The Cellar - Generation Q

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Generation Q (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=15610)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/op...ml?ref=opinion

Quote:

The Iraq war may be a mess, but I noticed at Auburn and Old Miss more than a few young men and women proudly wearing their R.O.T.C. uniforms. Many of those not going abroad have channeled their national service impulses into increasingly popular programs at home like “Teach for America,” which has become to this generation what the Peace Corps was to mine.

It’s for all these reasons that I’ve been calling them “Generation Q” — the Quiet Americans, in the best sense of that term, quietly pursuing their idealism, at home and abroad.

But Generation Q may be too quiet, too online, for its own good, and for the country’s own good. When I think of the huge budget deficit, Social Security deficit and ecological deficit that our generation is leaving this generation, if they are not spitting mad, well, then they’re just not paying attention. And we’ll just keep piling it on them.

Any thoughts?

I am surprised by the fact that he says we are the volunteering and whatnot in record numbers, all I have usually seen is apathy among my peers since politics rarely gets brought up in conversations. Besides that I agree with a lot of this, it seems like people on my campus are either apathetic or cynical about most protests (I fall under this category) or too idealistic to be anywhere close to reality and very few are in the middle. This combination has a result of people protesting issues they can not change (Iraq) or not protesting at all, very sad and scary.

Other commentators have remarked that the rising generation less resembles their boomer parents in behavior and ideas/ideals than it does their grandparents. At the least, this suggests a swing of the social pendulum.

Politics is not a widespread hobby among the early twentysomething. Most people don't start taking much time over politics until lateish in their thirties, I think.

pierce...it could be the people you hang with. You'd be surprised how revolutionary some youth of today are.

That could be it too. Some students actually went on a hunger strike to support our workers during the worker's strike, but that was only a few people. My friends right now actually have a some strong opinions on some issues, but they are like me and not as vocal for similar reasons. Almost everyone else I've met are apathetic or the same as me but we just haven't talked politics.

That, or maybe youth revolutionaries just don't like the cold. Protesting in -30 degree (F) weather really does suck...

Now if only we could get them to vote, they might make a cultural revolution successful...

Politics were unavoidable when I was growing up (80s)
"Alternative comedy" had hit tv from the comedy clubs and we felt it was "our" sense of humour.

Top 40 songs were also political, and you could easily find a band that mirrored your political mindset. When we were 15-17 we honestly couldn't wait to grow up, get the vote, join Blood Donors, go to Uni, protest and save the world.

All my friends belonged to at least one pressure group, whether it was Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Friends of the Earth or Compassion in World Farming. I don't belong to any of them now, and I bet none of that group of friends does either - or at least not the same ones.

Perhaps we just got distracted when we discovered drugs...

....drugs can be quite distracting

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 394188)

....drugs can be quite distracting

Soma, anyone?

There is just as much music/hullabaloo now amongst pop culture that deals with the political field, as well as plenty of people who join activist groups at a young age... but I refer back to my last statement.

You wouldn't need so many lobbyist groups out there if our lawmakers were actually worried about getting voted out of office rather than appeasing a lobby. Ask any pollster in the country: 18-25 year olds all TALK about voting and making big ol' changes, but they dont friggin vote. Not only do the youngest generations vote the least, almost every successive group of 'youngest' votes less than the LAST.

Don't confuse revolutionary with revolting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by queequeger (Post 394423)

Good points, and hence most young people and their ability to make a difference is completely marginalized. Most don't understand the issues.

Maybe they should raise the voting age then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 394495)

Maybe they should raise the voting age then.

I don't know. I have a hard time with letting people vote at 18, letting them go and die in some far off land, but not letting them have a beer. Maybe they should just get involved and vote.

Well, it's different over here. I think young people are much more involved in the political process. As soon as you turn 18 and register to vote, you then have to vote. I know you lot think people should have the choice of whether to vote or not, but I honestly think that's what is contributing to the apathy of your youth.

They don't have to, so they don't care. If they were obligated to make a choice, then maybe they'd put more thought into it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 394507)

I would agree with that, but hell, we can barely get them to do their homework so they can graduate highschool and go on to college.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 394507)

If they were obligated to make a choice, then maybe they'd put more thought into it.

