How will you be reading AtSoT when it arrives?

DirkF wrote:I will be reading the hardcover while on my bed - starting in about five seconds...

(package just arrived a bit early )

From your statement and posting time, I take it that you are not ZI (Zone Interior = CONUS = Continental United States). This, of course, makes your luck even more infuriating!

Ah well, it is/was inevitable that someone would get the bounce on the rest of us! Just remember the SNERK & SPOILER rules PLEASE!

Sheesh, half a Safehold Month early - taint no justice to it, you must have done something real good in a previous life for that karma!

Got mine today. And of course I have to work tomorrow. But I will be reading the entire weekend.

I actually wasn't supposed to get a hardcover, only Kindle and Audible. But I was looking at the bookstore's website for something else and saw that they had it.

Location: Sweden
Bookstore: SF-bokhandeln

Dauntless wrote:seems to be rule of politics that even if they were a good person when they started by the time they reach a position with any significant power, let alone try for the highest office, that they are total jerks who we would all like to see thrown out of a plane. without a parachute.

I have known a few people that were full of the best intentions and highest morals when they were elected only to fall into the Good Old Boy... this is how you have to play the game and spending more time trying to get reelected than pushing reforms that carried them to seek public office.

IMHO this decay will continue as long as there are no term limits to force a turning of the compost heap (so to speak)

The party machinery in the USA has done more to steal the power to choose from the citizens and with that loss of real power so to is the loss of justice.
Were it up to me, each state would have open primaries, popular vote decides the obligation of convention delegates and super delegates (not the old boys) and popular vote (not the electoral college) would decide the general election.

C. O. Thompson wrote:

Dauntless wrote:seems to be rule of politics that even if they were a good person when they started by the time they reach a position with any significant power, let alone try for the highest office, that they are total jerks who we would all like to see thrown out of a plane. without a parachute.

I have known a few people that were full of the best intentions and highest morals when they were elected only to fall into the Good Old Boy... this is how you have to play the game and spending more time trying to get reelected than pushing reforms that carried them to seek public office.

IMHO this decay will continue as long as there are no term limits to force a turning of the compost heap (so to speak)

The party machinery in the USA has done more to steal the power to choose from the citizens and with that loss of real power so to is the loss of justice.
Were it up to me, each state would have open primaries, popular vote decides the obligation of convention delegates and super delegates (not the old boys) and popular vote (not the electoral college) would decide the general election.

I remember a quote from C. M. Kornbluth's The Syndic that said something like "Vox populi* has never been a source of wisdom, remember that it was the popular vote that gave the hemlock to Socrates and crucified Christ."

* The people's voice
.

C. O. Thompson, if you don't mind a Brit chipping in, Congressmen/women have little option but be always thinking about the next election, since they are only elected for two years. After 6 months they must be thinking about how to fund the next expensive campaign, which, with the best will in the world, is bound to make them unduly sensitive to what will go down well with their funders. 3 or 4 years would be a better term. At 4 you could even elect half of them every 2 years if desired.

Randomiser wrote:C. O. Thompson, if you don't mind a Brit chipping in, Congressmen/women have little option but be always thinking about the next election, since they are only elected for two years. After 6 months they must be thinking about how to fund the next expensive campaign, which, with the best will in the world, is bound to make them unduly sensitive to what will go down well with their funders. 3 or 4 years would be a better term. At 4 you could even elect half of them every 2 years if desired.

The original idea for the congressmen was to have the 2 year cycle to keep them grounded in local affairs and close to the will of the people who elect them. Senators, with 6 year terms, are "freed" from this routine, allowing them to focus on the greater good, either for their state or the national needs, without the constant fear that any stand their constituents did not agree with would drive them out of their seat.

But yes, your point has been raised many times.

Randomiser wrote:C. O. Thompson, if you don't mind a Brit chipping in, Congressmen/women have little option but be always thinking about the next election, since they are only elected for two years. After 6 months they must be thinking about how to fund the next expensive campaign, which, with the best will in the world, is bound to make them unduly sensitive to what will go down well with their funders. 3 or 4 years would be a better term. At 4 you could even elect half of them every 2 years if desired.

I don't mind a Brit contributing ideas (even though Cromwell expelled my first ancestor to the colonies after the battle of Worcester)...
If I ran the world for a day, the US Congress would serve one six year term, the Senate would serve one 12 year term with one senator from each state elected every six years and the President would serve one 10 year term with no Congressional/Senatorial elections at the same time election.
Nominees would be selected from a list much as when we are called for jury duty and congress would be at-large rather than by districts which have convoluted lines.

But, hey... I have been wrong before and have even had other readers tell me that some of the things I write should be in the free form topics.