WWFSMD is a play on the slogan What Would Jesus Do, which is often abbreviated with the acronym, WWJD. Many Americans in the United States wear bracelets or have bumper stickers with that acronym. WWFSMD stands for "What Would Flying Spaghetti Monster Do." The flying spaghetti monster was a joke started by a scientist, who was fed up with attempts by American evangelicals to get theologically based hypotheses into the scientific cirricula in schools.
School boards in Kansas, Georgia and other conservative strongholds have forced biology teachers to devote class time to teaching "Intelligent Design," which is a pseudoscientific argument against the theory of evolution, which suggests that many biological organisms and structures are too complex to have evolved by chance. Proponents of this argument look for loopholes and questions that biological science hasn't been able to answer to support their movement. Many of the examples that have been put foreward as evidence of "intelligent design" have subsequently been explained by new scientific insights. But anti-evolution activists have simply continued to grasp at new questions and puzzles when their old ones have been solved.
FSM proponents posit that the hypothesis that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe is no less valid, and has no less scientific merit than the "intelligent design" argument. Thus, they argue, if "intelligent design" is going to be foisted upon American children in publicly funded schools, they should also be subjected to equally rediculous subjects, such as FSM.
Bravo to you on the use of public transit. It always warms my heart to see other people that take an interest in trying not to destroy their planet. This especially true in your case, as you live in Australia, which, like the United States, has chosen not to sign the Kyoto protocal.
Thank you for the explanation. I have heard of the evangelical movement for teaching intelligent design {I can do that...design something intelligently!} in the States.
I had never heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, though. That is about as valid as anything else. Really. Actually, with meatballs and sauce, that one would at least be 'visable', no?
I am actually a researcher for the Greens political party here in NSW. Once our State election is done, I will begin working at the Federal level. I absolutely love my job! I actually had the oppoutunity to read and critique the entire Stern Review Report a few months ago. Very interesting. Then I worked on our minimal river system here in Australia, the Murray-Darling River Basin and tried to figure out why in such an arid country we are growing cotton and rice!
You are not kidding about the Stern Report - nearly went blind! But I at least got to have my say in my own report on it.
There are two major parties here..The Liberals {which are like the US Republicans..soooooo not liberal!} and the Labor party, which is/used to be the 'working man's party' They are neck and neck most of the time these days. However, 10-12% of the overall vote {and growing all the time - thinking 15% this year} goes to the Greens, then 1% or so to other little parties {The Family First mob has crossed the pond, oh my!}
Therefore, the Greens need only to win seats in the Senate and House in order to throw off the balance of power of who ever gets elected from the two major parties. Then, when an important issue comes up and the Greens vote is tossed in, it causes some from the opposing party to have to 'cross the floor' on that particular issue.
We have a policy on every issue. In fact, our party leader, Bob Brown, began the movement quite a few years ago over the building of a dam and logging and now his home state of Tasmania is run on over 98% of renewable/sustainable energy {It's cold there so people have wood stoves - that makes up for the other 2% along with vehicles that still run on petrol} But we have other concerns than the environment - War, Terrorism, Health {why the hell don't Australia and America cover TEETH for FlyingSpaghettiMonster's Sake?}, working conditions, water, infrastructure, economic concerns, etc. And our role has been pretty much "The Watchdog" of the senate.
Already in the state of Victoria, the Greens won two additional seats, throwing off the balance. We have that here in NSW but are going for more. Tazzy has it as well. If we get enough senators elected it will mean that we will not have a runaway government. It has worked so far.
You can begin to get experience for your resume in research by volunteering. That is one good way to learn. Or, get a job at a good University. They always seem to be hiring here. Another way to learn is to teach yourself to write grants. You have to do a lot of research for that to be successful and you are probably more computer savvy than I was when I started. Trust me, I keep learning every day.
I know I will always have a job but I have the Uni and the legal system to fall back on since a few of the Senators I work for are also Uni professors and know my work, plus some of them are Barristers and my partner is a solicitor.
Get this, though...my job is based in Sydney - nearly 3 hours away. Yet I only go in one day a week. The rest I do from home. How cool is that? I like to work early in the morning, go somewhere - the beach, the park - come home and take a nap, then get up and work late into the night. Those hours suit my brain best. Plus, it is quiet.
I love the Internet, fax machines and overnight mail!!!!!!
Your job just keeps getting better the more I hear about it.
I'm glad to hear that you Greens are at least able to win some seats over there. With only one independent American senator, and a couple in the house of reps, the Democrats and Republicans have a de facto lock on power. There are Green parties in almost every state here, but it's pretty difficult to convince people that voting for anyone outside of the two big parties is anything but wasting a vote. Greens have had some success in local elections, but not much else.