The reasoning does have merit. Some nations require voting - subject to prosecution if a registered voter does not vote. Forgot which nation has this law.

well, we have that law here, and it comes in the form of a fine if you don't vote, however, it is rarely put into force.

Also I'd add that if you have an obligation to vote but don't want to, you can always do a 'donkey vote' which is of course where you get your name marked off the list but don't vote for any one of the candidates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 394541)

I have worked as a polling place staffer in Australia four times. Boring, but pays ok.
It is illegal to not turn up - the fine is $20 unless you come up with a plausible excuse.
It is illegal to deliberately cast an informal vote (same fine I think) but it is criminal to try to find out how someone is voted, so you can vote informally with impunity. (Informal = ballot paper blank or otherwise not demonstrating a clear intention).
The "donkey vote" as I have always heard the term is where people number the candidates in the order they appear on the ballot. These votes are formal and so candidates can get extra votes if they are lucky enough to be first on the paper. When counting votes we find a fair few like this.
Some jokers like to get creative with their ballot papers; adding candidates, political spiels, sketches. This normally, but not always, makes them informal, but they're great amusement when we have to sort through and count the bloody things. :zzz:

Now, about the US election process ... :censored: I'm going to presume we've had that thread. Repeatedly.

Thanks for all those 'facts' Zen. :alien:

I agree with pierce completely.
Most of my friends are very apathetic, and I am likewise. I mean we'll crack Bush jokes and stuff I guess but we aren't discussing Burma.

Pierce can vouch, my friend's are probably more worried about cramming for their midterm or determining which bar to go to on the weekend than Bush's shrinking safety zone.
Maybe it comes with age. Probably. But from my environment for the past, 19 years, not now.

We have, Zen.

Those who can't believe Republicans ought to be President bitch, and the ones who care about the Republic in general chew on them for being beyond the pale. The pale of reason, most usually: there has been some flaky shit talked. Mostly, it's the left-of-center set failing to adapt to the reality that the electorate is turning away from them, percentage point by percentage point: the pendulum is swinging to the right.

I've worked election polling stations myself. The money's okay, though hardly an enormous hourly rate given the length of the day you put in, fifteen or sixteen hours total, with thirteen of that given to the actual balloting. And I've processed absentee ballots before -- the protocols to protect the Office of the Registrar's probity are pretty impressive. Never saw anybody draw little pictures, though write-ins could provide amusement: there were a few votes for Ah-nuld the Governator even a couple of elections before he won the Governorship in that improbable recall election. This term in office will be Schwarzenegger's last, due to term limits. Nothing much is being said about his future plans, but he's the sort to have them.

sigh (okay, complete lack of self restraint: )

:2cents:

1. Abolish the electoral colleges. Have one gigantic bucket, put all the votes in there, count 'em up. Most votes wins.
(This is mostly to eliminate the "battleground states" phenomenon. Minority presidents are very rare.)

2. Once folks have got the hang of that, consider preferential voting. It's a bit complicated, but you can make giving preferences optional.

3. Can the process be shortened somehow? It takes a year and a half! Even I am getting bored already, I hate to think what it must be like inside the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 394879)

1. Abolish the electoral colleges. Have one gigantic bucket, put all the votes in there, count 'em up. Most votes wins.
(This is mostly to eliminate the "battleground states" phenomenon. Minority presidents are very rare.)

Can't do it. Then we would have a democracy.

Quote:

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

Thanks Merc, but two questions:
Minor question: who and what were you quoting? I always like to know.
Major question: how was any of that democracy-versus-republic discussion relevant to electoral colleges? The quote seemed to say, we must have a constitution (which the elected leaders cannot tinker with too easily) and some kind of statement of rights, to protect minorities and individuals. If we have either a direct or representative democracy without this, then the mass mob, or the elected group, can violate the rights of individuals, which would be bad.
Plausible enough, although I think it belongs in the "definition of democracy" thread. But please, how is this affected by whether you use the popular vote or electoral colleges? You could still have the constitutional limits on the president's power, the bill of rights, congress, the supreme court, and such, while using the popular vote. I'm just advocating a slightly different method of counting the votes, not a change in the powers the president gets. What's the connection?

Zen, as a general rule, we Americans consider that the workings of political power should not be either too swift nor for that matter slickly efficient. The ultimate example of a swift and highly efficient working of power would be an autocracy -- a real "L'etat, c'est moi," the purest sort of dictatorship, one where only the dictator has rights, and all his subjects are appendages of himself. A fine system... for ants.

