Monday, September 11, 2006
The Harmful, Destructive Municipal League of King County
The Harmful, Destructive Municipal League of King County
by Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson, a September 2006 US Senate candidate
Monday, September 11, 2006
(This is my message # 22. I also have put more than twenty messages on my other blog at
http://colonizeorbitalspace.blogspot.com )
Five years ago to this day, terrorists bombed the World Tade Center in New York City and the Pentagon just outside of Washington D.C.
Each election in King County, the Municipal League, a milder terrorists organization, harms candidates by giving some of them bad evaluations. Our society is also harmed by these bad rankings of some of the candidates. These candidates should instead be praised for trying to improve our society by being competitors.
In our society, we achieve improvements by promoting competition, but the Municipal League of King County discourages candidate competition by giving bad evaluations to some of the candidates. The Municipal League should instead be praising these candidates for running and thereby pushing the other candidates to do better and become better. Even the weaker candidates gain knowledge and become better and gain knowledge by running for office.
We are a competitve society. To raise the living standard, we need to encourage competition.
In that the Municiple League discourages political competion, some races have only a single candidate, and the voters have no choice, and our democracy is weakened. We voters are better off when we have a choice among candidates.
My impression has been that the greater the economic knowledge of the candidates, the worse the evaluations these candidates receive from the volunteers of the Municipal League of King County. But candidates with economic knowledge are really beneficial to our society.
I suspect that many of the volunteers (who are passiing out harsh judgement on some of the candidates) would themselves do poorly on a basic economics principles examinations. Many of the volunteers would probably fail a basic economics principles examination. I am guessing that the candidates rated "NOT QUALIFIED" would score higher than the volunteers and perhaps even higher than those who received an "OUTSTANDING" evaluation from the volunteers.
In other words, I believe that all the candidates should be praised for increasing competition.
The Municipal League says that it "does not consider candidates' political affiliations or stands on issues. Rather, these ratings focus on each candidate's potential for effectiveness in office and ability to serve the community."
But this is wrong. If the candidates stands on issues are not considered, then Hitlers and tyrants could get "outstanding" ratings for ability and effectiveness in caring out the plans of the "superior" people.
I believe that such a Municipal League rating system in NAZI Germany would have given Hitler a rating of "OUTSTANDING."
I want "superior" people with bad, harmful plans to lose to "not qualified" candidates with good plans. I want the Hitlers of the world to lose. I want the candidates' stands on issues to be considered.
Since 1910 the Municipal League has been rating some candidates badly. Now in 2006 we have many terrible, terrible problems in King County, Washington. The Municipal League should stop rating candidates badly. The Municipal League should stop rating candidates and should start studing the principles of economics. This would help to improve King County.
"Live long and prosper." (Star Trek)
Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson,
a Sepetember 2006 US Senate candidate
by Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson, a September 2006 US Senate candidate
Monday, September 11, 2006
(This is my message # 22. I also have put more than twenty messages on my other blog at
http://colonizeorbitalspace.blogspot.com )
Five years ago to this day, terrorists bombed the World Tade Center in New York City and the Pentagon just outside of Washington D.C.
Each election in King County, the Municipal League, a milder terrorists organization, harms candidates by giving some of them bad evaluations. Our society is also harmed by these bad rankings of some of the candidates. These candidates should instead be praised for trying to improve our society by being competitors.
In our society, we achieve improvements by promoting competition, but the Municipal League of King County discourages candidate competition by giving bad evaluations to some of the candidates. The Municipal League should instead be praising these candidates for running and thereby pushing the other candidates to do better and become better. Even the weaker candidates gain knowledge and become better and gain knowledge by running for office.
We are a competitve society. To raise the living standard, we need to encourage competition.
In that the Municiple League discourages political competion, some races have only a single candidate, and the voters have no choice, and our democracy is weakened. We voters are better off when we have a choice among candidates.
My impression has been that the greater the economic knowledge of the candidates, the worse the evaluations these candidates receive from the volunteers of the Municipal League of King County. But candidates with economic knowledge are really beneficial to our society.
I suspect that many of the volunteers (who are passiing out harsh judgement on some of the candidates) would themselves do poorly on a basic economics principles examinations. Many of the volunteers would probably fail a basic economics principles examination. I am guessing that the candidates rated "NOT QUALIFIED" would score higher than the volunteers and perhaps even higher than those who received an "OUTSTANDING" evaluation from the volunteers.
In other words, I believe that all the candidates should be praised for increasing competition.
The Municipal League says that it "does not consider candidates' political affiliations or stands on issues. Rather, these ratings focus on each candidate's potential for effectiveness in office and ability to serve the community."
