From: bowman@montana.com   
      
   On Fri, 26 Dec 2025 20:29:05 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:   
      
      
   > Given that the Constitution (capitalized like the Bible) was written to   
   > protect the interests of what was in effect a "landed gentry",   
   > it is a bit remarkable that it over time has permitted as broad an   
   > upward mobility as it did until the age of Reagan, Koch and Gingrich.   
   > I guess "Noblesse Oblige" was a thing back then. But now that the gloves   
   > have come off, I think some new rulemaking is required.   
      
   When I was in high school, or perhaps even grade school, I remember the   
   American History class dipping into 'The Federalist Papers'.  Since it was   
   basically indoctrination the Anti-Federalists weren't mentioned although   
   many of their predictions have come to pass. The Federalist party didn't   
   last long but it did manage to create the Marshall led Supreme Court which   
   had a much greater impact.   
      
   > The Catholic church contains amazing diversity; from Opus Dei to Dorothy   
   > Day. And yet they manage to stay together by pretending not to have   
   > differences of doctrine. In other words, hypocrisy is one of the first   
   > ingredients in that glue.   
      
   I would lean more toward the Day side. Have you seen 'Entertaining   
   Angels'?   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertaining_Angels:_The_Dorothy_Day_Story   
      
   Day wasn't one of Cardinal Spellman's favorite people. I don't know if   
   there is much of a connection but Martin Sheen took his stage name from   
   Fulton J. Sheen, another person Spellman disliked.   
      
      
   > I find a lot to agree with in the left wing of Catholicism, even though   
   > I would describe myself as an atheist humanist. (But I attend church   
   > more than most of the "Christians".)   
      
   Day's influences were an interesting blend that included Kropotkin. Not   
   for nothing   
      
   $ hostname   
   kropotkin   
      
      
   > Google and Amazon are two examples of capitalism run off the rails. They   
   > both discovered loopholes in the economy and rode them hard. Google   
   > seemed to be pretty benign at the outset, but when you consider just how   
   > much was spent on infrastructure before they even began to monetize it,   
   > you can tell that someone must have pitched a plan to the money people   
   > quite early on.   
      
   Google's map API was initially free and was used by quite a few people   
   including geocaching.com. Then it suddenly became a profit center. When I   
   was designing our web map I talked to Google to find out what it would   
   cost. The answer was basically 'How much you got'. We went with Esri's   
   API. Esri isn't shy about charging for their products but for some reason   
   they left the JavaScript API open. Google and the other proprietary   
   companies issue a API key that must be included in every query and is used   
   for billing purposes.   
      
   I have very mixed feelings about Amazon. When it started as a book and CD   
   I preferred Barnes & Noble. Especially for foreign CDs Amazon would   
   advertise the item, take the order, and then ultimately fail to deliver.   
   It had the potential to become another failed dotcom but it learned   
   rapidly.   
      
   Now it's difficult to avoid. While I would prefer to support local   
   businesses for many things like the electronics I play with there are no   
   local businesses. This is too small a market and never developed something   
   like Fry's. If you were lucky Radio Shack might have something but they're   
   gone. Of course Fry's is gone now, perhaps killed by Amazon. Even more   
   mundane during covid there was almost no cat food on the shelves locally,   
   but I could get a case of Purina from Amazon. I still get a case every   
   month. I think the cats recognize the Amazon logo on the box but haven't   
   figured out how to help themselves. Kindle? I've got several and rarely   
   buy hardcopy books. Even a lot of the titles in the library's digital   
   collection are routed to the Kindle via Amazon. There are local bookstores   
   and even a B&N but finding what I want is difficult B&N has shrunk their   
   tech books down to one shelf.   
      
   So I recognize the problem of Amazon's virtual monopoly but I also   
   remember having to drive to Spokane for anything vaguely specialized. We   
   do have more big box stores now including a couple of SuperWalmarts, but   
   is that any better?   
      
   > That is the whole point of what's GOOD about ranked choice. Probably   
   > nobody will get their first choice, but you get someone who most people   
   > can tolerate. And thus it pulls government away from extremes, towards   
   > the center. And unllike the "super-districts" of a purer proportional   
   > election system, it does not require changes to the Constitution.   
      
   Maybe. Alaska barely hung on to it so I still think it's a hard sell. I   
   may not align too well with any of the existing parties but I'm not much   
   of a centrist. That smells like institutionalized mediocrity to me.   
      
   > I was much happier when the Republican party worked for the benefit of   
   > SMALL business.   
      
   I'm not sure that has ever been the case in my lifetime. Earl Butz in the   
   Nixon administration started the trend to corporate farming. Wilson, in   
   the Eisenhower years famously said "what's good for the country is good   
   for GM and vice versa".   
      
   Small businessmen have leaned Republican because the Democrats rarely have   
   anything to their benefit but I think they're like remora. When the shark   
   is doing well they get the scraps, but the Republicans are focused on   
   keeping the shark happy.   
      
   Teddy Roosevelt may have been an exception that was thrust on the   
   Republicans. He didn't have much support in his second term. He may have   
   been closer to Bryan than most of the Republicans.   
      
      
   > I don't think we can afford to just "sit back", unless the 30-50 year   
   > olds can figure it out by themselves, and many of THEM seem ready to sit   
   > back and watch, because they have lost faith that they can really change   
   > anything.   
      
   Smart kids. I may be cynical but if anything changed in my lifetime it   
   wasn't for the better. All that idealism of the '60s gave us -- Clinton   
   and Bush. 'When we're in power, we'll change things!'  Then there is old   
   hope and change himself.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)