Well up to your usual standards of beautifully expressed, thoughtful insight
John (yes, even the comparison to our "Mother of Parliaments", inaccurate as
that term may be). And you didn't mention either "digital" or "analog[ue]"!
Another posting to keep - and never mind it's OT!
Thanks
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of John A. Lind
Sent: 02 July 2004 07:50
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Canada Day
At 09:20 PM 7/1/04, Earl Dunbar wrote:
>And guess what, no Electoral "College" (haven't any of those clowns
>earned their degrees yet?) to ensconce a President that the people didn't
vote for.
At the risk of starting something . . . I will state the caveat up front.
This is simply a statement of the arguments, not a defense for them.
--snip
Again, I'm not trying to defend this one way or the other . . . simply to
explain *why* it's the way it is today. I have my opinions about the matter
but won't express them here.
BTW, if the U.S. Congress and Senate are set up in a manner that
individuals' intrests are at lest partially balanced by states' interests, I
belive there is a similar parallel in British Parliament's bicameral
structure. Its two houses are intended to strike a balance between the
individual Commoners' interests and that of the Crown and his/her landed and
titled "cronies" (a bad word for it but I'm going to leave it that way).
The difference is what the bicameral structures are intended to better
balance.
-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|