The excitement about the Electoral College this and the Electoral College that rather obscures one subtle but necessary point: the Presidency and with it the Vice Presidency are the only such elected offices in the entire Federal system. Everyone else is directly elected. This is inserted as a check and balance, however toothless it may or may not be.

UG, why are you refering to 'we Americans' so much just now. Are you suggesting that your views represent the views of every American?

In this, yes. Any reason why not?

Just curious. I think it's a bit presumptuous that's all. I'm pretty sure it's going to get you in trouble when a few others see it. ;)

The connection, Zen, is that as a republic we elect people to vote for us rather than just voting directly. While I agree with 95% of that quote, btw, it seems a little biased in language. I do think a direct democracy with separation of powers (something that was somewhat under-discussed in the Federalist papers) would have a fair chance of succeeding, especially if states retained their rights.

The whole point is that if we do away with the electoral college, we will create a direct democracy which has little buffer against reactionary actions. I don't really see how it DOES this in presidential elections, though.

It makes more sense that congressmen, being elected by their states and not directly by the entire country, would act as a fine buffer against despotism of sorts. The president, however, should be directly elected. The whole reason he's NOT is so that the country can give a 'mandate' to their leader. It would eliminate the almost unavoidable two party system if we did directly elect, though, because now all we have are people voting for the lesser of two evils.

He must be trying to be funny. And it worked--it's hilarious!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 395630)

Just curious. I think it's a bit presumptuous that's all. I'm pretty sure it's going to get you in trouble when a few others see it. ;)

UG's views represent all Americans as much as tw's do. Everyone has an opinion. But let us not forget that is all they are, from any of us.

Well tw doesn't use terms like 'we Americans' in every other post like UG was doing last night.

It was like 'you Americans' were all of a sudden united in your fight against...ummm...well, whatever UG said you were united about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 395965)

tw is no better, in fact he is worse.

You're just saying that because you never agree with him while you sometimes agree with UG. lol

And Ali, I remain serene. Experience shows I can handle any amount of their sort of trouble.

Tw would be among the last to use the phrase -- he is so very much the anti-patriot.

but by your definition, so would I be...and yet you don't seem to loath me the way you do him.

Thanks for your answers guys. Alas, I still can't see a reason, or at least much reason, to keep the colleges system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla (Post 395627)

Re your Paragraph One: Yes, the most extreme example of efficient government is one neither of us wants. But it is fallacious to infer that any movement at all in that direction is therefore bad. Run the argument the other way: the most extreme example of inefficient government is total chaotic anarchy (or at least mob rule), this is bad, so we must make government more efficient. Neither argument is good. What we need is to decide if we would be better off by with a governmental system a little more efficient, or a little less.

Paragraph Two: If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that because congress is elected directly, you need the president to be elected indirectly as a balance. As well as toothless, this seems unnecessary, and possibly counterproductive.
Toothless because (if my facts are wrong, do let me know) the colleges meet once every four years, can't dismiss a president once he (or she) is in office, and are expected to vote for the candidate they always said they would (although I've heard they don't absolutely have to ... is this true?).
Unnecessary because there are plenty of other restraints on the president: congress with its over-ride and impeachment powers, the supreme court, the consciences of 300,000,000 citizens, and UG's personal arsenal.
Counter-productive because it allows an extra opportunity for would-be tyrants to meddle with the system.
Maybe your point does carry some weight, but it seems very little to me, and thoroughly outweighed by considerations against it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by queequeger (Post 395631)

It isn't really clear, but it sounds like you'd rather use the popular vote.
Your point that "(t)he whole reason he's NOT is so that the country can give a 'mandate' to their leader" has me baffled. What better way could a country give a mandate to someone than by directly electing them?

In general, I simply do not buy the idea that a direct democracy is any more likely to slide into autocracy than the representative system. In fact, the electoral colleges provide an extra opportunity for would be tyrants to meddle with the system.
Even if, as UG suggests, it is some kind of balance to the direct system used for everything else, I think this benefit is greatly outweighed by the problems of the battleground states phenomenon and the perpetuation of the two party system.