But this is wrong. If the candidates stands on issues are not considered, then Hitlers and tyrants could get "outstanding" ratings for ability and effectiveness in caring out the plans of the "superior" people.
I believe that such a Municipal League rating system in NAZI Germany would have given Hitler a rating of "OUTSTANDING."
I want "superior" people with bad, harmful plans to lose to "not qualified" candidates with good plans. I want the Hitlers of the world to lose. I want the candidates' stands on issues to be considered.
Since 1910 the Municipal League has been rating some candidates badly. Now in 2006 we have many terrible, terrible problems in King County, Washington. The Municipal League should stop rating candidates badly. The Municipal League should stop rating candidates and should start studing the principles of economics. This would help to improve King County.
"Live long and prosper." (Star Trek)
Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson,
a Sepetember 2006 US Senate candidate
Comments:
<< Home
I know not this municipal league: I post here, because this is where you say that you are probably better qualified than your detractors to speak on economic issues.
Your platform seems to be twofold:
1) Populate orbital space. A good mid-term achieveable goal that should get you plenty of publicity, so your other (less charismatic but more important) point can get the airtime it needs:
2) Free trade cures war!
I don't see the linkage between war and free trade. Quite the opposite, since the larger, more powerful countries will dominate the trading arena, and perpetuate the poverty in the smaller countries.
Worse, the stuff that oppressive regimes would buy in a trading arena with no governmental oversight could be rather unpleasant.
Perhaps you mean "free, except for nuvlear weapons, and boplogical ones, and chemical ones, and landmines, and all weapons really and instruments of torture, and slaves, and endangered species, and copyright violations, and boycotted goods, and subsidised goods, and export dumping, and... and not really free... in fact I don't know what the word 'Free' means, but I think there are gnus involved"?
Perhaps you mean "Fair trade", or "Balanced trade"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade#Alternatives_to_free_trade
Or maybe you really do want the US to kick the ass of all the "little countries" by subsidising the heck out of everything it sells.
Yes, what about them subsidies? According to the Economist, the US spends twice as much on subsidising industrial-scale farming of the half-dozen basic food crops as it does on education for the poor.
Some countries rely on one or two crops for their international trade. Should such small countries be allowed to subsidise their farmers in order to remain competitive in the international market?
Should larger countries be allowed to subsidise those same crops? Even to the point of giving their farmers a uncompetitive edge in trading?
Where do you draw the line?
Your platform seems to be twofold:
1) Populate orbital space. A good mid-term achieveable goal that should get you plenty of publicity, so your other (less charismatic but more important) point can get the airtime it needs:
2) Free trade cures war!
I don't see the linkage between war and free trade. Quite the opposite, since the larger, more powerful countries will dominate the trading arena, and perpetuate the poverty in the smaller countries.
Worse, the stuff that oppressive regimes would buy in a trading arena with no governmental oversight could be rather unpleasant.
Perhaps you mean "free, except for nuvlear weapons, and boplogical ones, and chemical ones, and landmines, and all weapons really and instruments of torture, and slaves, and endangered species, and copyright violations, and boycotted goods, and subsidised goods, and export dumping, and... and not really free... in fact I don't know what the word 'Free' means, but I think there are gnus involved"?
Perhaps you mean "Fair trade", or "Balanced trade"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade#Alternatives_to_free_trade
Or maybe you really do want the US to kick the ass of all the "little countries" by subsidising the heck out of everything it sells.
Yes, what about them subsidies? According to the Economist, the US spends twice as much on subsidising industrial-scale farming of the half-dozen basic food crops as it does on education for the poor.
Some countries rely on one or two crops for their international trade. Should such small countries be allowed to subsidise their farmers in order to remain competitive in the international market?
Should larger countries be allowed to subsidise those same crops? Even to the point of giving their farmers a uncompetitive edge in trading?
Where do you draw the line?
Somebody essentially lend a hand to make significantly posts I might state. This is the very first time I frequented your web page and thus far? I surprised with the research you made to create this actual publish incredible. Magnificent task!
Fantastic website. A lot of helpful information here. I am sending it to several pals ans also sharing in delicious. And naturally, thank you on your effort!
hello!,I like your writing very so much! share we be in contact extra about your post on AOL? I require a specialist on this house to solve my problem. May be that is you! Looking ahead to peer you.
Post a Comment
Fantastic website. A lot of helpful information here. I am sending it to several pals ans also sharing in delicious. And naturally, thank you on your effort!
hello!,I like your writing very so much! share we be in contact extra about your post on AOL? I require a specialist on this house to solve my problem. May be that is you! Looking ahead to peer you.
# posted by 
: Friday, July 15, 2011 at 1:38:00 PM PDT
: Friday, July 15, 2011 at 1:38:00 PM PDT<< Home