I didn't realize that Australia had a two house, presidential government, like the US. I just assumed that you all ran on the parliamentary system, like most other commonwealth nations.
Well, we do dig our Queen! She has some cool trains to ride on. I personally make good use of them.
We run on a bicameral system, a bit like the US. We have the Upper House, or Seante with 76 Senators. Each state gets a certain number based on population - a bit like the electoral process in the US, if I am correct. We then have the House of Representatives, or Lower House, with 150 members {each state gets 12, the territories get 2}. That is why we need to get 3 or more in each state...to throw off the balance. Right now I am working on the Lower House election.
The big difference I see is this: We do not elect our Prime Minister,per se. The party chooses their leader, and if they get the majority of support in the House, that leader becomes the prime minister of Australia. We have had the same PM for 10 years now. As long as his party is in power, so is he..unless they oust him or he quits, that is.
But again, is that so different than in the US? Don't the party members get to choose who will run for prez?
Another thing I find is that it costs the average citizen like $5 to join the political party of their choice. Please correct me if I am incorrect but in the US, one may vote for whichever party or person they choose, but to be a card-carrying member of that party you have to have some bucks. Example - say you are a Democrat. If a Democrat president wins, can you go to the afterparty? LOL! I hope that made sense.
I agree that most would think they were 'throwing their votes away' in the US. Sort of like when Ross Perot ran, right? If someone voted for him, it tipped the percentage toward the winner. Uh...something like that. Wait. Might have been the loser.
You do have the Govenator, though. Right? Any hope there? California ranks #14 if I remember correctly, on emissions in the world. Y'all are like a country of your own! I could see if the people of California banded together for a change how it would push the federal government around. Do you think it would?
Then again, this is reality and how could one get a group in a room to all agree on what they wanted on their pizza, let alone an entire mini-country/state like CA.
Okay, so you do have more of parliamentary system then, it's just a parliament that is composed of two houses.
The way that the number of American senators and representatives are distributed amongst the states is the reverse of the way it is in Australia. In the US, every state get's two senators. The number of represenatives that is distributed to each state is determined by the population of that state. But each representative is only elected by a fraction of that state's population. So my home state of Michigan is represented by 12 members of the house of reps, but I am only able to vote for one of those 12 representatives.
It sounds to me, based on the way that you are describing the Green Party's national strategy, that Representatives are selected based on the proportion of the vote that their party gets in a particular state. I think that would be a more fair way of distributing power.
Is the Senate a much weaker body in Australia, due to the fact that they can't participate in the selection of the PM?
"But again, is that so different than in the US? Don't the party members get to choose who will run for prez?"
Well, yes and no. Anyone can run for office if they get enough petition signatures in the year prior to an election, though some states do allow candidates to buy their way onto the ballot if they can't collect enough signatures. And the rules for getting on the ballot vary from state to state.
If a candidate wishes to recieve a party's endorsement in the election, they have to run in a primary election that is held some time before the main election. Primaries are, with some exceptions, held for all elected offices. In the primary, all of the Green party candidates run against the other Greens that are vying for the same office, and the Democrats run agains the other Democrats, the Republicans against the other Republicans. Candidates are allowed to skip the primaries and simply run as independents. But independents almost never win.
The rules for who can vote in primary elections vary from state to state. But in all cases, a voter can only vote in the primary election of one party. Usually the candidate that gets the most votes in their party's primary election will earn the right to represent that party in the main election. But that isn't always the case if there are several candidates and no one wins a clear majority. There are lots of other nuances that I don't understand about the ways that the parties choose to endorse candidates, but primary elections are the determining factor in most cases. In presidential election years, the ultimate determinations are made at national political conventions. Party members from each state are sent to the national convention to cast a vote for the candidate that their state party has voted to nominate. I don't know how the people are selected to be sent to the national conventions, but I think it helps to be rich, or to have powerful friends.
It's funny. I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the nuances of our electoral system, until I tried to explain the inner workings of the party nomination process. I now realize that I've always had a pretty big gap in my understanding of exactly how our electoral system works, despite the fact that I've always followed as much of the news coverage as possible about national party conventions in the past.