Well, it's your country and you guys can run it how you like. I think we are getting close to DEAD HORSE time on this discussion, unless you have something scintillating to add. Thanks for your thoughtful replies, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 396226)

... and are expected to vote for the candidate they always said they would (although I've heard they don't absolutely have to ... is this true?).

Many states have passed laws that force them to vote for the winner of the state, and most are selected by the winning party, because there have been folks who didn't vote for their candidate (though it's never changed anything).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 396226)

I do think direct election makes more sense. The mandate in this sense means 51% or more. Some of the penmen of the constitution thought that if we elected somebody with, say, 35% of the popular vote (i.e. we had more than one candidate), that it would mean the country didn't really want him in office. All I see happening is people voting for the person they MOST agree with rather than someone they fully agree with. Even Washington (8 foot 20, fucking killing for fun) foresaw this creating a two party system, which it has. I'm all for popularly elected federal executives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 396154)

but by your definition, so would I be...and yet you don't seem to loathe me the way you do him.

Of course not -- not because you're non-U.S. with a non-U.S. perspective, but because you're not a leftover Soviet communist, and you show better character than he does and better manners as well. You're more sensible.

There are things about how we live in the American republic that you don't have the background to really understand, and you don't understand that, or why, we like 'em that way, better than all other possible choices, good or bad. So far we've had our share of difficulties communicating just why we choose as we do, advocate what we do.

ZenG, yeah -- all these points have been raised and mulled over and they're worth thinking about. Our political philosophers have written reams about them. There isn't a great deal of motivation to start the Constitutional amendment process -- another one of those lengthy workings of power, btw -- because we're just not seeing a great injustice here that needs remedying.

The winner-take-all Electoral College vote system of itself pulls political parties into a two-party system. Proportional voting would engender by the same token three parties or more, as is seen in some other undeniable Republics.

The Equal Rights Amendment -- for women only -- from the 1970s went down because of a general suspicion that this was hardly the proper sphere of the Federal government, especially the way it was written -- unintended consequences would have been detrimental. Really, the Fourteenth Amendment should cover anything actually needed.

Quote:

There are things about how we live in the American republic that you don't have the background to really understand, and you don't understand that, or why, we like 'em that way, better than all other possible choices, good or bad. So far we've had our share of difficulties communicating just why we choose as we do, advocate what we do.

I may not live in America UG, but I also don't need to know I'll hurt myself if I jump off a cliff. I may not experience the actual pain, but I can imagine it fairly well.

What I also know is that bit by bit, the rest of the western world is falling prey to a lot of the same problems you have in your country because of the 'homogenization' of western society. I use the word homogenization because some people take offence to being told the world is becoming Americanized in the true sense of the word.

Do I like this? There are some good points, and some bad points. The worst part about it for me is the loss of culture for everyone else.

You make a lot of assumptions about a lot of things you know very little about UG. Personally I don't care what you think, but I will tell you that if you think you're going to condescend to me I'll just stop responding to you. Maybe you wont care. So be it. I'm telling you now though, you will influence far more people to your way of thinking if you treat them as equals instead of underlings.

If he treated everyone as equals he'd be more... liberal!?:eek:

haha...that's probably true qq. ;)

When I hear thinking I can respect, people... it's not bad just because you thought it; if it's bad it's because it was poor stuff from the beginning. I've heard thinking I can respect, and I've heard it around here.

I don't hear a lot of it from the people who are violently opposed to my kind of thinking, indeed the more violent they are the less impressive their own thinking. My most determined opponent here is about three steps short of commitment, is he not? I don't call it my thoughts, for I do not have exclusive ownership of these ideas, nor do very many of them originate with me. Sometimes I connect a dot or two; what's next is to see if the connections prove out.

Quote:

I don't hear a lot of it from the people who are violently opposed to my kind of thinking, indeed the more violent they are the less impressive their own thinking.

*chuckles* arrogant?

Well, he's correct that he can't hear thinking that disagrees with his own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 394339)

Soma, anyone?

And some sex hormone gum

Quote:

Originally Posted by toranokaze (Post 397810)

And some sex hormone gum

You mean like this?

Quote:

Suplitol Tongkat Ali Gum for Men contains a variety of natural herbs and extracts proven (they say) to improve blood flow and muscular function - and they don't mean in your arms, regardless of what the ad photo displays. The gum also contains something called "plant testosterone"... hey, have you ever seen a limp tree?

