[serverdude]

I think the most important set of folks that should receive their share of blame is folks who voted the current crop of congressmen. I really feel that we should have a "how to choose whom to vote for" as part of core curriculum :)

[akkartik]

It's utterly irrelevant who you vote for if the incentives are out of kilter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHma3ZQRVoA

[serverdude]

I think there is some truth to what you say - but to say that it is "utterly irrelevant" who you vote is a bit of hyperbole. In a democracy voting ultimately decides who gets into power and what the policies would be.

[akkartik]

I'm going to stand by my statement. Please watch that video I shared. Yes they can effect small changes but Congress is so captured by a few interests that you can't stay within the confines of its day-to-day activities and change the long-term trajectory. And the long-term trajectory alone matters. Who cares about swipe fees or any other such persnickety nonsense if the underlying rot is ignored? It doesn't matter who you vote in, you won't be able to change Congress's reliance on funding without doing something radical. And if you can't do that, anything else is utterly irrelevant.

[serverdude]

Sure, I watched the video. Thanks - it was a nice, instructive video.

All I am saying is that your statement is a "bit of hyperbole". Things are never black and white when we are talking about such complicated topics. As an example, according to your statement, it would not have mattered if someone else had been elected instead of Bush. Whereas I think it is highly likely that Iraq war (for better or worse) would not have happened if Bush had not been elected.

[akkartik]

But bush != congress.

Perhaps you're reading more hyperbole than I'm putting in :)

[serverdude]

Sure that certainly is one way of looking at it. When I said Bush - I did not mean literally Bush. I think we both made our points - so I give it a rest :)

[functionoid]

I second that.