file after we got off the air. After I talked to you I didn't have a chance to check my email until late Sunday afternoon.

[MrBogosity]

Go ahead and send it again (send it over Skype if it won't go through email). If it's higher quality I can replace the one that's there now.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

That last quote makes it sound like the "two party system" was planned.  I'd have to look it up but wasn't there a vid that explained that "two parties" inevitably emerges in a voting system?

[MrBogosity]

Parties inevitably emerge, but in the United States they've had to pass law after law after law to keep the third parties from gaining any real power.

[evensgrey]

Parties inevitably emerge, but in the United States they've had to pass law after law after law to keep the third parties from gaining any real power.

Here in Canada, we've currently got 3 significant parties at the national levels, and that's down from 5 parties 10 years ago, and the Greens are struggling to become a 4th significant national party (although that will almost certainly be at the expense of the NDP, the current #2 party nationally).  Ontario has the same three parties at the provincial level that operate nationally, but across the river in Quebec only one of them operates, and there are two completely different parties from that national ones besides.  Alberta, which is currently in an election campaign, has the three national parties operating provincially as well, in addition to a purely provincial party (that currently looks to be winning the election, and changing the governing party for the first time in over 40 years).  If you look at countries with proportional list elections (which seems to be the most popular alternative to the first-past-the-post system used in Canada and the US, where the candidate with the most votes takes the electoral district, whatever it might be) there are usually dozens of parties that matter.

[Ibrahim90]

Here in Canada, we've currently got 3 significant parties at the national levels, and that's down from 5 parties 10 years ago, and the Greens are struggling to become a 4th significant national party (although that will almost certainly be at the expense of the NDP, the current #2 party nationally).  Ontario has the same three parties at the provincial level that operate nationally, but across the river in Quebec only one of them operates, and there are two completely different parties from that national ones besides.  Alberta, which is currently in an election campaign, has the three national parties operating provincially as well, in addition to a purely provincial party (that currently looks to be winning the election, and changing the governing party for the first time in over 40 years).  If you look at countries with proportional list elections (which seems to be the most popular alternative to the first-past-the-post system used in Canada and the US, where the candidate with the most votes takes the electoral district, whatever it might be) there are usually dozens of parties that matter.

ok, you got me hooked here: what sort of Party is that Alberta-unique one?

[evensgrey]

ok, you got me hooked here: what sort of Party is that Alberta-unique one?

It's called the Wild Rose Party (the wild rose is Alberta's Provincial Flower).  They're being called a right-wing party in the media, but in Canada that means anything that isn't at least hard-left, so it basically says nothing.  The only policy we hear about as far east as Ontario is a plan to give each resident of Alberta $300 a month out of the oil and gas royalties (once they pay off the existing public debts, which aren't all that big).

[Ibrahim90]

It's called the Wild Rose Party (the wild rose is Alberta's Provincial Flower).  They're being called a right-wing party in the media, but in Canada that means anything that isn't at least hard-left, so it basically says nothing.  The only policy we hear about as far east as Ontario is a plan to give each resident of Alberta $300 a month out of the oil and gas royalties (once they pay off the existing public debts, which aren't all that big).

sounds like what the Kuwaiti government does: they give money to the citizens every month. only it's more. and it's based on how many kids you have, and you have to be a Kuwaiti and not just a resident, which means only 30% of the population gets anything--the rest of Kuwait's c. 3 million residents are foreigners (Arab and non-Arab, largely the former), and so don't get diddly squat.

[evensgrey]

sounds like what the Kuwaiti government does: they give money to the citizens every month. only it's more. and it's based on how many kids you have, and you have to be a Kuwaiti and not just a resident, which means only 30% of the population gets anything--the rest of Kuwait's c. 3 million residents are foreigners (Arab and non-Arab, largely the former), and so don't get diddly squat.

IIRC, doesn't one of the Gulf States with LOTS of oil money give their (relatively tiny population of) citizens the equivalent of welfare that includes a nice house with servants?

[Ibrahim90]

IIRC, doesn't one of the Gulf States with LOTS of oil money give their (relatively tiny population of) citizens the equivalent of welfare that includes a nice house with servants?

that's news to me. though frankly, I could describe all but two of the Persian Gulf countries (Oman and Saudi Arabia) with the part I bolded. If any of them are doing this, I'd reckon it's either Qatar (super small population), or the UAE (though I doubt it).

either way, I don't care. these people are certainly one thing I don't miss about the Arab world. I could go on describing what the Kuwaitis did to us Palestinians after the Persian Gulf War--my own family was lucky that they could stay, though my late Grandad was fired from his job as Imam, and barred from sermonizing--just for being Palestinian, though he committed no crime against the government during the invasion.

oh, and needless to say, almost everyone in Hawali who knew him were livid....not that they could do diddly-squat: they're all Arabs, but not Kuwaiti. most are from the levant. I'll leave you to figure out what sort of rights non-Kuwaiti Arabs have, unless you suck govco's cock, like some other nationalities do...