Or like this:

Quote:

Sorry ladies, if you thought that a Japanese "sex gum for women" was going to be the complement of the just mentioned Suplitol Tongkat Ali Gum for Men, you're going to be sadly disappointed - and probably more than a little annoyed. Bust Up Gum, the female sex gum from B2UP, just makes the fairer sex more sexy - in the eyes of the opposite sex!

None of that blood flow stuff, noooo... according to B2UP, the special ingredients, "extracts from the Pueraria mirifica (Kwao Krua) plant, makes a woman's breasts grow as well as improving their shape and tone." I didn't know breasts HAD a tone - unless it's High C (or B Flat). Still, it's amazing... boob-enhancing gum. They could call it Double Bubble if the name wasn't already taken.

Bust Up gum is just the latest Japanese food product containing Pueraria extracts - others include F-Cup Tea and F-Cup Cookies. Can't say they're not confident in their products!

It truly is a Brave New World

That's A flat.

Carry on.

Though she looks more like a C Sharp. Twin Peaks, anyway.

Intriguing as always, man's obsession with her bosom.
Got my attention though, obviously.

Meanwhile, some real Aussie sheilas prove they don't need chewing gum....

From http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...l?from=mostpop

Quote:

A BARMAID has been fined for crushing beer cans between her bare breasts while an off-duty colleague has been fined for hanging spoons from her friend's nipples.

The 31-year old barmaid pleaded guilty in the local magistrates court to twice exposing her breasts to patrons at the Premier Hotel in Pinjarra, south of Perth.

The woman "is alleged to have also crushed beer cans between her breasts during one of the offences", in breach of hotel licensing laws, police from the Peel district of Western Australia said.

The barmaid and the hotel manager were both fined $1000, while an off-duty barmaid was fined $500 for helping to hang spoons from the woman's nipples, police said.

"It sends a clear message to all licensees in Peel that we will not tolerate this type of behaviour in our licensed premises," local police superintendent David Parkinson said.

I love the way paragraph three implies that hotel licensing laws explicitly forbid crushing beer cans between breasts. I think it is just poorly written, but, you never know, this is Australia...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 395630)

Just curious. I think it's a bit presumptuous that's all. I'm pretty sure it's going to get you in trouble when a few others see it. ;)

I think she prefers "you Americans!!!" to "us or we Americans".

Just jokes....don't threaten to remove my smilies again.
:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 399428)

Meanwhile, some real Aussie sheilas prove they don't need chewing gum....

From http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...l?from=mostpop

I love the way paragraph three implies that hotel licensing laws explicitly forbid crushing beer cans between breasts. I think it is just poorly written, but, you never know, this is Australia...

That's a very funny story in my opinion. I don't know what the countryside is like in Peel, but that's nothing compared to some of the stuff that happens in outback pubs. What I want to know is, if nipples are out, are they allowed to hang spoons off their noses instead? I know this provides hours of entertainment for my kids when they're stuck at various different functions we take them to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cicero (Post 399440)

I think she prefers "you Americans!!!" to "us or we Americans".

Just jokes....don't threaten to remove my smilies again.
:D

No, I meant you personally. I don't think the whole population of a country should be held responsible for the ramblings of one person. :)

Then you will have to quit representing England for Dana.

:)

Plbbbt!

I didn't represent England for Dana. I represented my own opinion from the perspective of a nation which has very similar laws, which you implied you weren't interested in anyway. *shrugs* whatever.

Quote:

Then you will have to quit representing England for Dana.

Having an opinion on another country, and clarifying what one considers to be the pertinent points in the discussion is very different to holding yourself up as a representative of that country and the views/character of its people.

In fairness to UG I don't think there's much wrong with referring to "us Americans" etc. I do it from time to time myself. It is simply a way of emphasising national character or predilections, in a way that contrasts with the national character or predilections of the other person's country.

To an extent I think most of us do that...of course UG tends to express himself (and indeed seems to hold views) with a greater than normal level of intensity, so it tends to stand out a little more when he does it. Just my take on it.

Also, just to add to the whole point of my discussion with UG, he was aware of the intent in my posts as evidenced by his responses to me. I think pretty much everyone else got it too.