In terms of California, and Governor Arnold, the voters in the state just rejected a proposal to tax carbon emissions. So yeah, the voters have decided to get more coal on their pizza, for now. But the state legislature has been trying to act to curb greenhouse gas emissions from cars and corporations. Years of legal battle will likely intervene before we know if California will be successful, though. There is a danger that the US Supreme Court will rule that California's decision to unilaterally impose emission standards will have too great an impact on interstate commerce, which would effectively take away the right of all of the states to take any action on curbing carbon emissions without permission from the federal government.
School boards in Kansas, Georgia and other conservative strongholds have forced biology teachers to devote class time to teaching "Intelligent Design," which is a pseudoscientific argument against the theory of evolution, which suggests that many biological organisms and structures are too complex to have evolved by chance. Proponents of this argument look for loopholes and questions that biological science hasn't been able to answer to support their movement. Many of the examples that have been put foreward as evidence of "intelligent design" have subsequently been explained by new scientific insights. But anti-evolution activists have simply continued to grasp at new questions and puzzles when their old ones have been solved.
FSM proponents posit that the hypothesis that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe is no less valid, and has no less scientific merit than the "intelligent design" argument. Thus, they argue, if "intelligent design" is going to be foisted upon American children in publicly funded schools, they should also be subjected to equally rediculous subjects, such as FSM.
Bravo to you on the use of public transit. It always warms my heart to see other people that take an interest in trying not to destroy their planet. This especially true in your case, as you live in Australia, which, like the United States, has chosen not to sign the Kyoto protocal.
Reply
I had never heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, though. That is about as valid as anything else. Really. Actually, with meatballs and sauce, that one would at least be 'visable', no?
I am actually a researcher for the Greens political party here in NSW. Once our State election is done, I will begin working at the Federal level. I absolutely love my job! I actually had the oppoutunity to read and critique the entire Stern Review Report a few months ago. Very interesting. Then I worked on our minimal river system here in Australia, the Murray-Darling River Basin and tried to figure out why in such an arid country we are growing cotton and rice!
Thanks again for the explanation.
Cheers!
Reply
How strong is the Green Party in New South Wales, and Australia as a whole? Do you have a chance in the upcoming elections?
The Stern report is no light reading! That's a monumental task just to read through the whole thing.
Reply
There are two major parties here..The Liberals {which are like the US Republicans..soooooo not liberal!} and the Labor party, which is/used to be the 'working man's party' They are neck and neck most of the time these days. However, 10-12% of the overall vote {and growing all the time - thinking 15% this year} goes to the Greens, then 1% or so to other little parties {The Family First mob has crossed the pond, oh my!}
Therefore, the Greens need only to win seats in the Senate and House in order to throw off the balance of power of who ever gets elected from the two major parties. Then, when an important issue comes up and the Greens vote is tossed in, it causes some from the opposing party to have to 'cross the floor' on that particular issue.
We have a policy on every issue. In fact, our party leader, Bob Brown, began the movement quite a few years ago over the building of a dam and logging and now his home state of Tasmania is run on over 98% of renewable/sustainable energy {It's cold there so people have wood stoves - that makes up for the other 2% along with vehicles that still run on petrol} But we have other concerns than the environment - War, Terrorism, Health {why the hell don't Australia and America cover TEETH for FlyingSpaghettiMonster's Sake?}, working conditions, water, infrastructure, economic concerns, etc. And our role has been pretty much "The Watchdog" of the senate.
Already in the state of Victoria, the Greens won two additional seats, throwing off the balance. We have that here in NSW but are going for more. Tazzy has it as well. If we get enough senators elected it will mean that we will not have a runaway government. It has worked so far.
You can begin to get experience for your resume in research by volunteering. That is one good way to learn. Or, get a job at a good University. They always seem to be hiring here. Another way to learn is to teach yourself to write grants. You have to do a lot of research for that to be successful and you are probably more computer savvy than I was when I started. Trust me, I keep learning every day.
I know I will always have a job but I have the Uni and the legal system to fall back on since a few of the Senators I work for are also Uni professors and know my work, plus some of them are Barristers and my partner is a solicitor.
Get this, though...my job is based in Sydney - nearly 3 hours away. Yet I only go in one day a week. The rest I do from home. How cool is that? I like to work early in the morning, go somewhere - the beach, the park - come home and take a nap, then get up and work late into the night. Those hours suit my brain best. Plus, it is quiet.
I love the Internet, fax machines and overnight mail!!!!!!
Reply
I'm glad to hear that you Greens are at least able to win some seats over there. With only one independent American senator, and a couple in the house of reps, the Democrats and Republicans have a de facto lock on power. There are Green parties in almost every state here, but it's pretty difficult to convince people that voting for anyone outside of the two big parties is anything but wasting a vote. Greens have had some success in local elections, but not much else.
