http://www.attrition.org/gallery/com...hijacklive.jpg

[ 11-12-2002, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: caleb ]

O_o

Well err. . . okayee... [img]tongue.gif[/img] I guess this means seriouse changes for China...

And um... ... wow? i guess we dont have to like... uh... hrmm... That's funny because I honestly thought our next big war would be with them... >_>

well... that uh... hmm *burns hundreds of papers* *whistles non-chalantley* *Continues the self-narated embarrasment* *ends it*

--------------------
http://members.lycos.co.uk/th8or/PSO...4892409328.jpg
<font color="yellow">"You Don't Have Fasion Sense! Not Until You've Got The FO!"</font>

And that is different from the last fifty years, how? :D Actually, Florida's result was predicted incorrectly by a chaos theory expert that I know. Since it was so near an equilibrium, (tie) every time that you recount it would give you a different result. The remarkable thing was that every time that they recounted it, Bush won,. And, as for the famous butterfly ballot, that was designed by a Democrat. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Not to go too far afield here Attalus, but wouldn't chaos theory dictate that a chaos theorist will be wrong a certain percentage of the time? ;)

More seriously, the political party membership of the person who designed the ballot has no connection with the Democratic voters whose votes were seriously stiffled. And, it would have been (almost) equally bad had Republican votes been thrown off-track. I agree, for the most part, with the S. Court's ruling on the matter, and I'm not exactly a liberal demanding a recount. My point is more to the embarrassment caused by that election.

The votes never counted the same. Several things I've already mentioned above post went wrong. Others went wrong as well - let's not forget the ballot boxes that kept turning up, one was in the back hallway of a church, I believe. Bush and Gore lawyers harranguing over individual ballots and whether or not they should be counted - with many inconsistent inclusions and exclusions. It was a farce. Which is why the Supreme Court basically said "We don't know what would be right, but this isn't it, and you've got to stop it."

Oh... erm... Communism in China, that's right. Sorry to go to outer space elcetion-land for a bit.

China has some very interesting ways to deal with the influx of capitalism. Most of these will turn out to be "stalling" capitalism rather than really keeping it at bay. For instance, unless things have changed since I studied it, private ownership is allowed in China, but not protected. You only have a "right" to those things you need, which are equal among people. So while you may work on your particular collective and gain enough extra to buy some private property, you have no right to it. For instance, if your home on the collective burns, the government provides a new one - to each according to their needs. However, if your private property burns, tough luck. You have no right beyond your needs. That was a little "extra" you got, and good for you, but now it's gone.

There are other examples of this I picked up in a comparative law course. It's interesting to watch a nation that knows it must play the game the majority of nations play try to grapple with keeping capitalism out of its national system.

I think Max Webber, in "The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism," pointed out that once one person began the capitalism game, everyone else had no option other than to adopt it and compete. China's entry into the WTO?

LOL, Timber, you are certainly right on the "embarrassment" part. I hope that China does join the WTO. They could have all of the meetings, there, and the Greens would have to deal with the Chinese riot police. :D

Correct...but the error would lead to the rise of a greater truth. :D

-Sazerac