I didn't realize that Australia had a two house, presidential government, like the US. I just assumed that you all ran on the parliamentary system, like most other commonwealth nations.
Reply
We run on a bicameral system, a bit like the US. We have the Upper House, or Seante with 76 Senators. Each state gets a certain number based on population - a bit like the electoral process in the US, if I am correct. We then have the House of Representatives, or Lower House, with 150 members {each state gets 12, the territories get 2}. That is why we need to get 3 or more in each state...to throw off the balance. Right now I am working on the Lower House election.
The big difference I see is this: We do not elect our Prime Minister,per se. The party chooses their leader, and if they get the majority of support in the House, that leader becomes the prime minister of Australia. We have had the same PM for 10 years now. As long as his party is in power, so is he..unless they oust him or he quits, that is.
But again, is that so different than in the US? Don't the party members get to choose who will run for prez?
Another thing I find is that it costs the average citizen like $5 to join the political party of their choice. Please correct me if I am incorrect but in the US, one may vote for whichever party or person they choose, but to be a card-carrying member of that party you have to have some bucks. Example - say you are a Democrat. If a Democrat president wins, can you go to the afterparty? LOL! I hope that made sense.
I agree that most would think they were 'throwing their votes away' in the US. Sort of like when Ross Perot ran, right? If someone voted for him, it tipped the percentage toward the winner. Uh...something like that. Wait. Might have been the loser.
You do have the Govenator, though. Right? Any hope there? California ranks #14 if I remember correctly, on emissions in the world. Y'all are like a country of your own! I could see if the people of California banded together for a change how it would push the federal government around. Do you think it would?
Then again, this is reality and how could one get a group in a room to all agree on what they wanted on their pizza, let alone an entire mini-country/state like CA.
Reply
The way that the number of American senators and representatives are distributed amongst the states is the reverse of the way it is in Australia. In the US, every state get's two senators. The number of represenatives that is distributed to each state is determined by the population of that state. But each representative is only elected by a fraction of that state's population. So my home state of Michigan is represented by 12 members of the house of reps, but I am only able to vote for one of those 12 representatives.
It sounds to me, based on the way that you are describing the Green Party's national strategy, that Representatives are selected based on the proportion of the vote that their party gets in a particular state. I think that would be a more fair way of distributing power.
Is the Senate a much weaker body in Australia, due to the fact that they can't participate in the selection of the PM?
"But again, is that so different than in the US? Don't the party members get to choose who will run for prez?"
Well, yes and no. Anyone can run for office if they get enough petition signatures in the year prior to an election, though some states do allow candidates to buy their way onto the ballot if they can't collect enough signatures. And the rules for getting on the ballot vary from state to state.
If a candidate wishes to recieve a party's endorsement in the election, they have to run in a primary election that is held some time before the main election. Primaries are, with some exceptions, held for all elected offices. In the primary, all of the Green party candidates run against the other Greens that are vying for the same office, and the Democrats run agains the other Democrats, the Republicans against the other Republicans. Candidates are allowed to skip the primaries and simply run as independents. But independents almost never win.
The rules for who can vote in primary elections vary from state to state. But in all cases, a voter can only vote in the primary election of one party. Usually the candidate that gets the most votes in their party's primary election will earn the right to represent that party in the main election. But that isn't always the case if there are several candidates and no one wins a clear majority. There are lots of other nuances that I don't understand about the ways that the parties choose to endorse candidates, but primary elections are the determining factor in most cases. In presidential election years, the ultimate determinations are made at national political conventions. Party members from each state are sent to the national convention to cast a vote for the candidate that their state party has voted to nominate. I don't know how the people are selected to be sent to the national conventions, but I think it helps to be rich, or to have powerful friends.
It's funny. I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the nuances of our electoral system, until I tried to explain the inner workings of the party nomination process. I now realize that I've always had a pretty big gap in my understanding of exactly how our electoral system works, despite the fact that I've always followed as much of the news coverage as possible about national party conventions in the past.
In terms of California, and Governor Arnold, the voters in the state just rejected a proposal to tax carbon emissions. So yeah, the voters have decided to get more coal on their pizza, for now. But the state legislature has been trying to act to curb greenhouse gas emissions from cars and corporations. Years of legal battle will likely intervene before we know if California will be successful, though. There is a danger that the US Supreme Court will rule that California's decision to unilaterally impose emission standards will have too great an impact on interstate commerce, which would effectively take away the right of all of the states to take any action on curbing carbon emissions without permission from the federal government.
Reply
Leave a comment